to want SOME control over packed lunches?

[kinderfool]

DD's (6yo) first day back at school today and she was a bit nervous about her new class so in her packed lunch, besides her drinks bottle, ham sandwich, a plum, piece of cheese (proper cheese not cheese spread or something) and a box of cherry tomatoes (at least 10 or more), I put in a Kinder egg (a massive treat for her) to cheer her up.

Comes to pick up and she'd had a reasonable day but was anxious to tell me she'd really wanted to eat her egg but hadn't been allowed. Checked her lunch bag expecting that she'd tried to eat that first and been stopped but after checking first and asking her, found out she'd eaten every crumb of everything else and had one little bite of choc before the TA watching stopped her. And it wasn't as if certain things aren't allowed, there's no nut allergy notifications at her school, and no set down rules about what can/can't be brought.

Now I completely sympathise with the need to crack down on kids who get a lunch of Coke, crisps and chocolate AND would completely understand if it was the toy they'd objected to (but dd was told by me she could eat the egg but not to even open the toy bit, to bring it home with her instead and knowing her she'd have repeated this parrot-style to the TA), but this just seems completely overboard for the first day.

As far as I can see, what I sent her with is a balanced meal so as long as it stays that way it should be of no concern to anyone else what I want her to eat. Plus she's a skinny little thing (thanks to never staying still) so the very last thing I need is someone putting ideas into her head that it's only ever acceptable to eat uber-healthy foods.

AIBU to, in a very polite and reasonable way, tell the TA to keep her nose out?

I am not going to put my Dcs on a diet they do not need because someone else has weight issues though!

The actual reason I would not want them to have a chocolate before bed is that the energy given by it would not be used but it certainly would be used at break time when there is still plenty of running and playing to do. nothing to do with a change of behaviour after eating a chocolate as i have never observed such change in my dcs.

Obviously I phrased it badly, for which I apologise. I think my point is clear though. Which is that they have rules within which as parents we are expected to operate. And my personal opinion, on this issue, is that the rule is a sensible one.

madamearcati - I agree. The OP was talking about sweets in a lunchbox - which anyone should be able to see is a bad idea in a school community. I would defend to the death their right to have a piece of cake in their lunchbox - just not a bag of picknmix!

MsHighW I do hope you can find it in you to start to understand that your DD will be part of a school community. As a community, actions are taken for the benefit of the whole and the individual forms part of that. "I am responsible for what food I provide for my DD and if I want to give her sweets, crisps or chocolate then I will"

I mean - nice attitude. Gawd help your dd's school - and your DD if you are going to use her to make self centred points like "I'm doing what I want and sod everyone else" basically.

I think the kinder egg would have been a nice treat given with the best of intentions and the school were a bit heavy handed. I think the argument that we all have to abide by the same rules because some parents would still give their children a poor diet doesn't hold water because surely there is enough information about what constitutes a good diet now. you can't turn on the tV without getting the message. If some parents are still feeding their kids rubbish all the time its most likely because they just don't care. and that we will never fix.

awful attitude op
awful lunchbox too

but true magazinefiend!

I remember being similarly naive principled about my rights to dictate what went into my childs lunch box etc when my eldest first went to school. I complained bitterly on mumsnet that the school demanded that the morning snack that was given to my reception child was fruit, and that no juice or squash should be put in the lunch box (only water). My child didn't drink water (only juice) and didn't eat fruit - why or why couldn't I give her a healthy eating alternative to fruit.

I had several pitchforks stuffed up my jacksey for being a precious numpty.

Now 4 years later I can happily declare that my eldest (and youngest) now drink water happily and munch through a variety of fruit. Aided and abetted in this by seeing their peers doing likewise at school. Thank you school - you achieved what I couldn't despite a tonne weight of cajoling and persuasion.

It's excellent that schools enforce healthy eating - it reinforces and supports what many parents are trying to achieve at home.

And to reiterate my previous post - I personally would like to shove the head of any mother who takes the piss (by sending in some stoopid chocolate egg etc) into my compost bin...because frankly I don't need the dc coming home wheedling "I want a snickers bar in my packed lunch tomorrow - child of numpty sends her in with a snickers - why can't I have one, why, why, why?"

Should add that the schools objection to fruit juice and squash was on the grounds of sticky spillages - a practical requirement. I'm happy though since I didn't want my dc to drink exclusively juice (which is all they would countenance before school) but water too - which they do now.

Final point:

Choose your battles. Why get worked up about this?

But what if the 'rule' is madness?

I'm all for advocating haelthy eating, goodness knows I take enough trouble over it at home but I do think schools are sometimes over zealous with the healthy eating agenda because it's healthy eating as they see it. And yet they can impose their own rules because they have the 'authority' to do so.

Eg: My dd is asked to take in a mid morning snack. She was getting terribly hungry and faint (despite a decent breakfast) and needed more than an apple. She eats loads of fruit anyway - I have no worries on that score. I sent her in with some plain cream crackers. The teacher said fruit only was a worthy snack and absolutely forbade me to let her take in the crackers.

Where do you go with that kind of attitude? It's madness. The healthy eating advocated isn't always that healthy imo, just insanely biased in the direction that only one type of food can be 'healthy'.

So ok ban sweeties; that I understand and fair enough, but I do not believe they always know better than me. Not by a long shot after that.

Interesting also that they are so zealous and critical of the food brought in from home, when after all it has only been in the very recent past that their own offerings in the form of school lunches were very often atrocious on the 'healthy' front.

Indeed some of the desserts they still offer now would doubtless be frowned upon if my dc turned up with them from home in a lunch box or as a snack.

Hmc, i have a totally opposit experience to yours, I have always given fruit and water to the dcs in school everyday +the odd chocolate/cereal bar and the dcs had no problem with eating their fruit because it was just "normal". Now because it is ALL they are alowed to have, it has become a chore and I find it harder and harder to get them to eat their fruit in school, they would rather starve on some days than eat a fruit. To me it is another down side of imposing/forbidding certain food.

NotanOtter why is it an awfull lunch box?

• ham sadwich (I do not eat pork but it seems like a normal choice for someone who does)= carbs and protein

• cherry tomatoes + plum = depending on size at least 1 maybe 2 of the 5 a day.

• a piece of cheese = calcium

kinder egg (maybe not because of toy) no obvious nutritional value but not worse than school pudding IMHO.

YANBU Kinderfool - ffs we don't need lunchbox police.
yes children need to learn about healthy eating and Kinderfools dd lunchbox was, there's nothing wrong with a little treat too. I always make sure my ds has a little treat in his lunchbox for after he's eaten all his healthy stuff.
there are enough rules and regulations in this world without policing lunch boxes.

slowreadingprogress, thanks for the lesson in community. Actually, I like to think I am quite considerate. I never park in a disabled parking space and only park in the P&T spaces when I have dd with me. I don't drop litter, I recycle and I always return my trolley to the proper place when I go to a supermarket. I trust you get the picture.

I would also be perfectly happy to avoid giving my dd anything with (e.g.) nuts in it if there was a child in the school with a severe allergy. However, I maintain that, as long as I am providing the food for my dd, it is up to me to decide what it is, not the school. I am certainly not swayed by hmc's argument that I should limit what to give her to those things that will not make someone else's child envious.

After all, I have to deal with my dd when she asks for HSM, or Hannah Montana, or Barbie, or Bratz branded garbage because she sees her friends with them. It might make me uncomfortable to have to say "No" to stuff like that but it doesn't give me the right to dictate what other people buy for their dc's.

You are right MsHighwater, pre "food policy" I was already not giving crisps to my dcs . they were seing most of their friends eating some at break though but I did never give in. I do not see why I should restrict my dcs even more to please anyone.

I think that to restrict a perfectly heathy child's food on the ground that someone else who has weight issues is nonsense and not necessarely healthy.

