Teachers feeding hungry children

It seems to crop up every now and then; a month or so ago it was about badly behaved children!

Chips, cooked in rapeseed or sunflower oil, are good for children. Carbs for energy, vitamin C and minerals.

Has anyone noticed how hard it is to wash fat such as butter or dripping off of your fingers, while washing off vegetable oil is quite easy?

Probably the same with arteries.

I don't think it is being judgemental to note the indisputable fact that some parents do not have much knowledge of healthy eating. A diet of chips, crisps and Coke might be the norm for many families, but there is a huge increase in childhood obesity which is just another form of malnourishment. As I read the posts, it seems to me that what is being proposed is for schools to provide well-balanced meals, which does not imply a criticism of parents.
Whilst I agree that the state should not normally intervene in the way parents bring up their children, there have been cases of teenagers who weigh in excess of 20 stones which is extremely dangerous to their health. No doubt their parents think they are being kind in allowing them to eat what they like, but I think this is a form of abuse, caused not by malice but by ignorance and I believe the state has a duty to protect the children.

But in the discussion above it was apparently the school meals service that was providing the chips, crisps, sugary cakes and drinks every day! That, to me, is far more disgraceful than parents being clueless because it would appear to be society being clueless. So we're all to blame for allowing our school meals service to get into such a state

(which it isn't at DD's school. Wondering why there is such a difference across the country).

My grandson, at 17, was 6' 3 and whilst he found the school meals quite tasty the portions were completely inadequate - they were probably fine for an 11-year old girl. 'Seconds' had to be paid for. This led to most of the top three years going into the local town to buy chips!
I think some schools found that meals recommended by Jamie Oliver were not at first liked by children unused to vegetables and fruit, but they gradually got used to them, so perhaps they just need to persevere.
Cookery - Domestic Science - Home Economics have morphed into Food Technology - I am presuming this includes lessons in healthy eating, cooking and budgeting. (In which case things have improved dramatically since the lessons I had at my grammar school in the 1950's, which consisted mainly of how to make cakes.)

I remember making a huge meat and potato pie in a Domestic Science lesson at school. The teacher criticised it for looking "farmhousey" and I was sent out for saying that we lived in a farmhouse and it was to feed seven people. Stupid woman seemed to think someone cooking for seven people had time for pastry frills and leaves. Not in our house: any leftover raw pastry either got eaten raw or made into a few jam tarts. I think I had just tucked it under at the rim of the large pie dish on this occasion.

Another question. If vegetable oils are so good for us, and if potatoes are good food, what's wrong with chips for lunch? Ideally with an apple or something to follow, but...

Seems to me there are mixed messages. Maybe that's why so many kids (and adults) ignore it all and just eat what they like and what's easy to get.

jings, I suggest you use better soap . Besides which, a scientific "cause and effect" relationship between a high fat diet and clogged arteries has never been established.

Nothing wrong with chips unless it is in excess, Bags, (have just been watching, "The men who made us fat" with horror). The problem is the child who day after day, as others have already said, has a lunch box with a chocolate bar, crisps, something fizzy and brightly coloured on a stick and nothing else. Some might say this is none of the school's business, but a hungry child cannot learn and a child full of sugar can be hyperactive and disruptive. This is the school's business.
I also think it is interesting that we rarely point the finger of blame at the food industry.

Hear, hear! about the food industry, mamie! And I accept what you say about sugar highs and the problems they cause.

Next question: if what a child has in its lunch-box is too high in sugar, what can the school do? Do they remove the offending articles and feed the child something else? Who pays if that is the case? Or do they get in touch with the parents and tentatively make suggestions? All very tricky.

No it's not judgemental to criticise school meals. However, earlier in this thread some of us were somewhat scathing about those parents who sent their children to school without breakfast, saying it wasn't (as reported in the Guardian) because they were too poor to afford the food, but rather because they were lazy/drunk/inadequate etc.

I was wondering myself what the difference is between a jacket potato and cheese (earlier recommended by a gransnet post as being nutritious) and chips. Potato and fat in both cases!

