They weren't saying that parents couldn't send junk food for their own children, just that schools aren't supposed to sell it to raise funds, or allow street vendors unrestricted access to their students.

Spacific, excellent posts.

Gibby, honestly the parallels you are drawing are ridiculous.

Tricia,
I only read your post, and will revisit the entire post once I've written my thoughts, without anyone else's posts to opinionate or change my thoughts.

I thoroughly agree with you. I have been making serious efforts to elimiate HFCS and the newest sugar substitute (I can't remember the name, for the life of me) from their diets. But we have the fortune to live in a neighborhood that is both dead-end, has over 25 elementary school age kids, a free lot next to our house, and lots of stay-at-home parents. So our kids, once they've come home and had snack, are gone until dinner-time. We do use walkie talkies sometimes, but mostly, they are free, just like I was. Free to run through the woods, free to get filthy in the creek catching crayfish, free to ride their bikes and scooters...

What is life without freedom? I send them a lunch everyday, somewhat of a hassle due to different tastes. Often times it's pizza bagels, pizza rolls, lean pockets, or sandwiches. Fresh fruit except for my one kid who only will eat strawberries or canned mandarin oranges. Milk, chocolate milk, water or crystal light. And their choice of a snack that I've bought based on ingredients. They actually prefer to take my lunches rather than buy something at school.

My kids are on the go all the time. Yes, they spend time watching TV or playing Nintendo. But when the weather gets nice, they are outside, outside, outside. And they are free, and they are skinny.

Kudos to your rant :)

Nancy

What was your opinion on vending machines in school, proudmama?

Please, foodonastump...I am not calling anyone a socialist. Or making accusations or assigning names of any kind, I would hope I could appreciate a spirited conversation without resorting to that! :D

I earned money too, in my pre-legal working years! But that too, a parent has control over. A few bucks earned by babysitting or mowing lawns is not going to cover junk food for lunch all week long. Not if a kid has other things they desire to own that their parents don't hand them. My mother provided a decent, basic school wardrobe for me. If I wanted designer jeans or the latest fashion dress, I had to save for it. And since I wasn't meant to be wearing make up or perfume to school in the first place, it was obviously up to me to save for those proscribed items. Plus, if I wanted permission to go babysit, I had to consent to the house rule...that half of what I earned went into my savings account.

See, I could eat the lunch I brought from home and save my precious baby sitting money to buy that pair of hot platform shoes (yes, I was a disco-era teen!) or I could buy crap at the 7-11.

I'm not saying that the rules of my house should be the rules of other homes. What I'm saying is that parents have as much control as they choose to take, regarding what their children eat or don't eat.

As for advertising and it's portion of the problem, I can only say that again, parents have a great deal of control over what their children consume, both in terms of food and in terms of media consumption.

My brother and I were not allowed to watch tv anytime we wanted, for as long as we wanted. If a parent is concerned that advertising is having too great an influence on the eating habits of their children, then that parent can pull the plug!

How many of us had a tv in our bedrooms as kids? I was amazed when I began a business where I visit my clients' homes on a regular basis to find how many kids have a tv set in their bedroom, as well as a music system, phone and computer.

My husband and I do not have cable. So, we basically don't have tv reception. This was a choice. We rent movies and television series from Netflix, and watch what we want, when we want, for only as long as we want without being seduced into the next show by commercials AND without being subject to the constant barrage of advertisements.

Occasionally, if we happen to go out of town and have a tv in our hotel room, we'll watch a bit, just for a change. And we are invariably appalled to think what people who watch tv on a regular basis are subjecting themselves to. And appalled at what children are subjected to if their parents find it easier to let them veg out in front of a tv rather than nag them into engaging in more productive time usage.

Anybody interested in getting back on topic?

I absolutely disagree with vending machines in schools. When I was a teen, my mom had me on the reduced lunch program. Since I was embarrassed to use it, I instead took enough money to buy a coke and a chocolate chip cookie for lunch. That should never have even been an option for me.

But Maggie, I didn't feel I was off-topic as Tricia also addressed kids being shackled to their parents, etc.

Nancy

I don't see that anyone has gone far off topic. I mean, Tricia touched on quite a few points in her initial post that people have expanded on. It's a complicated problem to be sure.

In case I have not made my self clear, I am dead set against vending machines in schools as well. And, if we are going to offer cafeteria style lunches for the kids, I would naturally prefer them to be reasonably healthy. But I draw the line at the schools (and therefore the government) becoming the Food Police. And I think it a sad and ridiculous thing that a mother can't send a batch of cookies in for her child's class for a special occasion.

Your right. This thread was never really about the subject put forth. I should have let the high horses graze together.

Bye.

Looks like I started a healthy debate! :)

Be careful what you wish for! Look at NYC. The Food Police banned all trans-fats in restaurant food. Now, you can't get a decent French fry in the City. That's what happens once you start allowing government to dictate what people can & cannot eat.

