Thread: This burns my bacon! More nanny state bureaucratic nonesense.

Im curious..even though I'm not one, how would this apply to a vegetarian or vegan family...can they force or "supplement" the child meat and dairy?

All I can say is, "Thank God she didn't get caught with a bag of Skittles or a Jelly Donut !"

Originally Posted by Catrentshaving

Im curious..even though I'm not one, how would this apply to a vegetarian or vegan family...can they force or "supplement" the child meat and dairy?

No, the requirement is for protein, so beans or peanut butter would suffice. As for dairy, they can give the child dairy, like milk or cheese, but they can't force the kid to eat it. It's a bad idea to restrict a child's diet to pure vegan anyway. They need the calcium and magnesium and the unique proteins and sugars in milk and cheeses.

I get the feeling that people who think this is some sort of government overreach think that school lunch ladies can force kids to eat, like part of their standard equipment is a funnel and a broomstick, or keep kids from eating the stuff they've brought. They can't. They can't keep the kids from eating their pudding or brownie that comes with the school lunch first, or eating the candy bars and soda they bring from home. They can't stand over them to make sure they've eaten all their green beans or carrots before they turn in their tray. All they can do is present alternatives and/or supplements. It's on the kid, and ultimately the parents, to make sure they actually eat a well-balanced and nutritious meal, instead of just buying one or bringing one, picking through it for the tasty bits, and throwing the rest away.

The only thing this regulation says is that school nutritionists have to offer a supplement if the lunch brought from home doesn't meet USDA recommendations. It doesn't say the kid has to eat a USDA recommended diet, and it doesn't require parents to pack lunches that meet USDA recommendations. If they pack a lunch that doesn't, they may have to pay for the supplement that's offered by the nutritionist. The whole lunch, in this case, cost $1.25, so it's not like it's a huge, motivating penalty. They could choose to have the kid eat the school lunch instead, or pack a lunch that meets the USDA recommendations. The lunch, in this case, apparently did meet the recommendations, but the supplement was offered anyway. This, apparently, offended the mother who saw it as an insult to her lunch-packing abilities, and who was upset at the result that her kid only ate three chicken nuggets for lunch.

Instead, I suspect the kid whined and moaned so much about the lunch her mom packed her, especially when she saw that the class was having chicken nuggets for lunch, that she wore down the nutritionist (probably her teacher) into giving her a school lunch. Then, when she got home and her mom was upset that she didn't eat the lunch she packed for her and learns that she only ate three chicken nuggets for which her mom now has to pay $1.25, she turns it around on the nutritionist claiming she made her eat the school lunch instead. Nobody in the school can make the kid eat or not eat anything, not according to the law and various regulations about nutrition in schools. The simple fact is, this kid chose not to eat the lunch her mom packed for her, and she chose to only eat three chicken nuggets off the school lunch tray. The school's not responsible for the kid's bad eating choices learned and reinforced from mom, all they can do is offer options for eating better.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

This sounds to me like a bad kid that uses food to manipulate the adults in her life.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I suspect the kid whined and moaned so much about the lunch her mom packed her, especially when she saw that the class was having chicken nuggets for lunch, that she wore down the nutritionist (probably her teacher) into giving her a school lunch.

I missed anything in the story suggesting that was the case.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

No, the requirement is for protein, so beans or peanut butter would suffice. As for dairy, they can give the child dairy, like milk or cheese, but they can't force the kid to eat it. It's a bad idea to restrict a child's diet to pure vegan anyway. They need the calcium and magnesium and the unique proteins and sugars in milk and cheeses.

I don't know about the U.S. but I'm not allowed to send my kids to school with peanut butter and have actually had a soy butter sandwich taken away from my son at school even though he told the teacher it was soy and not peanut butter. My ex wife was a vegetarian and even a raw foodist for a period and you can get all the nutritional requirements you need without meat or dairy. From what was stated in that article there was nothing missing from that childs lunch and it sounds very similar to the lunch I send to school everyday. As a parent I would be upset as well if my child was provided a lunch without my consent.

I don't think he's that easily manipulated, lol

Originally Posted by HNSB

Apparently if I post here, hoglahoo will thank it.

If the school took away anything you packed your kid for lunch, then they vastly overstepped their authority, at least in the U.S. I'm surprised Canada would allow school officials to have that much authority over their student's lunches as to allow them to confiscate food or drink they deem unsuitable. It's certainly not the case in the U.S.