Twenty years ago I went to USA for the first time and was amazed at the really fat people I saw there. There were none with that level of obesity in this country then. Now there are many. According to a recent tv program it is to do with big companies who want big profits.

Well I certainly know schools where they have worked with the parents, Bags. If the hyperactivity / sugar-high is a clear reaction, then the parents are sometimes grateful to have it pointed out. Sometimes you can't get anywhere with the parents and I don't think you could then change the items in the lunch-box, though you can try banning certain things.

j04 the way in which fats is used in the body is rather more complicated I think than whether it sticks to a surface. For instance cold vegetable oils in moderation are deemed good for us - but it those oils are heated to a very high temperature, as in repeatedly used vats of chip fat, the chemistry of the fat changes slightly and they are less beneficial. All those different omegas - and I have to confess I can't remember which is which.
It was my red herring, masquerading as a baked potato that swam into this discussion. My point was that one smallish baked potato with a small filling plus say a small yoghurt (which is the kind of thing you get for a school meal) is not enough for a teenager who may have had no breakfast and may not have a cooked meal in the evening. School dinners used to be fairly filling and you could have seconds. I remember some weedy boys who used to wait till the final sitting so they could get the extra helpings. Oh the joys of being a teacher when you had to supervise the dinner queue. (I never get an opportunity to really shout like that any more - OY! YOU! except the rare occasions when small boys are attacking young trees or something)
Alison - I'm sure teachers don't label kids that are small. But on average the slowest ones appear less well nourished in their teens. Or they reach puberty later - which I think does, on average, relate to how well nourished a child is. I know at least 2 people who are very small of stature and very gifted at sport by the way - but if you want to field a rugby team, you need a few big ones as well.

Yes. Thank you. I make a point of never using the same chip oil more than six times. After that it becomes just as bad for you as the animal fats. We only have chips once a week though.

They are very enjoyable.

Bags

I sometimes resort to neat washing up liquid.

Sorry Jess. Leading the thread astray again!

Lot of sweeping generalisations in your second and third paragraphs, jess.

jings animal fats are not "bad for you". There isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support that belief and guess who promulgated the belief in the first place? — the corn oil giants in the US. What a surprise!

What about young soldiers who were found to have clotted up arteries through the high animal fat diet the army dishes out? [worried] (what I wouldn't give for a bit of bread and lard with sugar on it)

Jess I'm afraid some teachers do label children, one was labelled as going too late to bed but was bored and it wasn't until he got a scholarship at 11 that the schoole recognised how bright he was. Another was labelled good at maths because his brother had been and turned out to be really thick! Neither was mine.

My son was also gifted at sport and became a professional ballet dancer despite being very, very thin up to and beyond puberty.

On the subject of being judgemental I think we should be tolerant but only up to a point. An undernourished or obese child is being abused, whether or not the parents know it. I believe the state should intervene in these cases just as much as when a child is physically abused. The child's welfare is paramount. Surely intervention can include education?

I think genes come into it somewhere. I do NOT believe that all obese children and adults eat themselves into that state. I feel sure there must be a genetic element somewhere.

I think the word 'abused' is overused these days. Giving your child chips is child abuse?

Isn't there something in the bible about not going on about the log in your neighbour's eye when you have one in your own?

How many of us are overweight, eat chocolate, drink wine, knowing these things aren't good for us? Self-abuse?

j04 there may be a genetic element but it is difficult to differentiate between nature and nurture isn't it? Whatever the reason surely parents should deal with it. I did everything I could to fatten up my son and i do everything I can to try to get to a healthy weight despite having no thyroid gland and therefore a very slow metabolism. We can't just blame ourbodies we have to deal with whatever we have. I once watched a programme about dieters who couldn't lose weight and in every case it was because they were eating more than they thought.

But jj that would imply that they 'can't help themselves' ...whereas, we never used to have this amount of obesity in this country.

Surely it is still a matter of opting for a high fat fast food diet?? As a nation are we including too many processed foods in our diet?

Yes, jingle, or perhaps they are big-boned. Nobody in Belsen appeared to be genetically fat.

jing, what about Eskimos and Masai (only two examples) who eat virtually only high fat animal products and don't have clogged arteries?