school lunch rip off

nadnad

tinkerbell84 wrote: »

why the assumption on this thread that homemade (cakes/biscuits etc) = healthy??

just wondering

because they generally are. as mentioned above they have none of the additives etc in them and you can alter normal recipes to be healthier. For example i have made home made rusks for my little man (he's only a baby yet) because they have nowhere near the sugar content of shop bought ones. And if you home bake something at least you know EXACTLY whats going into it.

PolishBigSpender

tinkerbell84 wrote: »

I think it is when the little 'darlings' can't concentrate/behave in class due to all the crap they're eating!

Ah, so they're using the school lunch issue to cover up the fact that the teachers can't cope. Quite usual, rather than change the system, they blame something that could be entirely unrelated.

It could be interesting to get hold of one of their 'hot' lunches and scientifically analyse it to discover just how many additives/E-numbers/etc are inside. Something tells me that there's likely to be far more inside the school-provided food than in the home provided food in many cases.

Aspiring

tinkerbell84 wrote: »

why the assumption on this thread that homemade (cakes/biscuits etc) = healthy??

just wondering

Possibly because store bought products used to contain a lot of hydrogenated fats and transfats not to mention other ingredients to prolong their shelf life, E numbers and colourants. It also acts on the assumption that homebaking has less of these - despite the fact some homebaking would also have included transfats from the margarines purchased!

Another aspect is the satiation value - as an example, try a slice of cake from a packet (light and airy indeed ) then a slice of homemade cake and the satiation value would be more obvious.

Personally, I feel that packed lunches (to a degree) are far more UNhealthy than the person at home assumes.

A typical lunchbox for my children's peer would be:-

Processed meat sandwich (high in fat and sodium)
Yogurt/Frube (potentially high in fat and sugar or sugar substitute)
Cheese strings (processed cheese) (high in fat and salt)
Packet of crisps (high in fat and salt)
Small chocolate bar (ie: Penguin/Blue Riband type)
Carton of fruit juice (made from concentrates and high in sugar alternatives)

In contrast, my children would take:-

Roll (HM bread dough) filled with HM cooked meat and salad
2 x pieces of fruit (to allow for break-time munchies)
An oaty HM flapjack or equivalent
Bottle of water

OR:-
Flash of soup (Homemade)

OR:-
pasta salad
Rice salad
Couscous salad

With:-
fresh fruit (or HM yogurt with fruit puree - depending on season)
Bottle of water

One of the aspects of packed lunches, which I find quite amusing really, is the quantity of food put into a lunchbox - like the child will be away on a picnic! It begs the question, do you serious feed your child that amount of food for lunch when you're at home? Lunchtime at home during holidays and weekends is simply a sandwich/roll/pasta salad + fruit. Why is it assumed they need a picnic for a lunchbreak?

If people feel their primary school child should need a picnic, then perhaps there does need to be a degree of education in portion control? Not to "Police" lunchboxes, but purely from the obesity aspect.

There was a very interesting documentary on the TV a few weeks back about a Professor (from a Yorkshire Uni, I think) who dealt with childhood obesity. The focus of this programme was on under 10's and their diet - predominantly it was based on portion control. An obviously overweight 5/6yr old was eating the same portion sizes as their parent. Why? Because the parents were convinced the child needed that degree of food, they loved their child, they tended to pander to the child's preferences and couldn't understand that any level of food lower than that would be enough to satisfy their child's needs. What they hadn't taken into account was the simple fact they were overfeeding their children and it was having an effect, not only on their weight, but also on their behaviour patterns and their self esteem.

Teenagers are a law unto themselves when it comes to food/quantity :rotfl: An expression my own mother used to describe my teenage brothers was "born with hollow legs" But, that doesn't have to mean a glut of unhealthy foods (ie junk foods). Simply, their bodies were growing in fits and bursts and they needed a higher calorie intake to equal their needs. A meal for a family of 4 really does mean a meal for one teen in a growth spurt:rotfl:


If a child - of any age - is still feeling peckish (sorry, but "starving" is an over used description for peckish! Let's be honest, few children are literally "starving") first give them a huge glug of water (to distinguish between genuine hunger and dehydration), then give them something with a high fibre content!!

tinkerbell84

Aspiring wrote: »

There was a very interesting documentary on the TV a few weeks back about a Professor (from a Yorkshire Uni, I think) who dealt with childhood obesity. The focus of this programme was on under 10's and their diet - predominantly it was based on portion control. An obviously overweight 5/6yr old was eating the same portion sizes as their parent. Why? Because the parents were convinced the child needed that degree of food, they loved their child, they tended to pander to the child's preferences and couldn't understand that any level of food lower than that would be enough to satisfy their child's needs. What they hadn't taken into account was the simple fact they were overfeeding their children and it was having an effect, not only on their weight, but also on their behaviour patterns and their self esteem.