What would you say to ,let's say a neighbour of yours, who would ask you to stop eating what you want or like because they are obese? My guess is you would have a good laugh!

YANBU at all! I think it is up to parents what they put in a child's lunch box not a school. Especially if the child has a balanced lunch like you gave your DD, a small chocolate treat is fine.

My DD1 goes to a small independent school in Scotland. The school has a no sweets/choc policy as far as what they sell at school lunch time but it's up to parents what they give the children for packed lunch.

Nanny state gone overboard.

I agree.

If anyone is interested enough in what they may see in my dc's to go home and pester their mother about it then...so what?

Do they though?

I can't recall a single time that my dc have ever enviously mentioned the contents of anyone else's lunch box to me anyway.

"After all, I have to deal with my dd when she asks for HSM, or Hannah Montana, or Barbie, or Bratz branded garbage because she sees her friends with them".

I am highly sceptical that you have to deal with and deflect these discussions about branded toys on a daily basis. Quite different imo to parents wanting to put crap in their child's lunch boxes every day - causing copy cat-itis envy (and subsequent ear ache for sensible parents who desist from doing this) on a daily basis.

I'm not suggesting schools should legislate for my benefit, just expressing my personal desire to wallop with a man size yorkie bar those unthinking parents who bleat on about their principles and rights to not comply with school's dietary rules

Why can't you stuff your child to the gills with chocolate and crisps when they get home at 3.15? It's really not difficult to do without for a few hours (if it is - you've got problems!), and not exactly a major infringement of your civil liberties or those of your child.

I salute schools in making an attempt to raise awareness of healthy eating amongst children. One of the positive outcomes of all of this is that many children seem more clued up about what constitutes healthy choices. Ime - most children still love chocolate, ice cream etc but now seem to have a clear awareness that these should be eaten only in moderation and too much is bad for you.

"can't recall a single time that my dc have ever enviously mentioned the contents of anyone else's lunch box to me anyway. "

No of course not - must have been imagining it. A product of my over fertile imagination

"Do they though? "

Sorry - forgot that bit (above)

"parents wanting to put crap in their child's lunch boxes every day"
"Why can't you stuff your child to the gills with chocolate and crisps when they get home at 3.15?".
I've always said that there's nothing like a well-constructed argument. And that's what you have posted. Nothing like a well-constructed argument.

Why do these threads always end up with someone suggesting it's all about wanting to stuff children's faces with crap?

"I'm not suggesting schools should legislate for my benefit". It seems to me that this is exactly what you are doing, hmc.

Ok well if anyone is enviously noticing what others are eating, then the school lunch puds sometimes quite sugary looking at the menus I've seen.

And even allowing for that doesn't necessarily follow that you have an inclination to 'stuff your child to the gills with chocolate and crisps' before, during or after school.

Just wanted to add that these decisions are not made by individual schools but are made by the LEA. Therefore, if you want to challenge the rules you need to badger your local councillors, not the school.

Out of interest, those of you determined to challenge the school on rules you don't personally fully agree with, and who will refuse to sign the home-school agreement, did you have a difficult time at school yourselves? I only ask because the only parents we ever had challenging limits were those who had been to the school themselves, and often been asked to leave early.

Here in Notts every school has exactly the same school menu every day and you can find out about the sources of the food. Is this not commonplace across the country? And all puddings have to be fruit based (admittedly this can be fruit crumble but still...)

PS 76% of schools have now achieved Healthy Schools Status and part of the criteria for doing so is: "There is appropriate guidance (promoting healthier options) given to children and young people who have packed lunches and their parents/carers". It sounds like the OP's school is doing just that (even if they didn't do it in writing).

"And that's what you have posted. Nothing like a well-constructed argument."

And a witty riposte - although admittedly quite wry and amusing - is also not sufficient as a counter 'well constructed argument'

I suppose there is no point in me continuing with this - because on my part, I think all this bleating about lunch boxes is just daft twattery...whereas others on here think it is clearly very important and should be referred to the European Court of Human rights. I am guessing we are not going to meet in the middle!