Having trouble with school

[Lula]

oh gawd she has lost it again Bookie, you will NEVER hear that bloody phrase "5 a day" from my lips. and as for the rest, yes you have a point but I like to think that I am intelligent enough to get enough nutrition into my monkey without anyone else telling me how to do it

[alibobsy]

To be honest most of the snacks my kids take are home made. Including home made brownies, and flapjack. These very often as well as the chocolate/sugar contain seeds,or in the case of brownies I have a very good weetabix recipie.

I know what you are getting at Bookworm, and I agree coke at school is a bad idea. But the reality is alot of the so called healthy information they are pushing is old dogma, where alot of new research suggests the 50's theories around saturated fat and heart disease are incorrect.

 

The best solution would be for schools to be given funding for free good unprocessed balanced meals for every child, and for the levels of physical activity to be increased.

 

The reality is most of the kids from more deprived backgrounds (whose risk of obesity is higher and are more likely to have unhealthy lifestyles) will be on free meals not packed lunches anyway. My kids are big eaters because they are physically active, and a little chocolate after the butties fruit and yoghurt is not a problem.

 

ali x

[Bookworm]

Lula, YOU may be. And I know you are more nutrionally savvy than a lot of folks.

 

And Mr Shed, whilst a small quantity may not be harmful ( I have my doubt about the refined sugar poured into every item of food that passes our lips nowadays, but let that pass for now), the point is that if parents do feel that it is indeed necessary, let them feed it to their kids on their time! If the school implements a policy that these items are not allowed, then they're not allowed! Replace the chocolate with a banana and give him the chocolate if you must when they come back from school! As for crisps, get rid of them altogether and they'll be a lot better for it anyway, but if you must give them to them, then do it at home!

 

If parents are good at feeding their children properly at home so that the chocolate bar and crisps are the only one they get a day, they'll have no problem in finding and adequate substitute.

 

You lot are sick of all the "little hitlers"? Well, I am sick of people who because they can't be bothered changing their habits, scream oppression as soon as something gets done which inconveniences them.

 

And Lula, shut it.

[Spiceskull]

I can't resist jumping in here with a couple of points of my own:

 

I remember a few years ago there was a story of a child having a 'cereal bar' in his packed lunch, and to most there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. However, this child either shared it, or had it stolen, and the 'recipient' had a nut allergy...cue an allergic reaction, and cue the school cracking the walnut with the proverbial sledgehammer.

 

In principle I agree with a policy of protectionism towards other children, especially when an episode such as this would be something the school has no control over. However, would it not be better for all children bringing packed lunches to 'store' them with the school, and have them at lunchtime. That way all the children get to eat their own packed lunches in a supervised environment...

 

On another issue entirely, youngest and oldest Little Spices have school dinners, and in the main they enjoy them. Middle Little Spice, on the other hand, would rather eat Brussels Sprouts and hard-boiled eggs, so an arrangement was made with mum: you want packed lunch, I make your sandwich, you bake your own cakes and biscuits...

 

Middle Little Spice does baking EVERY Sunday (as well as baking me Pasties when he is here) - so he:

 

• a) knows all the ingredients
  
• b) uses recognised and balanced levels of sugars and fats
  
• c) is supervised, so the baking is done properly
  
• d) learning new, and required skills, especially a 'girly' skill such as cooking (he is very proud of this, as none of his peers do cooking...snigger...)
  
• e) stacking up the brownie points to impress the girls when he is older
  
• f) understands all the health and dietary issues that schools are so keen for children to learn (sometimes he bakes gingerbread men, sometimes banana/carrot cake, sometimes cheese scones (skonz, not skowns!) and sometimes little apple pies...if it is something he likes, he bakes it.
  

He doesn't take chocolate to school, but he does have 'sweets and treats' in his lunchbox. The school, all credit to them, recognises that the benefits of an arrangement such as this far outweigh any negative points. They realise that his Sundays are spent positively, rather than hanging around outside the shops, smoking, drinking, and talking trouble...

 

Shock horror! For once I am in agreement with Bookie...crisps! Urrrggghhh!

[Bookworm]

To be honest most of the snacks my kids take are home made. Including home made brownies, and flapjack. These very often as well as the chocolate/sugar contain seeds,or in the case of brownies I have a very good weetabix recipie.

