School lunches

Puddings have always been optional.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hear, hear! Well said.

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.

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.

Like Mamie said in fact!

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?

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

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.

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!

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!!)

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.

My GDs had a wonderful cook at their nursery. We used to laugh because the baby often smelt of garlic when we picked her up.

Exactly Mamie
Children in developed countries have far too much say in what they want to eat these days. There was a presenter on The radio on FrIday who said there is no known instance of children in this country voluntarily starving themselves to death.
When I was a child I ate what was put in front of me or went hungry until the next meal. It's about time parents stopped indulging their little overweight and/ir fussy eater and let them go hungry.
#duckandrunforcover

PS bags The National Diet etc

Thanks for the link, aka. It's a national survey of diet and nutrition though, not a survey of The National Diet.

jura, apologies if you are not proposing authoritarian measures to get people to eat more healthily. I must just have read your posts like that. My mistake.

aka no need to duck for cover - I totally agree.

Our grand-children were exposed to a very varied diet, including vegetable of every kind, right from the off. Fussy eaters do not become so by chance. One day gs came home and stated that he hated mushrooms, which he always loved before. Talking to the teacher, it transpired that he had been mocked at school for loving 'shrooms'. He is often mocked too because his packed lunch includes healthy things like raw carrots, tomatoes, cucumber and fruit.

So sad- just like those children I knew as a teacher, and as a parent, who intentionally make mistakes in tests so they are not mocked for getting a good mark- as they would be bullied for doing well.

DD3 was the best fed baby and toddler in Oxfordshire. I think she is food phobic. I'm hoping she'll grow out of it.

Meanwhile, by devious means, I've managed to keep her healthy in spite of the limited variety of foods she will eat.

I want people to stop criticising and making out that it's easy when you have a problem eater to deal with. They clearly haven't faced the same problems.

They probably haven't watched their sister nearly starve herself to death either.

Very sad and difficult for you, I agree and hope she will get over this, with the right support. Does she receive treatment for this? I feel for you, and it is obviously an extreme case.

However, can we, as a society, refuse to address this serious issue based on an extreme case, or in general, for the majority of children? All special cases, like the one you describe, should be taken on board, with support, like any extreme special case for anything. But the basic principle remains, that we, as a society, should somehow come to grips with this very damaging issue, for the children's sake, their health and education. Talk to any teacher and they will tell you how noticeable a poor diet is in so many children, and generally the ones who are most deprived in other ways too- and who deserve to be helped and supported (and yes, their parents too).

Perhaps difficult to imagine that the UK is one of the few countries where school meals were provided very early on, for that very reason, to ensure that all children get an adequate diet, as part of the early welfare service and war times. So the Government 'interference' or support/help, has a long tradition and history in the UK, and for good reasons.