School stopping my child eating chocolate

fengirl_2

On a similar topic: some years ago a local primary school encouraged children to bring in an apple to eat at playtime. One child who didnt like apples brought in a banana and was barred from eating it in case the skin tripped someone up (nothing said about discarded cores). The child's prents were rightly miffed and the issue ended up in the local paper.

iamana1ias

Ivory_Tinkler wrote: »

Playstation generation or not, school dinner ladies and teachers are not qualified to root around in lunchboxes deciding what can and can't be eaten, particularly as it is the responsibility of a parent to feed their child. I am certainly not against healthy eating, in fact I encourage it and my kids actually prefer a home cooked meal to a macdonalds meal. What I object to is someone else taking away parental responsibility and choice.

Not all children are brats you know, most of them are quite nice with perfectly good manners and respect. It's a pity that you take that view.

I work in education . The number of brats is rising. What a child eats will affect their behaviour and learning. All very well for high and mighty parents to demand their 'rights' to feed their kids junk, but it's not them who have to deal with the consequences, is it?

Lifeisbutadream

Alikay wrote: »

I'm amazed that a simple request from a school for no sweets or chocolate in lunchboxes can have people thinking it's an infringement of their civil liberties or teachers attempting to control pupils nutrition or undermine parents! As a cub leader we also ban chocolates and sweets from camps. Why? Not to force our superior views on nutrition on parents, but...

1. Kids who've been snacking on sweets won't eat meals, so we have them whingeing that they're hungry an hour after dinner when all's been cleared away (no fridges/microwaves to save and zap leftovers on camp!)
2. Sweets get lost or stolen. We have to spend time sorting it out
3. Ants like sweets. Ants, tents and kids are not a good combo.
4. Melted chocolate all over someone's sleeping bag and rucksac is a major hassle
5. Haribo or Starburst sick is very sticky and a nightmare to get out of minibus upholstery

Are you absolutely sure schools want to take control away from parents, or might it just make life simpler in a variety of ways to ask that chocolate is held back just a couple of hours or so until home-time?

I'm pretty amazed that some people feel this urgent need to back up these 'rules'

I can understand that you need rules in place as a cub leader, but are you absolutely sure that part of it isn't just a 'tiny' bit of 'being more superior' than all these parents who obviously know nothing about parenting??

1. Why not just ban snacking between meals full stop? that works in my house.
2. Anything could be lost or stolen - not just sweets (perhaps the ones who are deprived of treats are desperate for a fix?)
3. Ants like all food - maybe the kids should learn to clear up after themselves?
4. Isnt that for the parents to sort out after camp? couldnt that be a learning curve for kids who eat in bed - (eat in bed - sleep in your own mess)
5. Any sick is pretty gross - part of looking after kids surely?

As I said before I am not condoning kids eating sweets and chocolate bars all the time and my kids eat healthy, but are allowed the odd treat - I dont believe that kids should be taught that food it 'bad', but they should be taught anything in moderation is OK.

Lifeisbutadream

iamana1ias wrote: »

I work in education . The number of brats is rising. What a child eats will affect their behaviour and learning. All very well for high and mighty parents to demand their 'rights' to feed their kids junk, but it's not them who have to deal with the consequences, is it?

You dont think that could be anything to do with the amount of additives in the 'sugar free' options??

Nobody is demanding 'rights' to feed their kids junk - well I certainly aren't anyway - but I would be pretty miffed if my kids were being taught that a sugar free plain cake is better for you than a homemade chocolate bun. Or that sugar free squash is better than the full sugar version.

As I said, if they get it right then I would agree with it. Its when they get it very very wrong that I dont.

iamana1ias

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

You dont think that could be anything to do with the amount of additives in the 'sugar free' options??

Nobody is demanding 'rights' to feed their kids junk - well I certainly aren't anyway - but I would be pretty miffed if my kids were being taught that a sugar free plain cake is better for you than a homemade chocolate bun. Or that sugar free squash is better than the full sugar version.

As I said, if they get it right then I would agree with it. Its when they get it very very wrong that I dont.

I wouldn't be describing any kind of squash, cake, flapjack, sweet as healthy, sugar free or not. Sugar affects kids just as much as artificial sweeteners etc in my experience. I'm not against treats, but they don't need to be a) everyday, b) sweet or c) given during school!

JasonLVC

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

I think that you are getting yourself on your high horse because you think that everyone wants to stuff their children with crap.

As I said before, unless they actually know what they are doing (i.e. are a dietition or nutricionalist (sp) then I would not be happy for anyone to dictate what my child can or cannot eat.

No high horse Lifeisbutadream - you perhaps underestimate the level of child obesity in this country and the fact that apart from yourself and a select few, many parents don't give a stuff what their kids eat just as long as they are quiet/out of the way.

A number of studies have shown there is a direct correlation between child behaviour and the foods they consume. Similar studies also show a link between attention spans, ability to learn and food consumed.

Being pedantic, you also post that unless they are a dietician then you are not happy for anyone to advise on your childs food. Are you a dietician?. What makes you an expert in the field?.