I maintain my position that the inanimate machines are not the problem & removing them is not the solution.

/t

Harking way back to my comments, I do know they govern the food that's served. That was my point. Since they're governing what's being taught, what the kids wear, etc., I don't see how governing the food that's served, or what's available to them, such as vending machines, as being any different. If it's okay for the government to determine what our kids learn, why is it not okay for them to determine what they eat while they're at school?

This really is an interesting debate, and I find myself agreeing a little bit with everyone. I guess I'm wishy-washy, lol.

Sally

I agree with the laws intents entirely and many of the items. banning bake sales is overboard for me, however how far wrong many school districts have gone when it comes to food it makes some sense. Maybe those items can be added back later.

Tricia, I grew up in New York City where for safety reasons we were not allowed to range free all over on bikes or walking. However there was only one child in my elementary school who was obese. I think having vending machines filled with junk including soda in schools is beyond horrible. I don't care how much exercise you get, if you are drinking sodas all day long you will be overweight.

The other thing is many of these students do not know real good food, including homemade brownies, cookies etc. Real food helps them avoid the junk.

Personally I am not happy that my sons school has chocolate milk and sometimes kids have to ask to get the regular milk.

-Robin

"That's what happens once you start allowing government to dictate what people can & cannot eat."

I shudder to think what our food supply would look like if the government didn't to some degree dictate what we can or cannot eat!

I agree wholeheartedly with banning vending machines from schools. Our kids are being targeted by the food industry to get them hooked at a young age on soda and the like, and I see no reason why the schools should be a part of that.

Schools ban homebaked goods due to allergies, mostly peanut. There are more diagnosed peanut allergies these days and sending in something like chocolate chip cookies could easily cause a potentially deadly reaction.
Jo

I think what it is Tricia is I am just not connecting the dots on your slippery slope (and others) from vending machines to lunchbox police, to the government, to french fries in Manhattan.

To me vending machines should never have been in the schools in the first place. Proudmama, today you don't know which child is on free and reduced lunch. It is horrible they made it public what kids received aid.

Jo, I am glad you mentioned that. I was going to earlier and got sidetracked. Believe me, people also feel their rights on being infringed on in that area. I am learning so much. HOw dare someone tell them they can't send in peanut butter for their kid, etc. My son has a boy with a peanut allergy in his class and we got a letter home before school started, it was reinfornced at orientation, and there is a letter on the door to the classroom. Still, I attend the class party meetings and the other mothers dismiss it. Send in munchkins even though there is possible cross contamination, etc. It will be fine, we can send it...I also get snickers and other peanut snacks home in goodie bags. My son does not have the allergy, my daughter does and has not started school yet. It is a real lesson and eye opener for me. Obviously, they must be taught to know what they can have and not have, but what about this poor child that thinks his classroom is safe? (the teacher is aware)

Most of my time in school I looked forward to reading my book at lunch more then eating. Lots of pb&j sandwiches and ground bologna with pickles in it. Hot lunch was lots of boiled dinners and spanish rice. My friend Vince liked the spanish rice... gross huh? My favorite was "snot-on-the-rocks" which was chicken gravy over biscuits. It was nice to finally make it into HS so I could go out and have a cigarette... or smoke them in the hall if it was cold outside. No vending machines even in the HS other then a cigarette machine in the teacher's lounge. There was a little dairy bar they ran during the lunch period where you could buy an ice cream or an extra milk.... sometimes they even had chocolate milk. If I recall correctly a half pint was 6 cents.

I doubt there is any way possible to let today's kids have that experience.

: )
lyra

I think people are missing my point entirely.

I do not believe that a child will become obsese because of vending machines be they in school or somewhere else.

There were vending machines when I was a kid...I'm not THAT ancient! :)

Take the vending machines out of schools...not a problem. But DON'T blame the machines for a child's poor eating habits. And, don't kid yourselves that removing them from 1,000' of a school is going to stop a kid from having a Coke & a candy bar.

Temptations abound in every form not just vending machines. For example, beer is not sold in schools. Has that stopped kids from drinking? Of course not.

I have never said a word about the government's role in protecting the safety of our food supply so please don't put words in my mouth. My beef is with government deciding what's good and/or bad for me to eat & enacting legislation accordingly. I would much prefer they would spend their time (and my tax dollars) doing something about this country's lack of an energy policy & let me decide whether it's OK for my kid to grab a hot dog from the cart on his way from class to football practice.

It will be a real shame if we lose Girl Scout cookies.

Anyway, I'll say it for a last time. Remove vending machines from schools if it makes you feel better; but don't delude yourselves into believing that you've done a darn thing to prevent childhood obesity. You haven't.

With a few medical exceptions, people get fat because they eat more calories than they burn. Deal with that problem & you've cured obesity in kids.

Personally, I'd love to be a fly on the wall & see what the Mom that stood up at the PTA meeting spouting off about the vending machines served for dinner that night to her kids.

