State Inspectors Searching Children’s Lunch Boxes

[Velouria]

But no one is forcing the child to eat it. The statute says *supplement* with items. So say they put down an apple, a slice of cheese, and a roll with that soda and chips - you are not okay with doing that, simply because they are required to do so? :waitasec:

It sounds like you are more okay with the hypothetical kid having a junky Lunch than you are with the idea of the school being told they must supplement.

Why yes, as a matter of fact I think all hypothetical kids should have a lunch consisting of Strawberry Twizzlers, Red Bull, and Flamin' Hot Cheetos with the occasional Lunchables if I'm feeling particularly generous!

C'mon, you don't seriously think that's what I'm saying, now do you?

Of course I'm not okay with kids eating junk for lunch, but I'm also not okay with a mandate that says a child MUST accept items, healthy or not. And as I said before, I'm in favor of an outright ban on sugary sodas.

Again, making sure those fruits, veggies, and healthy proteins are freely available is one thing, but forcing children to accept or eat them is something different altogether, IMO.

 

[HMSHood]

Surely there is more to this story.

I doubt it.

 

[Gardenlady]

Why yes, as a matter of fact I think all hypothetical kids should have a lunch consisting of Strawberry Twizzlers, Red Bull, and Flamin' Hot Cheetos with the occasional Lunchables if I'm feeling particularly generous!

C'mon, you don't seriously think that's what I'm saying, now do you?

Of course I'm not okay with kids eating junk for lunch, but I'm also not okay with a mandate that says a child MUST accept items, healthy or not. And as I said before, I'm in favor of an outright ban on sugary sodas.

Again, making sure those fruits, veggies, and healthy proteins are freely available is one thing, but forcing children to accept or eat them is something different altogether, IMO.

I don't think that! That's why I don't get it lol... Your posts are always reasonable, I never got the impression that you'd be someone who is okay with caffeinated sugary lunches for all!

I guess I'm just not understanding why it is outrageous to require the school to do this. I understand that this situation was handled badly - but the spokesperson acknowledged that and said it shouldn't have happened the way it did. I guess for me, the one bad situation here doesn't negate the good of the rule itself.

And I am definitely on board with a ban of sodas, and an overhaul of the school lunches themselves to get rid of all the starchy and processed stuff, and see more whole grains and fresh fruit and veggies. But I don't think getting rid of this requirement in question is necessary - it doesn't force feed, and doesn't require a full substitution of the lunch, but does require supplemental foods be given.

Now they just have to make sure the lunch people are getting it right at the school level, so people can't use the law as some example of The Obamas turning America into the People's Republic... :banghead:

 

[vjlaw]

<modsnip>

How is the going to impact so-called poor children? They get the school lunches.

 

[Gardenlady]

I understand what you are saying. I think the problem here is the utter inflexibility of the school and teachers (why that is, I don't understand). This mom has sent a healthy, balanced lunch with her kid and has communicated multiple times with the school about it (which, IMO, is more than 50% of parents do these days). Her requests and directives about her child's lunch should be respected, especially since it makes her daughter feel uncomfortable every time they come around and fuss about her homemade lunch. Of course, JMHO.

I totally agree that the person at the school level who is handling it is handling it very badly. As does the Division that oversees the rule about supplementing home lunches (she is quoted at length in my first post above). I just don't see the leap from "wow they really bungled this at the school level" to "this rule is an outrage!" and "it's all comrade Michelle's fault!", and "public schools are bad!".

I think it's a good rule, and a good way to help get kids better nutrition if, for whatever reason, their home lunches aren't healthy. It'd be a huge shame if the rule Is done away with because of the outcry over this particular mishandling of it.

 

[Gardenlady]

How is the going to impact so-called poor children? They get the school lunches.

All of them?

 

[SurfieTX]

No, you didn't read my link, or what I said. You aren't getting the fact that the person at lunch who made the substitution was not following the rule. Did you read the rule, as quoted above? Did you read the linked article which has the clarification from the division spokesperson? The rule does not require substituting the whole lunch, it does not require taking away the home lunch. It requires only the supplemental items be given as needed to round out the meal.

You are basing your irrational reaction to the rule on one misinterpretation of it. Throwing out the rule WILL impact poor children. I never said this child was poor. Everyone acknowledges this child's lunch was fine. None of that makes the rule itself wrong. Or communist. Or whatever .

I agree with you. I simply don't understand why they wouldn't respect her wishes in the first few interactions about the situation.

I really don't agree with a systematic inspection every, single, day of a child's lunch which has proven to be healthy in the past, and after multiple interactions about said lunch. IMO, teachers have a pretty good handle on which kids have parents who are present and which ones who are absent, so to speak.

I don't agree with usurping a parent's wishes over something so trivial like a portion of vegetables. It sends major mixed messages to children.

 

[prayers4missing]

I currently have a middle school child and a child almost pre-k age with severe food allergies. Quiet frankly what I send in my child's lunch is no one's business but my families. What a child eats at school is not the be all end all of their whole dietary intake. My son has a laundry list of food allergies, when he starts school eating a school lunch is out of the question because of his allergies. I would be LIVID if I found out that someone decided what I packed (whether healthy or not) wasn't up to par and made him eat a school lunch.

Really if they are so concerned with what the kids are eating than chicken nuggets wouldn't be on the menu. MOO

 

[ynotdivein]

Please, no food fights in the Up to the Minute section. :nono:

Disagree with the ideas in the post, not the poster.

 

[TrackerSam]

All of them?

This isn't about a free lunch program or poor children. If you wish to start a thread about free lunches for poor kids then please do and quit trying to hijack this one. This is about gestapo like inspectors checking the lunches of 4 year olds. His lunch lacked a vegetable, which he didn't like and wouldn't eat. In lieu of a vegetable he was given chicken nuggets :waitasec: .

 

[TrackerSam]

I currently have a middle school child and a child almost pre-k age with severe food allergies. Quiet frankly what I send in my child's lunch is no one's business but my families. What a child eats at school is not the be all end all of their whole dietary intake. My son has a laundry list of food allergies, when he starts school eating a school lunch is out of the question because of his allergies. I would be LIVID if I found out that someone decided what I packed (whether healthy or not) wasn't up to par and made him eat a school lunch.

Really if they are so concerned with what the kids are eating than chicken nuggets wouldn't be on the menu. MOO

:clap: Well said.

 

[Gardenlady]

This isn't about a free lunch program or poor children. If you wish to start a thread about free lunches for poor kids then please do and quit trying to hijack this one. This is about gestapo like inspectors checking the lunches of 4 year olds. His lunch lacked a vegetable, which he didn't like and wouldn't eat. In lieu of a vegetable he was given chicken nuggets :waitasec: .

Wy are you ignoring the fact that this is ONE poorly handled incident?

How does one poorly handled incident translate to hints of both communism ("comrade") AND fascism ("Gestapo like inspectors" :floorlaugh: ) for you?

 

[vjlaw]

All of them?

Yes, they are all offered free lunches.

 

[Gardenlady]

Going to elaborate a little more for you Sam <modsnip>.

THiS incident is not about a poor child. But if this rule is thrown out because of the outcry over this one incident (an outcry that seems to be fueled, my google searching has shown me, by right wing "news" sites), then poor children WILL be impacted. So will kids who aren't poor, but for whatever reason, are bringing crap lunches to school. I hate to see Kids suffer poor diets because for whatever reason the adults in their home can't or won't send a good lunch in for them. If this rule allows the school to set down a fruit or veg alongside a soda and chips, then wonderful.

 

[Gardenlady]

Yes, they are all offered free lunches.

And there are those who don't or can't complete the paperwork, those who don't meet the threshold for income who cannot afford fresh produce, etc, etc.

 

[Gardenlady]

I currently have a middle school child and a child almost pre-k age with severe food allergies. Quiet frankly what I send in my child's lunch is no one's business but my families. What a child eats at school is not the be all end all of their whole dietary intake. My son has a laundry list of food allergies, when he starts school eating a school lunch is out of the question because of his allergies. I would be LIVID if I found out that someone decided what I packed (whether healthy or not) wasn't up to par and made him eat a school lunch.

Really if they are so concerned with what the kids are eating than chicken nuggets wouldn't be on the menu. MOO

You do know then, that schools are already quite strict with how they handle food in the school and in the cafeteria, when there are documented severe allergies?

Here they label a special table, the childs picture and allergy list is given to cafeteria workers who must be familiar with the info, there is a whole protocol that is put into action. I can't imagine that it would be superseded by something like this.

<modsnip>

 

[SurfieTX]

Going to elaborate a little more for you Sam <modsnip>.

THiS incident is not about a poor child. But if this rule is thrown out because of the outcry over this one incident (an outcry that seems to be fueled, my google searching has shown me, by right wing "news" sites), then poor children WILL be impacted. So will kids who aren't poor, but for whatever reason, are bringing crap lunches to school. I hate to see Kids suffer poor diets because for whatever reason the adults in their home can't or won't send a good lunch in for them. If this rule allows the school to set down a fruit or veg alongside a soda and chips, then wonderful.

Again, this is sweeping with a wide brush, IMO. Life is not black and white, but merely shades of grey.

The fact is, the school refused to accommodate this mother's insistent and repetitive wishes about her child's healthy lunch (which didn't include a veggie or milk, but did include others healthy alternatives) along with the undertone of threats to charge her money for said dietary 'failures.'

Children should not be subject to routine inspections of their homemade lunches when they have been proven to be healthy in the past and with parental involvement in said subject.

Of course, now that the school has been figuratively called out on this, the semantics will begin in the news.

We should all be grateful that she did, however.


First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller, (1892–1984) Dachau survivor

 

[Seek&Find]

Homeschooling rocks! :rocker:

Just sayin

 

[vjlaw]

And there are those who don't or can't complete the paperwork, those who don't meet the threshold for income who cannot afford fresh produce, etc, etc.

That's true of homework too. This wasn't about so-called poor kids and this rule would not protect these kids anyway if the parents won't even fill out the paperwork for their free lunches. It's doubtful to me they would even attempt to make a lunch on any given day. Imo, using so-called poor kids to make a rule like this just doesn't fly for me. Having guidelines okay. The parents willing to make good choices for their kids should not have that choice taken away.

 

[believe09]

Is the source of this story MSM or a blog?

Why does this remind me of a story I read a year or two ago regarding a child who allegedly was chastised for drawing a picture of Jesus on a cross? That story was created, not authentic.

ETA: I found a huffington post source, but it is also from their internet blog site, not MSM.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/school-lunch-guidelines-p_n_1278803.html