Should schools dictate what goes in your child's lunchbox?

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,
We've been asked by the Press Association to comment on the Packed Lunch Policy, which advises that lunch boxes should include at least one portion of fruit and one portion of vegetables every day and should avoid crisps, chocolate bars, biscuits and sweets. Maybe you've been told off for putting a treat in your child's lunchbox? Or maybe you're pleased that government's helping you stand up to pester power? Do you think the guidelines necessary/useful? (Thanks in advance)

Here's why they are asking:

By Rosa Silverman, Press Association

(ADVISORY: First ran yesterday under embargo)

Page 1: 02:47

Nearly two thirds of parents believe schools should not dictate what they put in their children's lunch boxes, according to new research released today.

The Government's School Food Trust (SFT) has issued advice on the subject and early last year drew up a Packed Lunch Policy schools could use.

But a survey suggests parents resent such intervention, with 64% saying schools should not tell them what to put in their children's packed lunches.

Just 10% of parents interviewed admitted that their children were not eating the healthy lunch they packed for them, the study by consumer researchers Mintel found.

Emmanuelle Bouvier, senior consumer analyst at Mintel, said: "Mums and dads may feel insulted at the assumption that they don't know what to put into a simple packed lunch.

"Many parents choose packed lunches precisely because it gives them greater control over what their child eats - much more so than with school dinners.

"These new guidelines clearly take this control away and understandably this is putting people's backs up."

But the survey also suggested that parents had been making healthier food choices for their children since the Government published its guidelines.

In 2006, before the latest initiatives were introduced, 66% of mothers said they tried to give their children a mixture of healthy food and treats.

In the latest survey this number rose to 86% of parents.

Nearly three quarters of parents (71%) thought school dinners were healthier than they used to be.

The SFT said its packed lunch guidance was intended to help schools work with parents to ensure as many children as possible received the fuel they needed to stay healthy and alert.

A spokesman said: "Our research has clearly shown that the average packed lunch is not as nutritionally sound as a school dinner which is, of course, now subject to rigorous standards.

"It is up to individual schools to adopt policies of their own but many parents have told us that school meals can take away the worry of putting together a packed lunch because they are nutritionally balanced."

The guidelines include advice that lunch boxes should include at least one portion of fruit and one portion of vegetables every day and should avoid crisps, chocolate bars, biscuits and sweets.

:: A sample of 532 parents or guardians of children aged four to 16 were interviewed.

end

TheCrackFox made exactly my point - unless and until the schools can guarantee that children eating school dinners are eating at least one portion each of fruit and vegetables each day, as well as everything else on the plate being approved and healthy, then and only then, they can start dicating what's in lunchboxes.

No. I think I am more than able to raise my children my own way. If that includes putting a bar of chocolate or crisps in their lunchbox, what has that got to do with the government?

my dd has school dinners once a week - last week she had "pizza with some pasta and a piece of bread. then i had chocolate cake with chocolate custard" i checked the menu and sure enough all of that was on offer. i asked her why she didn't have any veg (sweetcorn). "you don't have to if you don't want it."

usually she has marmite sandwiches on brown bread, a tub of sliced cucumber/peppers, a yogurt or some cheese and a homemade biscuit/flapjack etc.

now which lunch, children, do we think is better for you?

No they shouldn't but like lots of posters I agree with them suggesting what is and isn't healthy.

We recently swopped from packed lunches to school dinners for DS, and he has had a calorie laden pudding every day! Not that I object to that; he is nearly seven, very active and needs the calories.

We got a guidance sheet about what should and shouldn't be in lunchboxes a while ago and I was surprised that it suggested low fat cheese, milk and spreads and that this information had come from the DoH website. I would never give my DCs low fat cheese or spreads as I don't think it warrants it unless they have a weight problem. And surely starting them out on the route of looking for low fat this and reduced fat that encourages a faddy/unhealthy attitude towards foods/dieting/eating habits?

my point being (which i forgot to make), is let school practice what they preach - when their dinners are healthiness personified (or dinner-fied? ) then let them cast stones at my lunch box choices.

you do have to be careful about salt though - ok, not that much in your crisps coldtits, but bread (especially wholemeal) has quite a lot of salt in it, as does most breakfast cereals, add that to ham or cheese and butter in sandwiches, and.....it is surprising how it can add up.

Out of interest, are schools still allowed to use transfats in their cooking?

If so, the mind-blowing stupidity of banning a homemade cake baked using butter, which is a wholesome ingredient the human body can actually digest and doesn't stay in the system for decades, is even more apparent.

Does anyone know whether they still use transfats?