Even on this forum...we frequently suggest hog dogs, chips/dips, burgers, pizza, etc. as "kid friendly" menu choices. Nobody complains that those are high fat foods & unhealthy for a child not getting adequate exercise. What's up with that? Homemade pizza, even with a WW crust, covered in pepperoni & sausage dripping with gooey cheese is no less fattening than pizza from Pizza Hut (or, a Snickers?). Hypocrisy?

A child can get fat even on apples, turkey sandwiches, or Greek yogurt. The particular food isn't the main problem. The problem is primarily lack of exercise. There's just no way around that part of the equation.

Personally, I don't believe parents have total control over what their kids eat unless you're going to keep them by your side until they reach eighteen. I do believe parents have considerable control over how much exercise they receive.

So, I'll let this topic drop & wait to see what happens when kids don't miraculously get skinnier after the vending machines are removed...

/tricia

Maybe your point is confusing because nobody made the case removing vending machines would solve all the world problems, so you seem to be ranting about a connection that isn't there.

Tricia,
I sense your frustration of this going from "a healthy debate" to "I'll let this topic drop & wait to see what happens when kids don't miraculously get skinnier after the vending machines are removed..."

Debating complex topics in a few sentences or paragraphs is always difficult.

The point I was trying to make, if it matters, is that vending machines in and of themselves are not the problem. Kids won't get miraculously skinny when/if they're removed. But they are one piece of the puzzle of the enormous amount of influence that corporate giants such as McDonalds, Kraft Foods, and Coca-Cola have within our schools.

The message of healthy eating in the schools is miniscule in comparison.

That has changed tremendously since you and I were in school. The research is so irrefutable about the direct correlation between advertising to kids (in the form of vending machines, "free" educational aids, sponsorships, etc., not just TV ads) and their increase in consumption of such products, that legislators are looking for ways to do something.

As a side note, I believe there's some danger correlating homemade whole wheat crust pizza with gooey cheese to the likes of Cheetos. I for one rarely add Maltodextrin, Disodium Phosphate, Artificial Flavor, Monosodium Glutmate, Lactic Acid, or Artificial Colors (Including Yellow 6) in my homemade pizza. (Not to just pick out one product, especially one that due to intense public pressure, removed all genetically modified corn products from their ingredients; but if you want a laugh, go to the Frito-Lay website to see how they spin how healthy their products are.) But I digress...

"But they are one piece of the puzzle" good point Spacific; any small step in the right direction is a good thing. Removing temptation for the 7 hours that they are on those premises can only be good, no it won't eradicate child obesity
magically.

I do not think that vending machines belong in the school, not only because what is available there is junk, but also because it teaches bad use of money. Kids should not get used to buying overpriced junk from vending machines. It is just not good lesson.
Candy and cookies and soda have their place but not in school vending machines for kids to waist money on.

I know that as a teen, if I hadn't been able to buy a coke and a cookie for lunch, I wouldn't have eaten a thing. I was that embarrassed about being on the reduced lunch program. We had a closed campus.

I also agree with Tricia that removing vending machines from schools won't make our children healthier. But I don't believe that the school ought to be in a position to make a profit from vending machines being on their property, when the food/beverages in vending machines is so often unhealthy.

My kids adore sodas. But we only buy sodas when we entertain. Therefore, when they have access to sodas, they gorge themselves and make themselves sick. For instance, on Mother's Day, we went to Mike's Crab House in Annapolis. My husband ordered pitchers of coke. My kids drank, and drank, and drank. On top of eating fried shrimp or fried fish, and french fries. And then ate homemade nutty buddies. They all were on the verge of throwing up. I told them when you eat that much sugar, carbonation and fat, you are bound to feel sick. It's your body's way of telling you that the food isn't good for you.

At home, they are offered either water, 1% milk, Crystal Light, or orange juice to drink. There is an older neighbor who loves having the kids hang around and watch him carve decoys, etc. He always offers them sodas. My kids know I disapprove, but often can't resist. Their compromise is to split a soda with a sibling.

My point is, kids aren't known to make the best of choices on a general rule. That's why we, as adults and care-givers, must take a prominent role in helping them to make the right decisions. We also don't need to put temptation right in their faces. Yeah, not selling alcohol to minors isn't going to stop underage drinking. But not making it readily available makes it that much more challenging for a child to make the wrong decision.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents :)

Nancy

Well, being the lefty commie pinko I am, I say that it seems like the country finally came to its senses in the last election!!

