« | »

UK Group Wants To Ban Packed Lunches

From the UK’s Telegraph:

Parents told packed lunches ‘too unhealthy’

Packed lunches filled with junk food by parents should be banned, the government body in charge of healthy eating has said.

By Nick Collins
13 Jul 2010

Rob Rees, chairman of the School Food Trust, said parents are hampering efforts to cut obesity in children by sending them to school with crisps [potato chips], fizzy drinks [soft drinks] and biscuits [cookies].

Mr Rees said the best solution would be for parents to pay for their children to eat healthy hot meals in canteens [cafeterias] rather than giving them lunch boxes.

And he also suggested chocolates, crisps and sugary drinks could be banned in packed lunches altogether by tightening the rules on what children can bring into school.

We used to call people like Mr. Rees ‘busybodies.’ Now we call them ‘liberals.’

Stricter measures on what can be included in school dinners were implemented by the SFT [School Food Trust] following a campaign by Jamie Oliver five years ago, but Mr Rees said many middle class parents remain unconvinced that packed lunches are less healthy than canteen meals

Parents’ groups, however, said the SFT and the government should "get off our backs" and stop attempting to prescribe to parents what they can and cannot feed their children.

How ‘middle class’ of them.

Margaret Morrissey, founder of the Parents Outloud lobby group, said: "I understand the School Food Trust, Jamie Oliver and the Government having an opinion on our children and their health. But at the end of the day the parents must make the decision."

According to Government figures released last week, the number of pupils eating school dinners, which must comply with certain health requirements, are rising fast…

Don’t worry. It can’t happen here.

(Thanks to Melly for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, July 14th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “UK Group Wants To Ban Packed Lunches”

  1. Melly says:

    Parents told packed lunches ‘too unhealthy’

    (Britain, of course)

    Rob Rees, chairman of the School Food Trust, said parents are hampering efforts to cut obesity in children by sending them to school with crisps, fizzy drinks and biscuits.

    Mr Rees said the best solution would be for parents to pay for their children to eat healthy hot meals in canteens rather than giving them lunch boxes.

    Stricter measures on what can be included in school dinners were implemented by the SFT following a campaign by Jamie Oliver five years ago, but Mr Rees said many middle class parents remain unconvinced that packed lunches are less healthy than canteen meals.

    “It doesn’t matter what class you are from, some of the packed lunches I’m seeing are pretty poor and are not doing the kids any favours,” he said.

    “The most important thing is the hot school meal. It is the best value alternative.”

    Parents’ groups, however, said the SFT and the government should “get off our backs” and stop attempting to prescribe to parents what they can and cannot feed their children. ………………..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7888081/Parents-told-packed-lunches-too-unhealthy.html

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Parents’ groups, however, said the SFT and the government should “get off our backs” and stop attempting to prescribe to parents what they can and cannot feed their children.

      Now there’s an idea that could grow legs. I ate packed lunches from my mom for 12 years. They were great. Sandwich, an apple or orange, maybe a ring-ding. And I got my milk at school. Seems I didn’t get obese. In fact, I was a rail most of my young life. But I never went hungry.

      In contrast, seeing what they had in the hot school lunch line…usually something extremely laden with carbohydrates, tasteless, vegetables overcooked, etc.

      Then, when I taught high school in the 90’s, school lunches had become so loaded with carbos and sugar that I couldn’t believe it was still called “food”. Sweet drinks everywhere, soft drink machines likewise. Why? Because KIDS told their PARENTS that they didn’t like the fare at school and the “soccer-mom” community “just didn’t have time” to make their kids’ lunches anymore. So they DEMANDED more appealing fare at the cafeteria. So, it was brand name crap, to include McDonalds (IN THE SCHOOLS) and so on. I found it a ridiculous “plan” where instead they could’ve surveyed what the kids wanted, then looked it over to see what’s nutritious and what’s not. True, McDonalds alone won’t make a kid obese but McDonalds every day in enormous quantities will. Just as most any high fat, low fiber diet would. And, combined with phys ed becoming “optional” and kids opting out of it…there goes the opportunity to work off the excess calories and voila, a trainwreck of a diet/exercise plan.

