General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsParents Outraged After School Takes Away Student Lunches
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/teacher-took-one-look-what-mom-packed-her-kids-lunchbox-and-decided-take-matters-her-ownAccording to The Star, the Durham School District's new healthy eating initiative has parents infuriated after teachers and officials have refused to let students eat specific parts of the lunches packed by their parents.
Elaina Daoust, a mother of two district students, says she became "infuriated" last year when her son was told he could not eat his morning snack, a small piece of banana bread, because it contained chocolate chips. He was told that he would instead have to eat the grapes from his lunch.
"He came home with a chart (listing healthy snack ideas) and told me he and the teacher talked about it and healthy choices. She also sent a note to me. I was really, really, really mad for several reasons," Daoust told The Star.
Warpy
(111,359 posts)Food fascists annoy the hell out of me along with any other variety.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)It's none of their damn business!
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Just who do these fucking teachers think they are? I would down at that school so fast it would make their head spin.
LisaM
(27,840 posts)The teachers probably have to enforce it.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I love banana bread with chocolate chips! Seriously, that is just going too far. I really can't deal with this Nanny State crap. As long as you aren't hurting anybody else, what is the problem? It's not like the kid was bringing in powdered-donut pancake surprise.
Mika
(17,751 posts)As long as the bar is set where -> you <- want it, its OK. Got it.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Never mind.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)powdered-donut pancake surprise is a healthy breakfast for children. Ok got it.
Mika
(17,751 posts)Chocolate chips for breakfast or doughnuts? Who decides? What motivates this need / requirement? Outcomes? Scientific studies? Corporate intrusion in gov't regulation?
I think some non-corporate education / information is in order, along with access to healthy and nutritional foods.
Having a healthy population reduces costs of socialized health systems. Sometimes there's over reach, sometimes, under reach, sometimes, just right.
I can dream can't I?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)the way you willfully misinterpreted smirkymonkey and used that to smugly declare As long as the bar is set where -> you <- want it, its OK. Got it As though they were advocating banning anything. As the thread moved forward it appears that on one's opinion is that far away from anyone else.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Did me no harm. If I want to feed my kids powdered-donut pancake surprise, whatever the hell that is, then it is no business of the government if I do so.
I cannot stand it when liberals suddenly turn all authoritarian because some rube is not behaving in a manner they deem appropriate.
Mika
(17,751 posts)You want to feed yourself powdered doughnuts for breakfast, fine. As long as you cover your own health costs from the long term impact of a hi sugar diet.
A socialized system has an incentive for healthy eating - the long term costs that everyone has to cover the costs of.
You don't like liberals telling you how to be healthy, or a gov't that promotes healthy diets, well, stay in the USA. Don't go to Canada ... it's full of liberals.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Thinking you should have the right to determine what others should and should not eat. That is what it boils down to, when you strip out the socialized medicine part.
Mika
(17,751 posts)Btw, where do I ever have suggest that I have the right to be the arbiter of anyone's diet? Nowhere.
I'm simply pointing out the difference in priorities of for profit vs universal systems (as is the case in this Canadian story).
How arrogant of you to mis-state my position.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)between socialist and authoritarian.
So in Canada fat people and diabetics are refused care? How about smokers and drinkers? Pretty easy to pay for a healthcare system that everyone pays for and only 20% of the population can access.
Your post reads like something I would expect on a right wing sight. They always claim that if people would only work harder, have good jobs, study hard then they would have healthcare. Apparently you think that if people eat right(the way you want) and live a healthy lifestyle(which you define) then they get health care. You state in your post above that a person who eats a long term high sugar diet should cover their own healthcare costs.
Not liberal, not socialist and not what I expect to see on DU.
Mika
(17,751 posts)Of course Canada doesn't refuse care. But, the logical goal would be to attempt to reduce costs by increasing /promoting healthy lifestyles.
Not sure why your diatribe went to the absurdist accusations, completely misrepresenting my point, plus a little insulting too.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)I am willing to put it down to you typed and I read it 2 different ways. Because I think we pretty much agree. I am not sure Canada is the perfect system, but I would love to see the US really study the best practices of all countries with socialist, non-profit driven healthcare systems. France and Germany seem to have good ones. The little I know about the German makes me think parts could be transferable to American. You pay depending on your income, but all have equal coverage.
And to the subject of this thread I would be willing to pay significantly more in taxes to have school lunches like they do in France. I assume you are familiar with how it is done. But I just cannot see the rich, white taxpayers of a state like Alabama or even here in Florida paying more so black kids can have a properly cooked served 3 part meal including fresh protein, vegetable, grain or legume and high quality bread. And a nice dessert. Maybe even powdered donut whatever the hell it was called!
Mika
(17,751 posts)In a for profit system with high deductions, as is the case in the US, then one will be paying for bad decisions that result in poor health and the need for expensive care.