To the point of the OP - imo it's the point of the fast food industry - which gets huge government subsidies - taking advantage of struggling schools. Schools are underfunded, struggling to keep teachers and provide the services our kids need and they don't get enough money. They are then put in the position of getting money they desparately need via allowing these companies to place vending machines and advertising in schools. Our kids are bombarded with advertising to an unbelievable extent - companies aren't stupid. They advertise because it works. Think they spend billions of dollars because they like it? Kids recognize Ronald McDonald over George Washington and Jesus even. To continue the bombardment at school, imo, is wrong. When it comes to teaching about healthy foods and eating, the government cannot compete with the private sector. No way, no how. No, it's not going to suddenly make all our kids healthy, thin and active if we ban vending machines, however, it sends a message to these companies to clean up their act with the HFCS, chemicals and preservatives they fill their foods with and it sends a message to our kids that we care about their health and that all foods are not equal. Instead of Coke in the vending machine, why can't you have reduced sugar (real) fruit juices and bottled water? Vending machines can spit out a bag of carrot sticks as easy as it can a bag of chips. It's not the machine - it's what's in the machine.

The government supplies contracts for school lunches to the lowest bidders - these companies aren't providing fresh quality foods for school lunch programs. There's a reason the very poor are often the very obese - the cheapest food is the unhealthiest for you. If the government subsidized healthy foods the way it does corn - and therefore, HFCS - healthy foods would be more easily available to people.

Watch Supersize Me - read Don't Eat This Book. Morgan Spurlock has these companies down pat. Salt and fat and sugar are addictive - sugar can be more addictive than heroin.

And yes, it is the parents' responsibility, but it's also true that for most families, both parents have to work. A lot of kids come from poverty. Their only hot meal for the day is at school. In a lot of places the school lunch is no healthier than the vending machines.

We need a balance. It's not an either or proposition. There are studies that show that kids who eat healthy food, fruits and veggies, no junk food, etc., pay attention better, score better on tests, are more well behaved, there isn't the hyper behavior, etc. They conducted research at schools for troubled teens and the incidents of problems plummeted when they took away the sodas and chips and started feeding them salads and fresh fruits. Eating a bag of chips isn't going to ruin your kid's chance at getting into college, but a school refusing to sell chips isn't the first step to government control of every aspect of our lives bordering on facism either.

And I'm sorry - for some kids it's just not feasible to walk to school - they live in rural areas where it's a half hour bus ride to school or they have to cross dangerous roads to get there. Gym should be brought back. Exercise helps kids learn better as well.

I'm sorry, but I'm no free marketer. As I said I'm a lefty anticorporatist. I don't see where a private company deciding what my kid can eat is any better than the government doing it. At least the government is supposed to have the public good as it's basis for action. The private company has its profit margins to worry about. Think that peanut company was worrying about the health of the children or was it worrying about it's bottom line?

Kids are outside their parent's control while they're in school and someone by proxy has to step in and keep an eye on what's going on. And that's the schools.

Lisa

What are HFC's? I have no idea what this means.
When I Google I get "Household Financing Company", "Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial", and the name of a British bank.

It's not an acronym that is used where I live.
TIA. :-)

SharonCb

Sharon, It's high fructose corn syrup. It has replaced real sugar in almost everything these days.

Intersting topcic that's for sure. I've had to back away from the keyboard for now. : )

David

Thanks David.
Checking it out, it seems HFCs are used more in the North American food industry due to the higher cost of sugar, whereas countries of the European Union have declined to use HFCs. Sugar is still by far the most used sweetener.

I'm still going to continue to check labels though.

SharonCb

I am sorry that there seem to be people posting in this thread seem to have taken personal umbrage from some of the posts. I doubt anyone here is intentionally giving cause for such. Sometimes, the written word allows for a more clear explanation of thought. Sometimes, however, it leaves open to interpretation the writer's intention or his/her respect for the views of others.

For the record, everyone has made excellent points in my estimation, and the differing views that individual experiences have formed are always worth hearing and considering, whether upon such consideration, you agree with them or disagree.

I must disagree with Lisa on the point of the cheapest food being the least healthy. The reason so many poor people eat badly is not that, it is ignorance or apathy regarding nutrition. I know this because we were quite poor when I was a child. I envied my friends, whose families were on welfare for the abundance of snacks and foods that were considered treats in our home. But, my mother knew, and cared about nutrition over ease or cravings. For what a friend's family spent on a "cheap" meal at MacDonalds, she could feed us several nutritious, if less coveted meals.

Much is said, and claimed about the "poor" in America. But I say that if the "poor" cannot feed their children a good, nutritious diet on what is already offered them in assistance...welfare, food banks, religious charities, school meals,WIC etc., it is because they prefer to indulge their vices, have made very selfish choices in their lives, or are woefully ignorant when it comes to household management and budgeting.

Perhaps some might think me a "right wing whacko" (or apply some other label) for saying this, but I lived that life, I know!

I had a friend as a child, who lived with her mother alone. They were on welfare, because her mother had developed a never-completely-diagnosed physical ailment that eventually killed her, after years of physical disability. Just the sort of person nobody minds offering welfare to. My friend used to have to do the grocery shopping for her mother and herself, and once a month, she made a menu on a calendar and drew up a shopping list to suit, remembering to set aside a certain amount of money for perishables like milk and bread that must be boughtweekly.