I completely agree, and have said (several times) on this site that the "clear your plate" culture that parents adopt only serves to teach children to ignore their body's "i'm full" sensors.

when i first started looking after my godchildren i had no idea how much food to give them, and let them guide me as to how much until they were full. it was far far less than i would have dished them up.

Aspiring

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

Ah, so they're using the school lunch issue to cover up the fact that the teachers can't cope. Quite usual, rather than change the system, they blame something that could be entirely unrelated.

It could be interesting to get hold of one of their 'hot' lunches and scientifically analyse it to discover just how many additives/E-numbers/etc are inside. Something tells me that there's likely to be far more inside the school-provided food than in the home provided food in many cases.

To be fair, it is well documented that certain chemicals in foods (especially those deemed "junk foods") have a direct correlation to behavioural patterns.

It is not as simple as stating "teachers can't cope" - teachers "cope" with a HUGE amount of issues/health problems/diversity issues/academic issues.

"Cover up" it is not and I do feel by stating such is detrimental to the good, honest, hard work that teachers put into their day - day in, day out!

jayII

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

Ah, so they're using the school lunch issue to cover up the fact that the teachers can't cope. Quite usual, rather than change the system, they blame something that could be entirely unrelated.

It could be interesting to get hold of one of their 'hot' lunches and scientifically analyse it to discover just how many additives/E-numbers/etc are inside. Something tells me that there's likely to be far more inside the school-provided food than in the home provided food in many cases.

Nope, IIRC there are restrictions on the 'junk' that can be put into school meals. In any case most additives are in sweets, takeaways, and in the tiny portions of expensive 'snack foods' specially designed to catch childrens and parents eyes in the supermarket. Caterers of school meals have neither the budget or inclination to use such junk. Though some of the 'value' foods aren't great, retailers have no great interest in 'pepping' them up to attract shoppers' attention.

PolishBigSpender

tinkerbell84 wrote: »

I completely agree, and have said (several times) on this site that the "clear your plate" culture that parents adopt only serves to teach children to ignore their body's "i'm full" sensors.

It's a dreadful attitude, and one that I've never encountered in Poland, but it seems to be a great insult in the UK to many people if you don't clear the plate.

I recall reading on here about one school where children couldn't play unless they finished everything. Surely this is just encouraging fat children?

I wonder where the 'clear your plate' culture came from in the first place?

PolishBigSpender

jayII wrote: »

Nope, IIRC there are restrictions on the 'junk' that can be put into school meals. In any case most additives are in sweets, takeaways, and in the tiny portions of expensive 'snack foods' specially designed to catch childrens and parents eyes in the supermarket. Caterers of school meals have neither the budget or inclination to use such junk. Though some of the 'value' foods aren't great, retailers have no great interest in 'pepping' them up to attract shoppers' attention.

This is what interests me - although there might be restrictions, given the mentions of tight budgets on this thread - are they really enforced? Who is policing what is used in schools?

Incidentally, in schools - are these meals prepared from fresh or frozen?

tinkerbell84

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

It's a dreadful attitude, and one that I've never encountered in Poland, but it seems to be a great insult in the UK to many people if you don't clear the plate.

I recall reading on here about one school where children couldn't play unless they finished everything. Surely this is just encouraging fat children?

I wonder where the 'clear your plate' culture came from in the first place?

i expect it harks back to the war, when rations were scarse and waste was not tolerated. of course, the amount of food was far less, so clearing your plate would not have resulted in overeating.

that trend seems to have continued when food became abundant and people had less time to prepare fresh food.............. and obesity levels rocketed.

coincidence?

tinkerbell84

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

This is what interests me - although there might be restrictions, given the mentions of tight budgets on this thread - are they really enforced? Who is policing what is used in schools?

Incidentally, in schools - are these meals prepared from fresh or frozen?

it comes from school budgets, which are extremely tight.

if they want to spend more on food, they have to have fewer teachers, or books or whatever. but with legal limits on teaching ratios etc, it's the food budget that suffers