You must be the only person who can make that compressed sawdust palatable then.

 

I know what you are getting at Bookworm, and I agree coke at school is a bad idea. But the reality is alot of the so called healthy information they are pushing is old dogma, where alot of new research suggests the 50's theories around saturated fat and heart disease are incorrect.

It's not new research, it's old research which got buried because the low-fat dogma is much more profitable. And it's not the 50s (sorry! ), it's more the 60s and 70s when a lot of the mass food industry developped and convenience foods appeared. But yes, some of us have known for a long time that a low-fat diet is anything but healthy. Funnily enough, I have noticed an ad for one of them butter substitute which is cautiously starting to say: "actually, some fat are good for you" instead of shamefully slinking away and hiding its fatty qualities, lol. It is a small step, but it is in the right direction. When butter is back where it belongs at its place of honour on the table instead of those chemical war-produced substitutes filled with air for more volume and less cost, then that will be progress indeed.

 

The best solution would be for schools to be given funding for free good unprocessed balanced meals for every child, and for the levels of physical activity to be increased.

Absolutely. Where I grew up, there was no such thing as school lunch, from kindergarten to high school and there was never any of that argument that we were being nannied by the state.

 

The reality is most of the kids from more deprived backgrounds (whose risk of obesity is higher and are more likely to have unhealthy lifestyles) will be on free meals not packed lunches anyway.

Hmmm, not necessarily so... A lot of them will be on the Tax credit system, too "rich" to be on school meals, but still not well off enough to get them proper good meals.

 

My kids are big eaters because they are physically active, and a little chocolate after the butties fruit and yoghurt is not a problem.

And kids' needs are all different, precisely. But there is no denying that our eating habits as a nation are absolutely awful and if it means that at least during the daytime, some are stopped from grazing endlessly this kind of food, then so be it.

[MrShed]

I know what you are saying here Bookie, but ultimately this has to be a personal choice. We are at the end of the day a democracy. I fully encourage education on the subject, and no-one can these days pretend that they do not know that excessive quantities of certain foods is bad for their health. As people now know this, whether they then go on to eat them, or supply them to their children, is THEIR choice. If we want as a whole to have some form of more tolerant communist state where we are told what to do, that is absolutely fine - but lets not do it by the back door.

 

I would go so far as to say that this policy breaches human rights.

[Bookworm]

I think not. A parent, presumably, has the choice to pick up his child and take him home to feed him lunch. If he chooses not to and makes him a pack lunch instead, he is effectively asking the school to have his child during the lunch hour, which is not part of the the school hours as such, for which the school has to pay staff to supervise, etc... It is therefore not unreasonable for the school that food consumed on their premises should comply with their policy.

[MrShed]

It is considering that it is not like a workplace where staff can leave at lunchtime - the place of education is effectively half of that childs life.

[Spiceskull]

I think not.

Bookie in fine bnockering form today...there must be a pretty big bumble bee in her bonnet...could it have anything to do with the 'brioche' slapdown she received earlier?

[Bookworm]

Nah, if you can't recognise historical quotes (apocryphal as they may be), that's your issue, pal.

 

Yes, I do have a bee in my bonnet about nutrition, I admit. It probably stems from the same drive I have towards the banks, being conned and submitted into acceptance for so many years for no other reason than lining the pockets of big companies... I spent years and hundreds, if not thousands of pounds, in trying to lose weight by following the accepted wisdom (by which you should read marketing) when the solution was elsewhere... And it does annoy me that whem we have the luck of being in a country where we have free education (mainly), free school lunches (for many), free public transport for the kids, we STILL bitch when we are asked to comply with what is effectively a very small issue.

[Spiceskull]

Yes, I do have a bee in my bonnet about nutrition

Says she who is more than willing to impose undue suffering by the torture that is 'rice salad'...(shudders in abject terror!)

[poppynurse]

I still think the OP (who seems to have disappeared) needs to clarify whether this is in fact school policy or not.

 

For those of you who object to this type of policy I would say that you still have total control of your childs diet so what's the problem? The child is only in school for 39ish weeks per year and it is only one meal on those days, presumably your children get a decent breakfast and evening meal (+/-supper) so is it really that bad if they can't have a packet of crisps and a chocolate bar at lunch? You can still ensure that they get a balanced diet (not that I personally think a daily bag of crisps and chocolate has any role to play here - I think they are better as occasional treats).