I tell you, my mother would have been overjoyed to have the food budget allowed those two people to buy groceries for the three of us. But she wouldn't take charity, preferring to work often two jobs and forgo the sort of (relative) luxuries those on welfare could afford.

That said, I must concede that it isn't feasible for all children to walk to school. I live in a farming area, and there are many children who would have to start out hours before the school bell, if they were to walk, and some who would have to start out the night before! But walking to school isn't the only form of exercise available to children. Children living out in the country can more safely roam and run around outdoors than kids in the city, if their parents will shoo them out instead of allowing them to sit in front of tvs and computer games.

I also must regret to say that the idea that the government is "supposed" to have the public good as the basis of it's action is not comforting to me. A private company, offering goods for sale leaves me the freedom to choose not to purchase said goods. The government has the power to impose it's edicts on me, and my only course if I disagree is to protest, either with signs or with my vote. So, when politicians pandering for votes are able to convince a bare majority of people that something is being done for their good, regardless of how many or few of those people are actually informing themselves and paying attention instead of being led by the nose by savvy politicians armed with questionable statistics, emotional rhetoric, and a bevy of propagandists and tacticians, I'm stuck with it.

Someone has to keep an eye on what's going on, and that's the schools??

We spend outrageous amounts on our schools. They should not be underfunded. They should be rolling in money, as a matter of fact. It's the horrifying public school bureaucracy that sucks up the money, not to mention politicians diverting money into their general fund to spend as they like. Year after year we are offered this tax and that bond to vote on because otherwise we'll have to fire teachers and kids won't get books and paper etc...I remember this yap from when I was a kid. And every year, we give them more money, o.k. more bonds...remember when the lottery was going to solve this problem? My sixth grade teacher had to copy pages from our math workbook (that had removable pages, meant to be filled out and turned in) on that smelly machine with the big drum that preceded xerox machines because she didn't have enough of the workbooks for us to actually use. NOTHING'S CHANGED.

The vending machines were put into the schools, by the schools, with the promise that the proceeds would fund this school program or that...but there is always money to be diverted to other uses by our government, and now the vending machines are subbing for those other uses too.

I have no confidence in bureaucracies, particularly government bureaucracies (which have the power of force) to "keep an eye" on anything.

By the way, regarding HFCS, I just saw an ad on TV last night that Pepsi will be offering a limited edition version of it's soda made *gasp* with totally 100% natural sugar! Why limited? Hopefully people make a statement and buy it up like crazy so it replaces their current version. I, for one, even though I don't particularly care for Pepsi or drink much soda, can't wait to try it :)

I have enjoyed reading this debate.

'you can't get a decent French fry in the City' -- I dunno about this. I don't make my fries with hydrogenated oil, and they're awesome. Peanut oil makes great fries. The only compelling argument I've heard for trans fats is that they make smoother icing.

I was reading about the Jamie Oliver manifesto on another forum. I'm for that!!

I'm appalled too by the fast food McDonalds-type food in school cafeterias. In my day school lunches consisted of healthy nutritious food, with all the four food groups equally well represented, ie meat, dairy, vegetable/fruit, and grains.

Also all the HFCS in items that used to be sweetened with sugar is alarming. It takes a lot of label-reading to avoid the stuff. Sugar is not harmful but high fructose corn syrup is poison and has led to today's obesity/diabetes epidemic.

I certainly remember hours of play outdoors, separate school and play clothes, and sufficient exercise to burn off any amount of calories and to assure we were able to sit still in class and concentrate on our lessons.

I don't have kids but I would be furious about the lack of wholesome food in the schools, if I did.

Just want to show you a sample lunch menu from the school I used to work for until last summer.
In my opinion not that bad.

Wow, Off the board for a few days and you guys have really got some great info here. Haven't had a chance to read it all but some good points have been made

Glaser I looked at your lunch menu. Now while it may look healthy to you as a parent, you should go sit in on lunch. When I was lunchlady and granted it was only two weeks or so, our menu was similar. Now I can't speak for your school because I've never been there but our menu was similar and I can tell you that 99% of those fruit and veggies were from a can, container or pre-frozen. Only the bananas were fresh and of the two times we served them while I was there, most were either overripe and/ or very few kids ate them. You DO NOT WANT TO KNOW what was in the beef tacos, chicken nuggets, diced chicken. None of it looked at all like mine when made fresh at home. Not to knock your school, which like I've said may be different from ours, but ours was so bad that in good conscience I couldn't continue standing behind that counter.

As for vending machines in school, my dd took me to a vending machine in her high school yesterday. It serves HOT chicken dishes. YUP! Think fast food vending machine. You place your order, wait 2-3 minutes while it's nuked in the machine and out comes an instant "happy" meal. YUCK, YUCK, YUCK. Fortunately this is the same school where they serve fresh sushi and other good stuff on the lunch menu so my dd does have healthier options.