My daughter is slim and active--swimming, cross-country running, etc. I need to get calories into her so she can actually do all she needs to and keep herself warm.

exactly. It adds up. Everything (except fruit and vegetables) contains some measure of salt, in fact even fruit and vegetables contain a trace. So why are we getting so hung up on crisps?

No. And teachers shouldn't be making terrifying comments to 5yo which leads them to believe "If you eat chocolate cake you will die". I wouldn't mind a ban on fizzy drinks, crisps and sweets and they don't fill you up or provide and nutrition but lots of children need the calories from a cake or biscuit. If ds takes carrot, apple, raisin and pumpkin seed cake, does he also need a full portion of fruit? If he takes spaghetti bolognese made with onions, carrots, celery, tomatoes, garlic and mushrooms, is that enough or will he get a bollocking for not having a pot of cucumber too?

I think schools should only intervene if the behavior of the child is affected ie if they are not concentrating because they are hungry, or are hyper because they have reacted to additives or are taking in sweets and selling/trading them.

It might be an idea to ban foods which contain additives which have a proven link to hyperactivity.

I'd be happy with the guidelines. It's all very well for mumsnet-types to blather on against it but so many children have utter crap in their lunchboxes, and I don't see why it shouldn't be part of going to school to have to eat something half way healthy.

Have people seen this research?:

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5627478.ece

It suggests that the Jamie Oliver school dinner initiative had a big impact on exam results for the children involved. Quite impresive. Even if you're not a huge Jamie Oliver fan.

NO.

Agree with Coldtits.
"The government should make the information available and digestable. They should then BACK OFF unless they really think it is a child protection issue."

I don't, as it happens, think that I as a parent 'know best' for my children. I just don't. I'm not a particularly good parent. I make a lot of bad decisions, for different reasons, and some of those decisions are doubtless to my children's detriment.

No! It oversteps the mark and I would hugely resent the interferance which is patronising and insulting.

There comes a point when people must be allowed to make their own choices regarding their families and the way they wish to live.

Anyway many school meals have sweet puddings on the menu. It cuts both ways.

Healthy eating is about balance and making good individual choices not following some barmy overbearing list.

They're not my property.

I had this argument with the head-teacher when my ds was in infants. The school was hot on a totally healthy packed-lunch. My ds will not/can not eat fruit as he physically gags on it but as chocolate snack biscuits and fruit were frowned upon, I started putting carrot sticks, cucumber etc in his packed lunch. Weeks later, I was quietly informed that my ds was taking so long to eat his healthy packed-lunch that he had to sit in the head-masters office to finish off because they needed to clear the hall and was therefore missing all of his playtime that followed lunch. I assertively made my point that surely, as long as I provide him with a healthy breakfast and a healthy dinner then isn't it more beneficial to give him a lunch that I know he will eat and that he can finish quickly enough to allow him 15mins of exercise running around the playground afterwards? They soon backed down

Compared to the dinner supervisor's at ds1's school, I DO damn well know best. I know for a fact that one of them, is permenantly on the Cambridge diet, and another is often seen screaming at her kids on the way home. So I do know best.

Of course, if the school is going to employ a dietician for each and every child to be seen by, and that dietician is going to give tailor made advice confidentially and direct to the parents, all is well. But they don't. That's not how it works.

In any case, re the OP, this appears to be a non-story. Where, pray, is the element of 'dictation'? This is about the fact that just over half the people surveyed objected to the recommendations. There is no element of coercion here. There is a statement from Mintel, which presumably has its own agenda, about parents 'objecting'.

I could perfectly reasonably re-spin the story into 'nearly half the parents questioned - over two in five - find it extremely helpful to have these guidelines in place', dammit.

And to cap it off, the survey base is pretty small, frankly. Anything under a thousand's not really worth trusting.

Sorry for the grammar abuse.

"Mums and dads may feel insulted at the assumption that they don't know what to put into a simple packed lunch.

"Many parents choose packed lunches precisely because it gives them greater control over what their child eats - much more so than with school dinners.

"These new guidelines clearly take this control away and understandably this is putting people's backs up."

No, they don't. They make suggestions. Which are actually quite good.

And are completely separate from the practice of individual schools and/or children who Won't Eat Fruit So Need Special Consideration.

Personally I don't feel remotely insulted. I feel 'OK, fine, yes, that's basic sense, but we have an obesity crisis on our hands' and get on with it. Sorry, Emma.

(Cambridge diet woman clearly bonkers, of course.)

Are we talking about guidelines or a dictat?

The story is about guidelines. The spin is about dictat, see 'nanny state', 'free nursery places for three year olds' 'early years foundation stage' and similar...