Lunch box inspections-Nanny state gone too far

[troll1]

Am I the only one in feeling annoyed when my 4 year old comes home with a sticker for having no chocolate or crisps in her lunchbox. I am a fan of healthy eating but if I choose to send her with a packed lunch surely it is up to me what goes into it. Cant stand the thought that she will be in effect punished by not having a sticker because I have put a small chocolate in for a treat-despite the 2 or 3 items of fruit she has as well. However what is really upsetting DH and I is that at 4 she is coming out with "too much chocolate makes you fat", "have sausages got fat in them?" etc at FOUR. We eat very heathily at home and I understand that the schools have got to try to educate everyone but I feel this is the Nanny State going too far or am I just being blardy minded?

Ds1 sometimes comes home with a sticker that he has been given for having a healthy packed lunch. It makes me laugh because he takes exactly the same lunch every day (he is autistic and doesn't like change) yet on some days it's considered healthy but other days it's not?

Nope - still don't think it's any of the school's business. If a child is particularly disruptive then maybe a word with that parent perhaps suggesting looking at diet amongst other options. I really think it's out of order to have lunchbox inspections.
And fwiw any of my children could eat the whole list you wrote without any detriment to their behaviour.

Also as you say, the people doing the inspection of lunches are usually not qualified in nutrition anyway. They have their own ideas of what is healthy which may not be the same as mine. Most of the time the lunch time helpers at our school are parents.

DH does DS's lunchbox and was mortified when he heard the teachers showing DS's lunchbox to some of the yummy mummies "Now this is Meowmix jnr's lunchbox, see how he has wholemeal bread for carbs, fruit, a small piece of cheese and some chopped vegetables and hummous" when DS had been eating takeaway curry at night for 4 days in a row because we had no cooker, and the things in the lunchbox were the only non cook things we found in the supermarket.

He feels pressure to maintain standards now though!

I wonder if the benefit of this, is simply that if parents think the lunchbox is going to be inspected, the amount of junk will drop as a result ?

Only with the conscientious parents, but then I think that the outcome would be the same regardless. If you are a conscientious parent you don't want your kids to eat crap anyway so what's the point of putting the onus on the kids? Ultimately, they are not responsible for what goes in their lunchbox, they may be able to exert some pressure on their parents, but then that's the benefit of education, not nazi-style 'turn out your lunches NOW' inspections. Just one more thing to stress them out.

Why do all these parents have time to make lunches? I could never be bothered. Let them have school dinners.

The school dinners at my DDs school are total and utter crap. That's why she doesn't have them. They are in conjunction with a local bakery, so there is a proliferation of pizza, sausage rolls and cakes on the menu. The stuff that sounds OK on paper (the roast dinner, the lasagne with a garden salad etc) is in fact inedible and worse than hospital food. Would you want to eat wilted 3-day-old lettuce and macaroni cheese that has been boiled to shite and tastes of nothing but water? What's worse?

I think that the outrage caused to right-thinking and acting parents is worth it, to give a chance to the poor kids whose parents are too ignorant and/or uncaring.

I have helped out on many school trips (DH is a teacher) where the 'lunch' provided by parents has been a carrier bag full of crisps. Also, his previous school had a policy where the only snacks permitted at break were fruit or cheese from a block...he was always having to confiscate cheese strings, opal fruits (FFS) and chocolate. It was always from the obese children, or the poor pasty-faced little mites. But things did change after a term or two and most kids brought in healthy items, unlike the packed lunches where the school could not enforce restrictions. So many parents continued to send in piles of sugary, fatty, processed crap.

The way I saw it was at least the kids were getting some healthy food in the day, plus a healthy habit, and it was one less carrier bag full of chocolate/caffeine consumed by them.

I do think that the school has a right to enforce certain standards because the kids are there to learn, which they can't do if they are full of caffeine and sugar.

But the thing is, if the school has a problem with a child's diet then they should contact the parents and talk to them about it. Not single out children, particularly primary children, who possibly have no influence on what goes into the lunch anyway. Why pull the kids about it? If there's a problem then tackle the parents don't pick on the kids. Which might give the parents a chance to explain what's going on. Although I still don't think packed lunches are any of school's business.

Xenia, my children's school - on paper the sort of school you would love (ie private!)does not offer school lunches so its a packed lunch or nothing.

I'm hypothesising here, but to answer your next question - why can't a man do it as you don't need a uterus to make a packed lunch, the answer is DH makes the breakfast for everyone. To answer your undoubted next question - why can't the nanny make it - unfortunately she doesn't have enough time in the mornings as she finishes off breakfast etc., does teeth/hair/shoes etc.

Another reason people don't give their kids packed lunch is cost Xenia.

At my kids' schools, they're £8 per week. That's £16 per week for 2 kids. Believe it or not, if you're on a low wage but don't qualify for free school meals (the threshold is about £8.5K, £16 per week going out of the household is really quite a big chunk of money. (So is £8 for that matter.) And anyone who thinks that packed lunches work out about the same, is packing some very expensive lunches.

Our local FE college is running a 4 week course on how to make interesting/healthy packlunches (and a 4 week course on how to book a holiday on the internet).

Isn't it true though that they've now banned vending machines from selling crisps, sweets and fizzy drinks in schools?

Surely if children are allowed to have them in lunch boxes it completely undermines this?

No, it doesnt. because what's in a lunchbox is aprental choice- the child might exist on fruit veg and salad at home (mine would given the chance). yet a vending machine is kids choice. Not remotely the same.

It is parental choice what's in a lunchbox, yes, but when we utilise the school system for our kids we are putting the school in loco parentis and part of being in that position is being responsible for the welfare of the children, and discussing healthy eating with children is a very important part of that responsibility. The school should do it.

They can't educate the parents who send in crisps and mars bars but they can let the children know what's healthy and what's not. OK that may not improve the child's lot in life as they are not in charge of their own life but that's no reason for not educating them.

Actually sunnysideup I agree with you- my last post really reponded purely to the one before , I should have stated that.

But daily inspections, stickers etc sounds too much like stigmatising children with crap parents for something that isn't their fault.
Yet another thing that will make school miserable for you if you don't happen to have been blessed with the approved family background (and thus promote the alienation from education of the kids who really need school to work for them).

PC, what I meant about the vending machines (although admittedly not very clearly!)is that they now back up the 'healthy eating' message. By removing the salty/sugary snacks, schools are saying 'these things aren't good for you'.

If they then allow children to bring this type of food in from home, surely they are contradicting the message?

I've seen far too many kids have a 'lunch' of three chocolate bars and a packet of crisps. It is so sad. I have also taught kids who are 'off the wall' on sugar and E numbers after their 'lunch'. It doesn't just affect that child, but all the other kids in the class.

Schools should all be removing sweet snacks and replacing them with better options, stuff with more complex carbs rather than pure sugar. We now no longer sell fizzy drinks, but do seel milk and water.

The health option foods have gone down very well. Day before yesterday the kids had a cjoice of lemony chicken, vegetarian lasagne or tomato omlette, salads, filled bagettes and wraps. For £1.80 yo can have a massive mixed salad and a fruit salad to follow. About the price of the crap packed lunch. there is no excuse. If the parents can't be bothered/don't have the time/ don't have the experience to sort out a devent packed lunch the kids can now have good food

Caligula- I have agreed with everything you have said on here!

MB-I've said it before and I'll say it again at your school dinners!

The really are excellent! I had the salad option yesterday, and very nice it was too!

I do realise that the cost might be prohibitive for some families and that we don't have as big a take up of free school meals as we should, which is so sad.

I can understand that parents do see this as part of the 'nanny state' but the diet of some kids is so awful. And to be fair to the parents teaching of 'Cookery' has been so watered down over the years they may not know what kids should be eating or how to prepare it.

We have to break the cycle somehow!

"It's not the principle of this I object to, it's more the practice. Where you've got staff who can't tell teh difference between a decent bit of cheese or home-made cake, and e-number shite, and who have no understanding of the different dietary needs of kids with SN, then you can't really let them loose on kids' lunchboxes, because they appear to be no more qualified than idiot parents."

Exactly Caligula.