And that brings me to my last thought... while I am anti-fast-food and preach it at every opportunity (and practice what I preach too BTW), I think taking these things out of schools would only be the first baby step. Taking these kids to a meat processing plant would do the trick much faster. We also need to educate our children and I understand that most of our populace has neither the expertise nor the desire to do it at home.

Consider this: Spend $1000 per year per child to teach them a) about good nutrition b) how to grow fruit and vegetables suitable for their climate and c) how to cook those fruits and vegetables into appetizing meals. Then make the class(es) a PREREQUISITE to graduation from high school.

Results: 10-25% of these kids may take these lessons and integrate them into their lifestyles.

Think how much money we would save in terms of health care costs and missed work time. It would be a bargain in comparison.

Lovestocook,
I worked there as a lunch lady until the end of the last school year. Our rule was if we wouldn't eat it ourselves we wouldn't serve it. Yes, some of the fruit is canned, but it is canned in juice. I know we have no control over what is in the chicken nuggets, but we do know what is in the tacos and diced chicken because we made them. The sad thing is that a lot of the fruits and veggies get thrown away. It doesn't matter if they are fresh, frozen or canned.
State rules say that the kids only have to have 3 things on their tray to make it count as a lunch. Bad example wouldbe a corn dog, french fries and a cookie. We never told them that they were actually allowed to do that. We were actually supposed to ask them them if they wanted a fruit or vegetable. We just put in on their plate. It would have saved us a lot of money because we probably would have had to only prepare half as much food.
Katharina

The bottom line is that if people are ignorant about nutrition, the best thing you can do is educate them and what better place to educate people than at school?

Leading by example is another thing people claim to do, and again, what better example can you set than by not allowing junk food and by providing healthy food at school?

We don't live in 300,000,000 separate little fiefdoms, we live in a society, and when it comes to the "commons" which public education is a part of, then it's not the individual's preference that needs to be catered to, it's the good of society that needs to be considered. A healthier lifestyle benefits everyone. The health care cost reduction alone makes it worth the effort.

Kids can have all the soda and candy and chips and fast food their rotund little bellies can hold on their own time. Not being allowed to have a bag of chips at school is the least of the problems kids need to deal with today.

The issue of people on welfare using food stamps to buy unhealthy foods is a totally different subject. Banning particular foods in school was the subject being discussed here. You'll get no argument from me that changes need to be made. I've stood in line behind people buying lobsters with food stamps enough times to have it sink in that there are problems with the system. I'm a lefty yes - but I'm not stupid. ;) Common sense is common sense, no matter where you stand on certain issues.

Lisa

wait, Lisa. Aren't lobsters considered healthy? They are fresh seafood usually

One positive school program that's going on right now at my son's school, is that once a week they have a harvest session, where they taste fruits and vegetables and write a short review of taste, texture, general appearance, etc.

One week it was fresh snap peas and sweet peas, last week was 4 different types of potatoes, yesterday it was different melons. DS then will tell me what things he likes or doesn't and why. They also discuss lots on nutrition this quarter. It's a tiny part of their curriculum, but again, another piece of the puzzle.

It would be great if they would somehow then connect those sessions with what's being served at lunch, but that doesn't happen. Baby steps, but all good.

glaserberl, the school menu you posted is indeed healthy fare. However that is a private school, and most private schools do offer wholesome foods. I was referring to public schools. I should have specified.

Esp in poor areas school lunches used to ensure that kids got at least one nourishing meal a day. It is a shame that the fast food lobby has been allowed to introduce their "fake food" into the public school cafeterias.

Spedigrees, you are right.
I know that the public schools in Iowa have to follow the state nutrition guide lines to get federal and state reimbursement. Just for fun I'm giving a link to the public schools menu. It doesn't look that bad. Kids can make healthy choices if they wish. The problem in this city is that all the food is prepared at a central facility and by the time it has been reheated at the school it is non appealing to a lot of kids.

Yes loves2cook4six, I would agree lobster is "healthy". But the point I was making is whether you should be buying it with foodstamps. I may be out of line, but if you're buying on someone else's dime, you should make that dime stretch as far as you can. I would think you could buy a lot more chicken than lobster for the same amount of money. Lobster might be healthy, but it ain't cheap! Even here in Boston! ;)

Lisa

I have to say, glaserberl, that your public school menu looks pretty decent also. I'm not sure if Iowa is unique in being held to nutritional guidelines, or if more states also provide these same choices. From the documentaries I've seen, I'm led to believe that burgers and fries were the typical fare these days in public schools nationwide.

Thanks for posting the link. It is interesting.

I think that most schools have to adhere to the guidelines. Below is the link to the National School Lunch Program. Every school that participates in the program is being audited every 3 years. If they don't follow the rules federal and state funding can be taken away from them.

Just because kids are young doesn't mean that they don't have preferences. Even first graders can tell when the school's pizza is made with a cheese substitute, and chances are that ruins the school pizza experience for them.

