School lunches

My GC have had school lunches right from the off and still seem to enjoy them. In fact, I believe that sometimes they eat things that they refuse at home. However, one of them was rebelling because 'all his friends' had packed lunches, so his mum negotiated a compromise: he takes a packed lunch on a Friday.

If my GC were told they had to eat school lunches they would A) go in to meltdown and B) starve. They are not particularly fussy eaters but they do not like the sort of meals the school offers. Their lunch boxes are healthy, especially as the school bans sweets, crisps and chocolate and it is their parents choice what they are given. We are turning in to a nanny state. Yes I feel sorry for the children who's parents are don't seem to know or care about what a good lunch box consists of but why should my GC be penalised for their incompetence. Makes me very angry (again!!)

We all want kids to be healthy, of course, but there is too much fiddle faddle these days about this and that and everything under the sun.
Too much state intervention in family life is not wanted or needed.
But, maybe, some parents need to be more careful about their children's food.
Ban packed lunches? Never!

Bags, has anybody here suggested any authoritarian ways of 'enforcing' a better diet. Words used 'education and support' do not suggest anything authoritarian, do they? I am not at ll supporting Gove in any way shape or form, but am concerned that so many do not realize how much damage can be done in so many ways by a consistently poor diet.

Thank you Mamie for your excellent post.

Bags, I wouldn't be authoritarian with ordinary people. I would with the food industry, though.

I don't disagree that there is too much fuss over certain foods and my family has always eaten butter, beef with fat in it,(because it tastes better) and other food which has sometimes been deemed unhealthy according to fashion. Nor would I stop children having cakes and puddings regularly and sweets as a treat. Everything in moderation and a little of what you fancy does you good.
What I can't accept is that a diet that consists of cheap, highly-processed fatty meat, cakes stuffed with sugar, no fruit or veg and sweet drinks can be any good for anybody. I have seen how much better children learn when they go to breakfast club and how lethargic and unwell children with a poor diet can be in school. One of my GD's friends is a terribly fussy eater and she is thin, pale and frequently off school.
Common sense really, isn't it?

Like Mamie said in fact!

I agree that too much fuss is made about children's diets. However I do think there is a need to look at the amount of processed food that is available, containing goodness knows what rubbish and chemicals with no nutritional value whatsoever, hidden salt and sugar, and all kinds of nasties that were not around when we were young. I think the whole food industry is an ongoing experiment which could have dire consequences for future generations.

I think the idealssuggested by various people on this thread are fine, in principle. What I don't like is/are the suggested authoritarian way(s) of implementing such ideals.

Hear, hear! Well said.

I think far too much fuss is made about what children do and don't eat and this can worry parents of those with a very limited diet. My daughter's friend lived on chicken legs as a child and now is a very healthy 35 year old with a slim figure and varied diet. I had one friend whose son would only eat sausages and another whose daughter virtually lived on marmite on toast. My cousin told me yesterday that her daughter would eat little else sweets. She is 50 now and has no dental problems either and eats extremely well now. All these people consulted their doctors and were told not to worry if the child was healthy and had energy. I'm not saying these were good diets but we can worry too much about the fussy eaters and so I have no problem with the fact that my grandson virtually lives on a diet of cheese and eggs. At 6 he weighs just 3 stone and is full of energy. He will extend his diet when he is ready.

In 2012 (latest stats), Finland is in the same place as the UK on the life expectancy and wealth chart.

And the UK is up there with the rest of Europe. I don't think we're doing so badly globally speaking.

Firstly, I wouldn't ban packed lunches and I don't believe the figure of only 1% meeting nutritional guidelines. At my GD's school the meals are not very nice and frequently served half cold. I do think many children do have dreadful packed lunches, combined, I imagine with poor nutrition at home. School meals should be improved to the point where children want to eat them and this will need more than the paltry amount that is spent on ingredients by some of the suppliers.
This is what I think needs to happen.
There needs to be a massive, sustained public education campaign. The food industry needs to take some responsibility, stop selling crap at cheap prices, and promote healthier foods. Advertising of fatty and sugar-loaded drinks and foods should be banned. Politicians and their "advisers" should be obliged to declare and then renounce links with the food industry. Supersizing in the food industry should be banned. The DT curriculum in schools should regain its emphasis on preparation of food, budgeting and cooking. The poorest families should have access to the equipment they need for cooking. Schemes to teach people how to cook simple, healthy food should be developed and supported.
Any initiative that encourages the growing and cooking of fresh food should be supported and encouraged. Allotments should be protected and used (there are still empty ones in many cities). All this would cost money but eventually bring savings in health, welfare and education budgets.
Finland managed to do it.

I also want to know what about extremely fussy eaters, like DD3. The lunches at her primary school were all cooked on the premises by an extremely good cook and were very good. She often starved rather than eat them. When I discovered this, I was glad to have the option of sending her with cheese butties every day.

Why shouldn't she have cheese butties every day? Such is ancient peasant food and perfectly good food.

I query the "national diet" idea because in my life time, available food choice have changed immensely. There are all kinds of foods available now which weren't available when I was a child.

Puddings have always been optional.

You're very lucky to have a school that provides free lunches. Most don't.

"national diet"? Is there such a thing?

That sounds ideal Aka but I would still like to know how, in a free country, you would deal with children and their parents who don't have a healthy diet.
What about children who are simply fussy eaters, of whom there are many?

I've read all through these posts and frankly am amazed by some of them which seem to suggest that the national diet is ok, our kids should be allowed to eat what they want and anyone trying to alter the status quo is from the 'food police'.
Packed lunches are banned at my GS's school and school dinners are free. Meals strike the happy medium between fat-fest and super-healthy and are not rejected. Chips are only served on a Friday. Puddings are optional.
Special diets for medical or religious reasons are provided again free of charge.

Where do you get dripping from, *Galen?' I rarely see it. When we had a specialist pork butchers nearby, it was always available, but that butcher retired and the shop closed down.

I love butter and dripping. I AM NOT GIVING THEM UP

I hear what you say Jane - but I used the word carefully, actually. Many seem to have a distorted and unbalanced view of risk. Like the friend who refused to take the pill, because it is 'dangerous' but was happy to smoke and drink heavily. Or the parents who refuse to immunize a child against really dangerous childhood diseases, because of totally unproved other risks.

Giving substances to a child (not occasionally- but to such an extent that it causes basic lack of essential nutrition/vitamins, and/or obesity) that would cause so much health, educational and other proven damage would be considered as criminal - so what difference does it make if it is in the form of food and drink? Does it- really? And therefore should society/the Government not care about the damage done? What is, really, the difference. Not to judge, but to help and support. It would be money very well spent.

I'm sure they are both harmful - saturated fats and too much sugar. There is plenty of advice to that effect out there.

From BHF website (healthy diet recommendations): "only a small amount of foods and drinks high in fats and/or sugar."

It's all a load of [*O*]
The fuss about cholesterol is mainly unproven.
Incidentally there is an article in the BMJ this week about disclosure of clinical trials.

Yes. And that's why I'm not afraid of saturated fats.