I am all for a universal health system, but, that will stimulate disease mitigation education, and in some cases, overreach... as might be the case in this story from Ontario, Canada.
Cheers.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I am completely jealous of you and your early beignet consumption. I was nearly 60 before I got to try those exquisite pastries. My point was not to create a new government agency to monitor breakfast consumption, but to rebut Mika regarding what I considered a gross misreading of smirkymonkey's post. Reading all the posts in this thread I don't think anyone is arguing in opposition to your post.
Mika
(17,751 posts)LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,595 posts)Can you imagine what it's like checking every student's lunch to make sure no impermissible foods are present?
And for this I went to college? they might think.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,902 posts)a very bad idea, but only because I wouldn't put chocolate chips in my own banana bread. If some other mom wants to send that to school for her kid's snack, that doesn't strike me as a problem. It's fucking banana bread.
One wonders exactly what the other kids had as snacks. Yeah, lots of parents feed their kids junk, and it's nice to try to educate them about what might be better, but this teacher is simply wrong.
I was also astonished that the article discouraged home baked treats. Fresh baked banana bread is heavenly (I can tell I'm going to need to make myself some real soon) and is vastly better than almost any commercially baked product.
I also wonder what's supposed to be wrong with raisins.
pansypoo53219
(21,000 posts)chocolate chips. i switched it to nuts, WAY better. THO, my great aunt made banana cupcakes w/ a light coffee frosting. that was good.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,902 posts)Do you have that recipe?
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)Gawd forbid there might be a special snowflake with an 'allergy'.
Mika
(17,751 posts)"Special snowflake"? Is that you Sean?
Shandris
(3,447 posts)They belong to the State, and the State has a vested interest in making certain it's future warr...I mean, leaders are fully healthy. Why, isn't it wonderful that the government is so interested in making sure you're as healthy as you can be?
Anyone who is against healthy eating clearly is mentally insane and can't be a good example for the child. Really, Facebook and other media should just overlook these tinfoil-wearing parents complaining about the State exercising good concern for it's citizen and shadowban their comments. They sound like Trump voters.
EDIT: Woah. Looks like I accidentally discovered the 'Hillary Slogan' shortcut (it's carat-H for anyone curious). Fixing. And had to fix twice, because it's Wednesday or something.
petronius
(26,604 posts)^A, ^B, ^C, ^D, ...
If I had the patience, my future posts could get vastly more ^A ^N ^N ^O ^Y ^I ^N ^G...
roamer65
(36,747 posts)"Hey Joey, look what mom gave me...don't tell anyone!"
nadine_mn
(3,702 posts)With what the kid brings to lunch. I completely understand the argument about healthy eating, lower medical costs over a lifetime if kid is eating healthy blah blah.
But this is in that same realm of limiting what foods people on food stamps can buy... None of anyone's else's business.
So if a kid is home schooled...is the school district going to come to individual homes and check cupboards?
I understand some people saying that it's in the child's best interest, but you can give parents the tools (info on healthy choices, access to healthier food if lower income) but you can't just arbitrarily barge in on how a parent is raising their child. What is considered "healthy" food changes constantly: low fat good, low fat is bad, sugar bad, sugar free is good, but sugar substitutes are bad, wait maybe stevia is ok...eggs are good, eggs are bad, butter is bad, margarine is good...wait nope, butter is good again.
I hate this kind of stuff...
LWolf
(46,179 posts)a ham-handed, wrong-headed way to encourage healthy choices.
Quite frankly, I wish our school cafeteria would serve fresh food prepared onsite, with no sugar and no over-processed carbs. I wish parents would not put sugared foods and drinks in their kids lunches.
If parents were managing 30+ sugar-spiking and crashing kids all day, they might think again.
That said, instead of taking an authoritarian determination to force kids to eat healthy, schools can encourage healthy eating in many other ways. We do at my school. One of our state universities sends someone once a week who talks about healthy choices and prepares food right in classes with kids for kids to share. We have banners and posters of beautiful food all over. My own kids have a pretty complex schedule to make sure they are in the cafeteria at every lunch shift passing out tickets for those caught eating healthy, which are put in a box; a few tickets are pulled once a week and prizes, also provided by the university, (and supplemented by me) are given out. I don't think any kids are avoiding sugar because of those prizes, but we know for sure that many, many more bites of fruits and vegetables are taken, more kids are choosing plain milk rather than chocolate, more kids are taking more fresh things from the "choice bar," and they get excited when they see my kids appear.
Small stuff, but then, schools are not responsible for the national addiction to over-processed junk. That issue needs to be addressed from many angles. Schools can't do it by themselves.
dembotoz
(16,844 posts)the moms anger burned with the brightness of a thousand suns......
after that i (father) was assigned all parent teacher and school interactions.
the son in question has not graduated university....when the topic comes up, the mom is STILL angry