The problem really isn't central kitchens. A great deal of the food in chain restaurants also comes in plastic bags from central kitchens. That's how corporate restaurants control costs, quality (and that also means consistency from unit to unit), and food safety -- in such a way that the proverbial "fifteen-year-old in the kitchen" (that's the term used in programs by the Research Chefs of America, the professional group for the people who develop these recipes)) can't screw things up. Clearly these foods don't taste bad because these restaurants are popular. (Also consider how often nutritionally-knowledgeable adults select what tastes good to them before disparaging kids' for making the same choice.)

The problem with school meals is that they must be safe and meet nutritional requirements at a low price. Most school systems use the same menus system-wide, no matter how large the system, which tends to limit the procurement to the same few vendors that service all the other school systems. And many go with the lowest bid that meets their nutritional guidelines, with little regard for student preferences because they have a budget to maintain and a captive audience.

And then some schools turn around and sell "treats" -- for a profit -- to that same captive audience.

>> But the point I was making is whether you should be buying it with foodstamps. I may be out of line, but if you're buying on someone else's dime, you should make that dime stretch as far as you can.Why do you automatically assume that food stamp recipients are buying food on someone else's dime? You don't know why they are receiving FS and you don't know for how long. For all you know, the FTR could be employed but still eligible for FS. They could be members of the the Armed Forces Services. Heck, they could have just been laid off from a long term job/employer. They could be seniors/or not on Social Security.. or SC Disability. All of those examples paid taxes, too. So, where do you get the idea that you should feel ripped off, somehow? And maybe it's none of those things. I don't think it is your business what they buy to eat. I find this attitude to be stingy, mean spirited and very very judgmental. Do you have kids? I don't, and yet, my taxes go towards lots of GS only kids use.

>> I would think you could buy a lot more chicken than lobster for the same amount of money. Lobster might be healthy, but it ain't cheap! Even here in Boston! ;)They probably could, that's true. But it's still their choice, not yours. And FWIW, lobster can be had cheaply in the summer time here. Last summer we were able to buy chix at 2.99 per pound. Once or twice we managed to get it at 1.99 pound. And our local north shore restaurants had triples for 15 bucks as a special run twice a week. That's 5 bucks per lobster...not expensive at all.

I don't know if you've lived here all of your life. I have. I do think that you have most likely never had to suffer the humiliation of food stamps. Or endured the looks and stares of disapproval, as strangers feel entitled to survey the contents of your grocery cart. Often they will even have the gall to make comments, quite frequently those comments are said in front of small children.

Lastly, you would be amazed to see the most vocal anti welfare folks in this neighborhood rant and rave how "those" people get everything for nothing. All the while these folks who have very good paying municipal jobs (with fine benefits) that they got solely based on some sort of connection.. and that connection doesn't just give them one good job. Nope, I know families who have firefighters, cops, EMT'S and crossing guards... not to mention uncles or aunts working at city hall and have been told that any one of their kids that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, they need only place a call letting the PTB know that they are now in need of a job. And despite of this.. these favored and connected families not only justify but brag about their kids getting free lunch.. and LOUDLY scream about "those welfare cheats" at the same time.As far as I can see, there are many more cheats with city jobs. Theft is theft... stealing is stealing. Those with connections just get a pass. It's legalized theft and it is so ingrained that the connected have a total disconnect..they don't see what they do as thievery.

Hey, this wasn't anywhere near as bad as a post I saw on another forum that basically said, birthday cake and even cupcakes for little kids BD'S paid for with FS put her over the edge... turned her into a republican from a life long democrat. Really, if a cupcake for a little kid put her into such a tizzy.. well, I say she was just livin' in the closet of denial.

Me? I say you all spend way too much time feeling entitled to scrutinize "CERTAIN TYPE" folks grocery carts. Admit it... you know you do.

I find all of this sad, very sad.

Silly ~~~although, nothing silly about any of this

Silly, are you a pea? You will know if you are LOL but that sounds just like the kind of stuff that goes on on that board.

I have 2 friends who are on food stamps. One of my friends only buys her family food that is crap. They eat almost all processed, no spices, not many vegetables. They have food stamps left at the end of the month.

My other friend bakes her own bread, buys no processed, buys local when she can, uses a good chunk of her own money for groceries. She and I were discussing that food stamps is not designed to cover all your grocery bill, it is just supposed to help. They sometimes eat shrimp, mussels etc because she has economized in other ways like baking bread. So long as they are eating healthy with the money they are given I think it is great that she can figure out how to afford some luxuries.

-Robin

Whatever the reason someone is using food stamps, if they are using them, they are by definition buying food on the taxpayers' dime. Food stamps are provided by government, the government has no money of it's own, it spends ours.

If you are going to accept tax-payer funded assistance, then yes, you are subject to the judgment of said taxpayer. When did we ever get the idea that judging the actions of others is necessarily a mean and undesirable thing to do? (Please don't answer with the, "Judge not lest ye be judged" quote...it has been so often and wrongly used to suggest that people should never form negative opinions or make decisions about the actions of others that I grow weary.)

