school deems lunch not worthy

[mystery45]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/14...-with-nuggets/

Government control at it's finest.

basically little girl has a turkey and cheese sandwich fruit cup, fruit drink and some chips.

I guess the school has nothing better to do than to pay someone to inspect kids lunches. deemed that her lunch was not good enough.

so instead of a turkey sandwich she got processed chicken nuggest of which she ate 3 and nothing else on the plate.

then the school sent her mom a bill for 1.50 cents.

utter and total garbage. if i was the mother i would sent the school a bill for 5 bucks minus the 1.50 for wasting her food.

while some people might not see this as a big deal i think it is huge that parents now can't determine what i better for their kids.

evidently neither can the school since that turkey and cheese sandwich was much better than that processed chicken nugget.

[the_cardfather]

Why does this story seem unfinished?

What nutritional content was missing?

What nutritional content was provided that replaced what was missing?

Here is the original story.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclu...a-nuggets.html

According to this paper nobody is taking ownership of the problem:

Stuff like this is why I homeschool.

[Cyan]

As usual, Fox News shows their great ability to edit pieces and make their opponent look as bad as possible, while not even remotely trying to be honest nor objective.

When you understand that the lunch was rejected because it didn't include enough vegetables, this is at least understandable.

That having been said, it is still unacceptable, especially as a 'first time offense'. Contacting the parent/sending them a note letting them know what the meal needs to include is a much better option than just letting the food that was already made go to waste and forcing the parent to spend money on food provided by the school.

Or they could have just added whatever items they felt were missing.

Also, considering how terrible the quality of school cafeteria food generally is(something that I deal with regularly with my kids school), this seems fairly insincere. Especially since they gave her chicken nuggets, which are typically extremely awful for you.

Ultimately, the government's goal here is admirable, but their follow through was completely lacking. This seems to be a common phenomenon these days.

If this is really a problem, the government should solve it by educating parents as to why it is so important that kids have each of these items for lunch. Their chosen method gives away their true intent, which is simply to be in control.

Also, eating potato chips is not THAT big of a deal. They're probably not any worse for you than processed chicken nuggets are. When the government starts disallowing home brought lunches because they contain a single junk food item, they have gone too far.

And the parent using the excuse that 'I don't send her with vegetables because I have to watch her to make sure she eats them' is ridiculous. You are the parent; act like it. I don't know any kids that don't like carrots and/or celery, for example. Send those in her lunch.

Unrelatedly, assuming that the photo in the Fox News article is an accurate one(and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's not)...are they really serving cauliflower, squash, and broccoli to kids? So many kids hate those three particular vegetables. You're not accomplishing anything by putting stuff on their plate that they are guaranteed to throw away.

[Timothy, Mimeslayer]

We can always take it to the extreme, lets say a parent sends their kid to school everyday with a double quarter pounder, large fries and a milkshake for lunch everyday, should the school sit there and do nothing while the kid eats unhealthy?

[mystery45]

Originally Posted by the_cardfather

Why does this story seem unfinished?

What nutritional content was missing?

What nutritional content was provided that replaced what was missing?

Here is the original story.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclu...a-nuggets.html

According to this paper nobody is taking ownership of the problem:

Stuff like this is why I homeschool.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclu...a-nuggets.html

here is the full story right here.
the girls mom packed her a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, a fruit drink and some chips.

evidenly the state of SC has some screwed up rule for preK food. the fact that the state wastes so much money paying people to inspect lunches.
the girl had her lunch sent home, and the only thing that she ate on the tray that the school gave her was 3 nuggets and the rest went to waste.

and according to the main office there was nothing wrong with her lunch to begin with.

When you understand that the lunch was rejected because it didn't include enough vegetables, this is at least understandable.

if you read the link above she doesn't like them and will won't eat them. of course which is understandable. her mother only feeds them when she is at home.

i know kids that don't like vegatables. i know adults that don't like them either. shouldn't be up to the state to decide who eats what.
so instead of eating lunch that she liked she was forced to eat something she didn't and most of it went in the trash.

if i was her mom i wouldn't pay it. the state gave it to her they can eat it out of their own money. then charge them the 4 bucks for a wasted lunch that she brought home.