It's a rhetorical question, I'm not questionning your skill set at all, the question is just to highlight that 'we' as parents think we know best (and we usually do!) and yet we still rely on a raft of expertise to help us - be that support groups, mid-wives, PTA's, reading up stuff on 'tinternet, etc.

It's tough being a parent - my DD isn't allowed fizzy drinks at all and we give her sugar based drinks such as Ribena as the sugar free stuff has too many chemicals in....so we have to choose between sugar rotten teeth or cancerous chemicals - netiher of which are desirable.!

Lifeisbutadream

iamana1ias wrote: »

I wouldn't be describing any kind of squash, cake, flapjack, sweet as healthy, sugar free or not. Sugar affects kids just as much as artificial sweeteners etc in my experience. I'm not against treats, but they don't need to be a) everyday, b) sweet or c) given during school!

Unrefined sugar does not effect my children at all - sweeteners and too much refined sugars do, but natural foods (i.e. like we were given to us in the homemade school dinners in the 70's and 80's) should not affect behaviour.

If a child has behavioural issues at school then that should be taken up with the parents - they are closing the door after it has bolted by 'controlling' the food during school. The Coco Pops they had for breakfast should send them doo-lally until lunchtime anyway.

My point is that where are the qualifications of these people who are dictating these 'rules'? where did they learn about nutrition??? because I have been learning about it for 10 years - within my role as a mother - so IMO I am better qualified than them at planning what to put in my own childrens lunches.

Alikay

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

I can understand that you need rules in place as a cub leader, but are you absolutely sure that part of it isn't just a 'tiny' bit of 'being more superior' than all these parents who obviously know nothing about parenting??

Absolutely sure, thanks.
I can and sometimes do take the moral high-ground on a variety of topics , but something as simple as whether to allow chocolate in lunchboxes (or on camp) is surely more of a practical issue? It makes life simpler to say no and ask the parents to keep the Kit-Kats for at home and I can't see any negatives to that for most normal healthy kids.

Lifeisbutadream

JasonLVC wrote: »

No high horse Lifeisbutadream - you perhaps underestimate the level of child obesity in this country and the fact that apart from yourself and a select few, many parents don't give a stuff what their kids eat just as long as they are quiet/out of the way.

I agree - but IMO the right way to go about it is education (from someone qualified - not a dinner lady) - I have said many times the government should be setting up classes across the country to teach people the basics of cooking - I would happily see my taxes paying for that. We could bring the benefits down as a direct result when the parents learnt to budget, rather than buy waffles and frozen meals.

A number of studies have shown there is a direct correlation between child behaviour and the foods they consume. Similar studies also show a link between attention spans, ability to learn and food consumed.

I completely agree with this - that was part of my point - some people seem to think that 'sugar free' or low fat is better, when in fact it is actually worse to feed a child loads of chemicals than to give them something made with sugar (unrefined especially) - I would be very concerned if someone who thought along these lines was removing things from my childs packed lunch.

Being pedantic, you also post that unless they are a dietician then you are not happy for anyone to advise on your childs food. Are you a dietician?. What makes you an expert in the field?.

Just being a mother for 10 years - I know what my children need and I know what affects their behaviour - I also know what foods they have had throughout the week and how balanced their diets are. I am certainly more of an expert on my own children's diet than a dinner lady or teacher.

It's a rhetorical question, I'm not questionning your skill set at all, the question is just to highlight that 'we' as parents think we know best (and we usually do!) and yet we still rely on a raft of expertise to help us - be that support groups, mid-wives, PTA's, reading up stuff on 'tinternet, etc.

Of course we rely on experts to help us. But I dont believe that removing things from childrens lunches is the answer. An overall government initiative to get everyone thinking healthy would be a start, plus classes at school (from Reception) in cooking and healthy eating. Children love being involved - mine often make their own pack ups - dictating to parents is extremely patronising and whilst I agree cans of pop and bars of chocolate are not great for packed lunches at school, there are other ways to go around it than the ways that some schools seem to be.

It's tough being a parent - my DD isn't allowed fizzy drinks at all and we give her sugar based drinks such as Ribena as the sugar free stuff has too many chemicals in....so we have to choose between sugar rotten teeth or cancerous chemicals - netiher of which are desirable.!

Yes it is tough - we all make our own decisions on bringing up our own families. Education is key and if parents have access to advice then they and only they can make the decisions on what they do with it.

The problem with obesity is huge (excuse the pun ) and yes something needs to be done, but IMO removing food from children makes is even more desirable to them.

SallyForth_2

It does look like the biggest objections are coming from the parents who do provide their children with a balanced packed lunch, and frankly included a kit-kat or cake as part of that is perfectly fine. However, until those parents who pack "chocolate spread sandwhich, packet of crisps, yoghurt and chocolate bar" as a typical lunch cease, these annoying rules will continue.

I don't buy the "but the children having school dinners get sweets" arguement. They are having their main meal, and the idea is they would have a sandwich in the evening. The children who have the sandwich lunch time, would have their dinner in the evening followed by dessert.

Whether or not parents are following this principal, I wouldn't know, but there you go.