This is not to say that there aren't legitimate reasons for someone to be receiving assistance. People are honestly disabled, temporarily out of work etc. But I spent my childhood in neighborhoods where being on the dole was the normal, accepted practice, and in my adult life have known many people who have spent the better part of their lives sucking off the government teat. The ones who had legitimate reasons for it were few and far between. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I have found very few. And I often think that if we could tighten up the system and quit handing so much money to those who just can't be bothered to take care of their own lives we'd have more available to help those who truly want and need help.

There have been far too many times when I have stood in a grocery store line behind a woman surrounded with children and another growing in her belly while she peels off WIC coupons or food stamps not to be frustrated by it. Yes, yes, I know, maybe she was suddenly abandoned by her husband, maybe he's out of work, yada yada, but far more often, that is not the case. Many times have I seen food stamps sold off under the dollar value to obtain drug/alcohol/cigarette money. Not to mention all the people I have known who work under the table while at the same time receiving public assistance. Then there are the couples who don't get married specifically so that the woman can keep getting "her check" while her boyfriend (who works) keeps on making her pregnant.

Government (taxpayer) aid is a big bureaucracy, and subject to the same massive fraud and waste of any bureaucracy.

No, I don't think Lisa is being "mean spirited" when she notes that the person spending her tax dollars on groceries might better spend that money on a less expensive protein source. There may well be someplace in America where one can purchase lobster for $1.99 per pound (I wish I knew where), but in terms of meat to shell weight, it is still far and away more expensive than chicken or the less expensive cuts of meat.

For myself, I don't begrudge the occasional celebration meal of a nice steak or some such to those on assistance. What drives me nuts is all the crap I see get paid for with tax payer dollars. The expensive convenience foods, the premade snacks etc.

As for the "humiliation" of having to use food stamps, we could well do with a return of that feeling! If more people had the old-fashioned reluctance to take charity, there would be far fewer of those neighborhoods where almost everyone does. A sense of shame can be a great motivator for people to get back on their feet.

I'm going to try to get back to triciae's original post, and what our government will ban next! They already ban halloween in school, but that has more to do with religion than food. Most public school cafeterias have to use state and federal guidelines for what they serve at lunch. At my granddaughter's school, they have two different choices of entrees plus a salad bar for those kids that don't want to eat either. But I checked the nutrition contents and there seems to be a lot of sodium, carbs and fat in their lunches. That's because lunches consist of plenty chicken nuggets, hot dogs, tacos, cheeseburgers, pizza, etc. There is always a salad or veggie served, but normally a cookie or canned fruit. They do have physical education once weekly and 2 outdoor recesses for the grade school children. My granddaughter lives 2 blocks away from school, and can you believe that the school bus actually picks her up right at the driveway! When we went to school, the rule was that you had to live more than 1 mile from school before the district would have buses to pick you up. We lived in the city and had sidewalks though. But my granddaughter is now walking to school and back home now that the weather is nice, and I'm glad she's doing that instead of taking a bus for 2 blocks.

The school has banned any bake sales and kids cannot bring home made treats for parties or birthday treats any more. They state it is because of allergies. All treats have to be store bought and wrapped. But they don't ban sweet treats for parties.

For a child with allergies home baked treats can be really dangerous. For example, who would think about jam filled cookies as potentially deadly for a child with a peanut allergy? However most folks use the knife they just used to spread their peanut butter to spoon out and spread their jam and jelly. So jelly and jam can be very dangerous to a child with a peanut allergy.

Our school district is trying, but in my opinion has a long way to go on truly healthy lunches. Some of their efforts are thwarted by the government. For example, it has been proven that local foods often are higher in nutrients as they are not shipped across the country, plus it is better for our area to pay our local farmers. However it is against the regulations for a priority to be given to locally produced food. The food service director instead gives priority to food obtained within 24 hours of harvest. Which only works because of our location.

Even with that outside of the salad bar and certain local meals the school lunches contain a lot of fat and empty calories. I hate when tater tots are considered to be a vegetable.

I walk my son to school most days, year round. When it is below freezing I drive. It is 1 mile for us to walk to school. Even Sebastian, my 7 year old, has noticed how much better it is to walk.

-Robin

Oops, I meant we drive when it is below zero.

I understand the frustration of feeling like government assistance goes to the wrong places. I would go so far as to say that MOST people receiving government assistance are capable of working. For the most part it's not people who are handicapped or disabled. People who are perfectly capable of working choose not to look for a job because the government handout is easier. This is disgustingly pervasive. I think we all agree that families who are working hard and can't make enough to feed their kids deserve it. If you have a full time job, sure, apply for food stamps. But don't use it as an occupation and DON'T have another baby so your voucher amount goes up. I hate seeing people who have child after child that they can't support, making no effort at birth control, and showing little affection for their children. It's appalling. No one should have an unplanned child and then expect taxpayer dollars to support them. I think it's bad for people's self esteem to take so little control over their own lives.