[RABishop]

They're arguing that the lunch did "not contain a vegetable" and as such, it was insufficient. Have you seen how much a typical four-year old eats at a given time? I currently have a daughter who will turn four in April, and there is no way on earth she would eat a full turkey and cheese sandwich, potato chips, banana and carrot sticks in a single sitting, partly because she doesn't have the attention span to sit that long and partly because she doesn't have the stomach capacity to fit all of that food in along with apple juice or milk.

So, would the government rather I send food that I know is not going to be eaten and thus thrown away in order to satisfy their regulations or would they let me make the determination of what and how much my child would reasonably eat and make that call on my own?

It's stories like this that make me think that no matter how crazy the Tea Party seems, they're right on some things and one is limiting the role and power of government. The government needs to shut its mouth and know its role, to quote a great American statesman. It is NOT their role or responsibility to tell me how to raise my child, which includes what I feed them.

As long as I am not abusing my child, stay out of my home, my car and my child's lunchbox. I am paying to raise that kid, not you, so until they start paying my grocery bills, they can piss off.

[Cyan]

Originally Posted by Timothy, Mimeslayer

We can always take it to the extreme, lets say a parent sends their kid to school everyday with a double quarter pounder, large fries and a milkshake for lunch everyday, should the school sit there and do nothing while the kid eats unhealthy?

No one is actually doing this, so, why even bother bringing it up? Seriously, how is this contributing to the conversation at all?

Unless you're arguing that it is acceptable for the government to overstep it's bounds because 'otherwise something bad might happen some time in the future'. In which case, I welcome you go to live in the Bush era with every other simpleton that thought along these lines.

@RABishop: This is definitely an example of the government thinking that it has more power than it does(or at least than it should). And you are correct, a 4 year old is not going to eat much, because of their appetite + attention span. There is no situation where a 4 year old is going to eat everything that the government is saying that they should, really. To some extent, though, it IS their responsibility to educate people as to how to raise their children. It's not as simple as saying 'well I'm not abusing my kid so shove off', because you can still be hurting your child without doing so intentionally. Simply because you might not know better. Telling parents that, 'if their child brings lunch from home, it needs to contain certain elements', is fine. Providing the missing elements if they are not brought is also fine. Making a kid buy an entire lunch because, on the first time they checked, the one she brought didn't have a vegetable..that is not fine, it is a huge overreaction.

[RABishop]

Originally Posted by Timothy, Mimeslayer

We can always take it to the extreme, lets say a parent sends their kid to school everyday with a double quarter pounder, large fries and a milkshake for lunch everyday, should the school sit there and do nothing while the kid eats unhealthy?

Yes, the school needs to stay out of it. It is not the government's job to tell parents how to raise their children unless the child is in imminent harm.

Even with that diet, if the child goes home and runs around for four hours every evening, they should not become obese.

[Caex Kothar]

When you understand that the lunch was rejected because it didn't include enough vegetables, this is at least understandable.

That having been said, it is still unacceptable, especially as a 'first time offense'. Contacting the parent/sending them a note letting them know what the meal needs to include is a much better option than just letting the food that was already made go to waste and forcing the parent to spend money on food provided by the school.

Or they could have just added whatever items they felt were missing.

The regulation actually specifically states that the school must provide additional food if the child's home made meal is lacking something.

The exact wording is "When children bring their own food for meals and snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the specified nutritional requirements, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements."

Ultimately, the government's goal here is admirable, but their follow through was completely lacking. This seems to be a common phenomenon these days.

If this is really a problem, the government should solve it by educating parents as to why it is so important that kids have each of these items for lunch. Their chosen method gives away their true intent, which is simply to be in control.

I'd argue that it was a case of a state worker not knowing the laws they're supposed to enforce, not the government trying to control kid's meals.

I think helping kids eat more healthy food is a perfectly fine goal, and that simply adding a bit of food to a kid's home meal to make it more complete is about as harmless as you can get when it comes to government regulations.



I do think charging parents when the school adds only a little bit of food, an apple or a piece of celery or whatever, is ridiculous.