HNSB, I presume you've met school-age kids before. They lie whenever they think they can get away with it, and often even when they can't, and take every advantage they can find. I know several kids who are in grade school to middle-school, and a couple who are about to begin pre-school, and I remember from my own time at school that kids who regularly brought lunch from home would throw that lunch away or hide it and claim they hadn't brought any when it was pizza day or chicken nugget day for school lunch. Complaints about the packed lunches and trading between students for the stuff they brought or the stuff that was on the menu was and is also common. Put yourself in the shoes of a 4 or 5 year old, who's mom packed you a plain old turkey sandwich for lunch, when you learn that chicken nuggets are on the menu for the school lunch. Every 4 or 5 year old I know would do anything they could to get those chicken nuggets instead of having to eat that sandwich, including lying, whining and generally making a big pain of themselves if that's what it takes. Now, imagine how mad your mom would be when she learns you didn't eat the sandwich she made for you, and instead ate a couple of chicken nuggets off the school lunch which she now has to pay for. Would you tell her that you made an ass out of yourself until they gave you the chicken nuggets you wanted, or would you tell her the school lunch lady made you eat them instead?

Which is the more likely explanation here? That a pre-school age kid really wanted to eat her turkey sandwich and banana, but the school nutritionist made her eat chicken nuggets instead, or that a pre-school age kid who has a turkey sandwich from home sees chicken nuggets on the menu and makes enough of a fuss that the nutritionist just gives her a school lunch and sends the kid home with a bill for $1.25 and a form letter about school lunch supplements, and when the mom gets mad the kid blames the school nutritionist?

[QUOTE=If they pack a lunch that doesn't, they may have to pay for the supplement that's offered by the nutritionist. The whole lunch, in this case, cost $1.25, so it's not like it's a huge, motivating penalty. They could choose to have the kid eat the school lunch instead, or pack a lunch that meets the USDA recommendations. The lunch, in this case, apparently did meet the recommendations, but the supplement was offered anyway. [/QUOTE]

First, I don't think I'd pay for something that I did not consent to prior to them giving it to my child, and I don't see how they legally can make me. And no, it's not a huge amount of money, but it opens the door to fines. What if the kid had some sort of allergy?

Second, the parents already chose what they wanted their kid to eat. They sent a lunch with her.

First, I don't believe everything the media puts forth, however, I was with you until thiis:

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

.

This sounds to me like a bad kid that uses food to manipulate the adults in her life. The only way the school nutritionist is gonna think to supplement a packed school lunch like that is if the kid is complaining about it, so to shut the kid up from whining about how dry the turkey sandwich is and how yucky bananas are, she gives her a school lunch. So when she gets home and her mom asks her what she ate and why she didn't eat her packed lunch, she tells her mom that the school lunch lady made her take a school lunch and she only ate three nuggets off it. Instead of getting mad at the kid for not eating her banana or the vegetables on the school lunch tray, the mom gets mad at the school lunch lady for daring to offer more food to her kid than what she packed in her lunch. Sounds like another one of those parents who's kid can do no wrong.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Instead, I suspect the kid whined and moaned so much about the lunch her mom packed her, especially when she saw that the class was having chicken nuggets for lunch, that she wore down the nutritionist (probably her teacher) into giving her a school lunch. Then, when she got home and her mom was upset that she didn't eat the lunch she packed for her and learns that she only ate three chicken nuggets for which her mom now has to pay $1.25, she turns it around on the nutritionist claiming she made her eat the school lunch instead. Nobody in the school can make the kid eat or not eat anything, not according to the law and various regulations about nutrition in schools. The simple fact is, this kid chose not to eat the lunch her mom packed for her, and she chose to only eat three chicken nuggets off the school lunch tray. The school's not responsible for the kid's bad eating choices learned and reinforced from mom, all they can do is offer options for eating better.

If the child has such bad eating habits as you suggest and uses food to manipulate the adults in her life, then the Mom would be probably taking her child to Starbucks for breakfast and sending her to school with a "Lunchable" that contains more sodium then I probably eat in a week. And since when is a turkey sandwich with cheese, a banana, apple juice, and some potato chips an example of bad eating choices reinforced by mom? Sounds pretty healthy to me. Deep fried chicken nuggets from a state funded school-yah that's a much better and healthier alternative. Welcome to Fat America.

I don't know why I am surprised, I just spent 30 minutes looking for this story on CNN, ABC, and CBS. I'm not saying it's not there, but if it is, it's damned hard to find.

Fox is the only one that keeps and eye on the government for us.