 

I personally support schools that are making this decision - the generation of children that this affects will understand the principles of healthy eating without singling out individuals. Whether this will affect the numbers of children turning into obese/unhealthy adults will only be known in time but for me at least this is a form of social engineering with a sensible foundation.

 

'Prepares to duck again'

[patdavies]

I think not. A parent, presumably, has the choice to pick up his child and take him home to feed him lunch. If he chooses not to and makes him a pack lunch instead, he is effectively asking the school to have his child during the lunch hour, which is not part of the the school hours as such, for which the school has to pay staff to supervise, etc... It is therefore not unreasonable for the school that food consumed on their premises should comply with their policy.

 

Sorry, I'll wade in here as a chairman of governors.

 

Lunchtime supervision and the supply of food are two entirely separate matters..

 

The school's caterer must by law abide with the new nutritional regulations for both hot and cold meal supply. The regulations are highly detailed and eal not only with fat and sugar (as the media would have you believe) but with vitamin and essential mineral levels as well. The regulations can be breached by under-supplying some elements as well as over-supplying.

 

However, the regulations do not apply in any way. shape or form to food brought in by the child - commonly referred to as packed lunches.

 

Regardless of school policies, rules, home-school agreements, schools have no right whatsoever to forbid certain articles of foodstuffs in packed lunches. Encourage, but not forbid.

 

Part of the reason for this is that

 

a) a diet should be balanced. The school only sees a small proportion of a child's diet in the packed lunch. .

b) school staff are not trained dieticians anyway. The poster who mentioned adding sugar free squash to water is a case in point

c) in a hypocritical sense, any foodstuff ban on the children's lunches is very unlikely to apply to the staffroom.

d) a child needs some nourishment - however bad - at lunchtime to keep them going through the afternoon.

 

Certainly at primary level, packed lunches are supplied by parents - it is extremely unlikely that a child packs his/her own lunch. A school may not punish a child for the actions of his/her parents. Confiscating food from a packed lunch is a punishment (and if not returned to the child or parent at teh end of the day - theft).

 

If a parent insists on a certain foodstuff, then the school can withdraw support in supervision and cleaning up afterwards.

 

One thing I would caution parents to is that I know of no school where packed lunched can be refrigerated. Most are stacked at room temperature in the classroom - I would therefore avoid things like prawn sandwiches, etc.

 

Oh, and a final point. I know of one school that tried to tell a parent that if they continued to supply 'banned' foodstuffs (in this case chocolate) then the child would need to be sent home for lunch. This is not legal as it falls foul of the prohibition on punishing a child for the actions of the parents and also counts as a half-day fixed term exclusion.

[poppynurse]

It should be permitted anyway PN - it is completely draconian to prevent home-brought snacks to be eaten, as well as in fact unhealthy - a certain amount of sugar and fat is NEEDED as part of a balanced diet.

 

I'd have to disagree with this MrShed - how is banning junk food in schools draconian or unhealthy? I know that a balanced diet requires fat but how healthy is the fat in chocolate and crisps, not to mention the salt content of crisps....and the sugar in chocolate, not to mention all those additives....

[patdavies]

I think not. A parent, presumably, has the choice to pick up his child and take him home to feed him lunch.

 

Yes, but not at the school's behest - this would be classed as an exclusion.

 

If he chooses not to and makes him a pack lunch instead, he is effectively asking the school to have his child during the lunch hour, which is not part of the the school hours as such, for which the school has to pay staff to supervise, etc...

 

It is part of the school day - just not what is known as structured time. Supervision is required throughout the lunch period as a legal requirement - regardless of the type of lunch taken

 

It is therefore not unreasonable for the school that food consumed on their premises should comply with their policy.

 

It may not seem unreasonable, but it has no basis in law.

[MrShed]

Pat - good, balanced post. Rep left.

[MrShed]

I'd have to disagree with this MrShed - how is banning junk food in schools draconian or unhealthy? I know that a balanced diet requires fat but how healthy is the fat in chocolate and crisps, not to mention the salt content of crisps....and the sugar in chocolate, not to mention all those additives....

 

I disagree that chocolate is "junk food"(as do nutritionists BTW).

[sydbarrett]

Likewise, at my childrens schools crisps,sweets and fizzy drinks etc are banned and healthy eating is encouraged by the teachers. But I believe that it is driving the problem "underground" . Children are often more rescourceful than teachers and parents give them credit for: At my younger daughters primary school there is an active "black market" in crisps and sweets and some of the children are secretly eating more junk food as a result of the ban than they would if small amounts of "treats" were allowed to be included in their packed lunch. At my elder daughters secondary school the children are allowed out at lunchtime so they visit the numerous confectionary shops, fish & chip shops and bakeries along the High Street, very few children seem to want to use the school canteen which serves the healthy option.

It appears that a lot of children do not like being dictated to by parents and teachers alike about what is good and not good for them ( I know I didnt when I was at school ! ).

Educating them in healthy eating is fine, but outrightly banning unhealthy foods I feel will make our kids more determined to eat them !

[poppynurse]

Patdavies - are you saying that schools that have these policies cannot enforce them?

[patdavies]

Chocolate, thanks to our American friends, has such high raised levels of sugar in it that it is the biggest ingredient in it, not cocoa. Would you give your child sugar lumps to eat? Not that much of a difference!

 

 

I don't quite see where this comes from as US and UK chocolate are entirely different things. The same applies to UK and European chocolate.

 

UK chocolate has an extremely high vegetable fat content.

[poppynurse]

I disagree that chocolate is "junk food"(as do nutritionists BTW).

 

Does this not depend on the quality and cocoa content of the chocolate? And the volume and frequency with which it is eaten?

[patdavies]

Patdavies - are you saying that schools that have these policies cannot enforce them?

 

Yup - spot on

 

They can heavily encourage. They can consult with parents and get parents to 'buy-in' agreement, but they cannot enforce.

[Bookworm]

I don't quite see where this comes from as US and UK chocolate are entirely different things. The same applies to UK and European chocolate.

 

UK chocolate has an extremely high vegetable fat content.

Up to... (sorry, can't remember the year, I have it somewhere ), the contents requirements for what legally constitutes "chocolate" in the UK had a much lower ratio of sugar. The American market put pressure so that the % of sugar authorised would much higher, thus allowing them to compete favourably, whereas under the old rules, they would not have been able to sell their products as chocolate, but only as chocolate flavoured stuff.

 

The high vegetable fat content is irrelevant, fat is the necessary binder. (which is why chocolate melts so easily).

 

I can't find the paperwork I had on that, sorry, so can't quote extensively right now.

 

Originally Posted by MrShed

I disagree that chocolate is "junk food"(as do nutritionists BTW).

 

70% dark chocolate may not be. Find me one nutritionist who will say that a Mars bar classifies as health food. Better, point me to a health report that says so, NOT signed by someone working for Cadbury or Nestle preferably.

[MrShed]

 

70% dark chocolate may not be. Find me one nutritionist who will say that a Mars bar classifies as health food. Better, point me to a health report that says so, NOT signed by someone working for Cadbury or Nestle preferably.

 

 

Did we ever say it was health food? No. What we said is its not junk food. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Poppy - are you suggesting that schools should examine the content of every chocolate bar as it enters the premises?

[Bookworm]

Pat - good, balanced post. Rep left.

Only because it agrees with you!

 

Pat, I never said anything about the school sending the kids home, I very specifically said "the parents can take their child home for lunch." Likewise, I don't know where the legal requirement comment came from, if all parents took their children home for lunch, then there would be no need for supervision, so I don't see the relevance. :-? Anyway, not important.

 

At the end of it, what are "rebel" parents going to do? Keep on using their children as tools to drive home the point that "we shall overcome"? Because you won't. Overcome, that is. Sooner or later, crisps and chocolate bars will totally disappear from the playground in the same way that Coke bottles and cans have, because people can be educated (or brainwashed depending on your point of view ).

 

Anyone who tries to challenge this in court will be seen as an over-reacting prat wasting taxpayers' money when, and this is the key point Poppy and I are trying to make: All they have to do is give their little munchkin their one chocolate bar and pack of crisps a day we are being told is the only concession to junk food they make (hmmm...) at home! Child still getting their unhealthy treat, school is happy, problem solved!!!