      And this was in Arizona.

      Yup.

      The school system there was playing with “outcome-based” education too. That is the theory that A and B students need no attention but that D and F students get more. In fact, the top students pretty much get ignored and choice things are awarded to the lower grade ones.

      Reward for failure, I called it. But they all felt great about themselves and were sterling examples of arrogance and conceit. Discipline was relegated to in-school security, the teacher had no say whatsoever..only to send them to detention where they were allowed to do nothing. All day, in fact if they desired.

      The old tradition that during the school day teachers were surrogate parents is gone. Teachers by and large don’t care to discipline, thus avoiding being made “the bad guy” so the teacher can feel good about themselves, too. Students more and more have no clue what’s expected but are very good at gaming the system as it stands. They play it to avoid work, assignments or pretty much anything.

      Yet they matriculate to the next higher grade even with dismal performance, so they don’t feel “stigmatized” at failing.

      I said it years ago, the liberals have confused the concept of discipline with cruelty because they only remember how angry that teacher made them when they were in school. So instead, they have replaced discipline with enabling. “It’s for the children”. Well, we’re seeing the workforce now with all these products of the 90’s and I have to say, I’m not impressed. They don’t like rules, refuse to do their jobs many times and are spoiled beyond measure.

      Yes, there are many good ones too which i attribute to conservative parenting and a heavy does of reality at home. Many become productive military members, hard-working doctors and professionals. But the great vast majority don’t understand why they can’t be a half hour late to work.

      Our school system has been crushed under the heavy weight of liberalism. By coddling kids and allowing them to only excel at what they’re good at has hurt them overall by never demanding excellence and pushing them to do their best in all things. No, not through cruelty…but by knowing the kids and being able to determine when they aren’t trying their best, etc., like my teachers did in the 70’s.

      So the problem goes way beyond food. I could make a list but it would go on for pages. However, I can sum it up pretty easily.

      Too much government.

    • proreason says:

      Are the little darlings enjoying recess too much? That could make for a careless citizen. Can’t have that.

      Do they make faces behind teachers back….potential dissident in the making.

      So many things to control, so few bureaucrats to control them.

  2. beautyofreason says:

    Ah yes, healthy school lunches.

    I remember those.

    The lady in the cafeteria explained to me that she had to use fat free cheese on the lasagna dish, but it wouldn’t melt like regular cheese so she would sneak in some of the normal stuff.

    And then an ice cream company paid the school to house a freezer in the cafeteria filled with real, full fat ice cream.

    Needless to say a lot of teenagers had a sugar binge than rather than eat the health gunk they peddled as food. My dogs won’t even touch fat free cheese.

    Did it ever occur to these bureaucratic oafs that parents often pack healthier, better tasting lunches than what the school provides?

  3. artboyusa says:

    I used to get olive loaf on Wonder bread, which would probably count as child abuse nowadays…

  4. confucius says:

    Jamie Oliver launched his version of culinary nazism a few years ago from the self-proclaimed “Jamie’s Ministry of Food.”

    The interloper is now exporting it to America as “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution.” He’s been showcased by perennial enabler, Oprah Winfrey, and currently has an ABC series in which he goes about changing the school lunches in Huntington, West Virginia.

    With the exception of Oliver, Oprah, ABC and the SFT, nobody seems to care for the ADD riddled punk. Here are two news articles:

    –http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/arts/television/26oliver.html
    –http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article63611.ece

    The second article is particularly hilarious. It tells of parents showing up at the schools late morning to take lunch orders; after taking up to 60 orders, the parents leave, fill the orders and reappear at lunch time to deliver the contraband. Apparently, this is all done through fences and walls as the activity is forbidden.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »