School lunches

Some schools do try to control the contents of lunch boxes. I used to cook then freeze a load of chicken drumsticks which were thawed by their lunchtime. I have since discovered that my DSs bartered these with their friends for crisps and other non-nutritious items. I confess that I also used to buy a big bag of 'fun-size' Mars bars or Milky Ways - and keep them in the freezer - for their lunches, but didn't think these were too bad because scarcely a mouthful! Would those make me a bad mother nowadays?

Schools already do ban items from lunch boxes. There is an interesting thread about it on Mumsnet today. I just don't believe the figure about only 1% of packed lunches meeting nutritional guidelines quoted in some articles. Yes some lunch boxes have dreadfully unhealthy stuff in them, but many are much better than the stuff that gets served at school meals. Some schools ban cakes and biscuits of all kinds from lunch boxes, but every school meal has a pudding.

Well yes Mamie. My thoughts exactly. What is the difference between a piece of home made chocolate cake and school lunch chocolate pudding? My dgs's school stipulates no sweets or chocolate. I go along with that. They do allow cake.

How long will it be before government inspectors are sent round to private homes to check what we're all having for dinner?

Exactly janea!

And, of course, the obesity thing is nothing to do with all the u nhealthy BOGOF s the supermarkets put out is if?! No, blame the parents.

I hated school lunches - my mother (who worked) gave the money to my aunt who provided me with a good lunch every day. Just because it is supplied by the school doesn't necessarily mean it is perfect! My aunt was able to cater for my allergies and dislikes.

I appreciate things are different these days but I think most parents (or grandparents) are aware of what makes a good packed lunch - nanny state again!

Seems a bit ironic (?) that Downing Street is backing off doing anything about cigarette packaging, but wants to ban sandwiches.

That's a good point!

It seems to me anachronistic that school lunch services are obliged to provide a "dessert" out of the tiny amount of money they have to provide a meal. It would perhaps be better to have a nutritious first course - and a filling one, as what is served up is no more than a snack. (slice of thin crust pizza and a salad is not a lunch for a teenager, it's a snack).
I have seen (in secondary) atrocious lunch boxes e.g. 2 chocolate biscuits
I have also spoken to kids who are given a fiver to buy lunch and spend the whole lot on sweets on the way to school, every day.

My daughter makes great lunchboxes for her twins. Sticks of carrot, celery and red pepper, hummus or broad bean dip, granary rolls with hummus and cooked meat or slices of roasted mediterranean veg, compartment of berries, grapes, raisins, home made soft drink...........then they swap with their school pals!

They come home with empty chocolate wrappers and Cheddars bags in their lunchboxes. She would pay for them to have school dinners but they don't like what is offered.

One of the teaching assistant's rang me from school one day to say that she'd made Minibags a piece of toast in the staffroom because Minibags hadn't eaten any of the school lunch that I'd paid for. I gathered she hadn't been eating most of it for a while. I said: "OK, I give up" and sent her with cheese sandwiches (two thick doorsteps of homemade bread containing ground linseeds and hemp seeds, plus whole poppy seeds, plus a fruit bar (compressed fruit, no added sugar) everyday for the next two years. She scoffed the lot every day.

That probably wouldn't be regarded as 'healthy' but the child was healthy. Isn't that what it's really about?

I object to food police anywhere, including in schools.

Theseus and I have known each other from our school days. He and his mates would eat their packed lunches at break, then sneak out of the back gate at lunchtime to buy chips....that was 50 odd years ago.

Nowadays, I know of primary schools that do not have kitchens or canteens, but have chosen to use the space productively. The lunch boxes are monitored but I can't say I like the idea. I agree with Bags "food police". But again, who will protect and feed the children who desperately need decent food?

Whose job is it? I'd say primarily the parents'. It's the job of schools primarily to educate, not enforce.

That said, the problem that ariadne highlights is still there, but is it usually because parents can't feed their children properly or because they make different choices from what is advised? Even if (I did say if) the latter, at what point does it become someone else's responsibility? The lines between freedom of choice and authoritarian government are becoming too blurred for my liking.

And what about parents who don't agree with parts of current healthy eating advice? There are some valid objections to be made.

I agree with jess's point that insisting school meals services have to provide a pudding or 'sweet' is silly. Gove et al could start by changing that requirement.

As it is, the impression I get is that there are more and more control freaks in charge of too many things.

I agree. And it makes it all too easy for some parents to give up even trying to provide for their children, either because they'd rather hand over the responsibility to others (not saying there are many of these!), or because they feel bewildered and somehow criticised for doing what they think is right.

My last school used to do a really good salad bar, baked pots, a hot meal etc (usually good!). Then they introduced "Healthy Options". Out went the salad bar, the jacket pots and the hot meal. IN came pizza slices, pasta in cardboard cartons with aa tomato-ey sauce and overpriced juice cartons and "muesli-type " snack bars. Prices also went up - and consequently, the staff who used to eat happily with the students voted with their feet to eat in the various departmental staffrooms and the kids mostly had pasta and pizza.

My grandchildren often have packed lunch at school. None of them are fussy eaters and they all like good food. They have commented recently that the dinners are not very nice and the oldest one who is only 7 often has to wait until 1- 1.15 for her lunch which I find unacceptable given that they breakfast at around 6.30 am . Their school has always been strict on the contents of the packed lunches (no chocolate or biscuits allowed) but they would rather have a carrot anyway. I agree that for packed lunches to be banned is a step too far. Some children are harder to feed which means their parents can make sure they are eating at lunch time by giving them what they know they like in a packed lunch. I also note that the price of the dinners has risen to £2.20 which is a lot of money. My son and DIL have 2 children at school (3 next year) and £33 a week is a bit steep.

My grandson has to have packed lunches as he is highly and dangerously allergic to even the most minute amount of egg and some nuts. So school dinners are NOT an option. He has meat, fish or cheese every day, raw veg and fruit or yogurt every day, and a cereal or chocolate bar or home made (eggless) cake every day - and a great variety through the week + of course a good balanced dinner in the evening.

However, if you had witnessed what many kids have as packed 'lunch' you would be really shocked and see why the issue is important. How can kids who often also have a very poor dinner in the evening, can have just crisps, cake and a chocolate bar, or similar, day in, day out. Not just about obesity, but about getting essential nutrients, vitamins, fibre, calcium, etc. Slim kids can lack essential nutrients, and be at as much risk, or more, than obese children.

Of course the issue is important, granjura. But just how much should schools be responsible for what our children eat, and how is it going to be possible to get the balance right? There will always be some children who refuse to eat 'school dinners' for one reason or another...

My GS, who used to be a little fussy over his food , now has school dinners , and eats everything up at home with relish .

It all boils down to how much responsibility should be taken away from parents, doesn't it? And however we might decry the lunches provided by some parents, would it be right to"discipline" them because they do not follow the nutritional guidelines? That doesn't seem right.

Meanwhile, there are children who are not fed, or not fed well. Maybe the money should be put into a programme of augmentation - fruit, nuts, cheese available free? But then, it would have to be provided for all children, and that would cost money, wouldn't it??

If they're too picky - tough. I've no patience... we ate what was put in front of usior went hungry - and not many went hungry. Packed lunches containing cold chips? Do me a favour. I don't remember anyone having 'anorexia nervosa' in war time when food was scarce and rationed...

Bloody hell, I sound like 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells'...