[Timothy, Mimeslayer]

Originally Posted by Cyan

No one is actually doing this, so, why even bother bringing it up? Seriously, how is this contributing to the conversation at all?

Unless you're arguing that it is acceptable for the government to overstep it's bounds because 'otherwise something bad might happen some time in the future'. In which case, I welcome you go to live in the Bush era with every other simpleton that thought along these lines.

Because if it isn't acceptable in the extreme for the school to step in, then it is never acceptable. But if it is acceptable there, that means there is a point where it goes from being acceptable to not and then the goal should be to find that point.

[bLatch]

Originally Posted by Cyan

As usual, Fox News shows their great ability to edit pieces and make their opponent look as bad as possible, while not even remotely trying to be honest nor objective.

Really? Is that necessary? Who is the "opponent" that the evil fox news is trying to make "look bad" here?

You know what, screw it, cancel that. Don't feed the trolls and all that...

Originally Posted by Cyan

When you understand that the lunch was rejected because it didn't include enough vegetables, this is at least understandable.

Actually, if you read the more detailed article it becomes clear that nobody really knows why the lunch was rejected. The rule requires 2 fruits or vegetables. The lunch had That.

Originally Posted by Cyan

Or they could have just added whatever items they felt were missing.

This is the "best" solution, and is actually what the regulation calls for. The school just decided to do that by adding a whole second lunch (probably because they already had the lunches portioned out on individual trays at the time).

Originally Posted by Cyan

Also, considering how terrible the quality of school cafeteria food generally is(something that I deal with regularly with my kids school), this seems fairly insincere. Especially since they gave her chicken nuggets, which are typically extremely awful for you.

Agreed. Replacing the packed meal with junk food was probably not hte best idea.

Originally Posted by Cyan

Unrelatedly, assuming that the photo in the Fox News article is an accurate one(and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's not)...are they really serving cauliflower, squash, and broccoli to kids? So many kids hate those three particular vegetables. You're not accomplishing anything by putting stuff on their plate that they are guaranteed to throw away.

I'm sure its a stock photo. Like any news organization would use with a story like this. But you know, any excuse to troll fox news and all that (You see the little "AP" in the bottom right of the photo? That's an attribution to the associated press. Fox news got hte photo from them.)

[RABishop]

Originally Posted by Caex Kothar

I think helping kids eat more healthy food is a perfectly fine goal, and that simply adding a bit of food to a kid's home meal to make it more complete is about as harmless as you can get when it comes to government regulations.

And what if said child is allergic to said "bit of food" added to their lunch which causes less than "harmless" results, such as injury or even death?

Would you be OK with the parents being able to sue the school and government for millions of dollars because their actions resulted in the permanent disability or death of the child?

[Timothy, Mimeslayer]

Originally Posted by RABishop

And what if said child is allergic to said "bit of food" added to their lunch which causes less than "harmless" results, such as injury or even death?

Would you be OK with the parents being able to sue the school and government for millions of dollars because their actions resulted in the permanent disability or death of the child?

That is why you let the school no of any allergies your child has.

[bLatch]

Originally Posted by RABishop

And what if said child is allergic to said "bit of food" added to their lunch which causes less than "harmless" results, such as injury or even death?

Schools are made aware of food allergies, particluarly the nasty ones like peanuts.

Originally Posted by RABishop

Would you be OK with the parents being able to sue the school and government for millions of dollars because their actions resulted in the permanent disability or death of the child?

Who wouldn't? But then, see above. Parents have to fill out those child allergy sheets for a reason.

[RABishop]

Originally Posted by bLatch

Schools are made aware of food allergies, particluarly the nasty ones like peanuts.

In response to both this and Timothy, Mimeslayer, that's all well and good, except for when an allergy may not be known.

Case in point is my sister. She had no problem eating shellfish growing up until she was in her late teens and almost died from anaphylactic shock after having shrimp for dinner one evening. She's been unable to eat shellfish ever since, after previously having no issue whatsoever.

Also, if those allergy forms are filed in the office, the cafeteria worker who is deciding whether or not to supplement the lunch may or may not know all of the children's allergies, or there may be a substitute lunch person that day.