How to stop the lunchbox police!

euronorris

beth464 wrote: »

I was a fussy eater as a child and my lunchbox would never have been allowed these days. My mum thought (rightly so) that it would be better for me to eat something rather than go all day without, especially as I have always been on the skinny side. There were never any "banned" foods in our household, we could eat what we liked. I used to find that my friends with the mothers who were really strict with their diets just ended up scoffing sweets and pop whenever they could get it (at friends houses etc) because it was not on offer at home. The same thing happened when we got to the age where we could drink - they went off the rails and rebelled. On the other hand, because I knew I could have it if I wanted it, I've grown up preferring fruit and veg and I'd much rather fill up on a big main meal than have pudding afterwards.
If I'd been at school now, I think I would have found lunchtimes quite hard and probably would have resorted to trying to hide the food I had and I bet it would make some kids quite anxious.
All in all I think it's a slippery slope to make kids feel that eating sweets or a pudding is something to be ashamed of. Food should be enjoyed in moderation. We'll just end up with a generation of kids who have been taught that sweets/chocolate are bad and as such will inevitably want them even more!

See, now I was the fussy eater as a child, and my Mum thought (wrongly so, IMO) that it was better for me to eat something rather than nothing. Most of the time that was crisps and chocolate.

However, as an adult, I have learnt to re-educate myself with regards to nutrition and now eat a much more varied diet. A lot of foods that I refused to eat as a child because "I don't like it Mummy", I know LOVE! So, I strongly believe that if my Mother had persevered and insisted I eat these foods as a child, then I would have, and I would have gotten over my fussiness pretty quickly when left with no other choice.

But she didn't. She did the best she could, I guess, with 5 of us and a limited budget. It was also wrongly assumed that as I was slim it was doing me no harm, but that wasn't true either. It effected my concentration, and lead to an adult battle with food that is still ongoing today (though much improved). And, as soon as I left school and the physcial activity went down, my weight shot up!

Nicki

Am I the only person who thinks it is no wonder a child is a fussy eater if they are always offered a junky treat in place of food, rather than let them go hungry. If I was offered the choice as a child between eating a chocolate roll and packet of crisps rather than a sandwich, I know which one I'd have chosen.

Are there really no healthy foods at all the picky eater will eat? Even if they will only eat one type of sandwich what is wrong with sending them to school with 2 sandwiches and a piece of fruit, so that if they are hungry and won't eat the healthy fruit, they can fill up on more of the sandwich. That will be better for their blood sugar levels, concentration, teeth and overall health than a sandwich and a chocolate bar or bag of crisps surely?

I am not one of those parents who bans sweets completely, but I do think it is absurd to give them every day of the week in a lunchbox, and maybe more than once a day if they get treats after school too, or pocket money spent on crisps. My older kids are allowed sweets twice a week, and the younger one much less often than that.

If a child is SO picky that they wont eat any healthy food, then that is a result of poor parenting and the child not being given sufficient exposure to a wide range of choices. I have a child with autism who is fussy about flavours and textures and won't eat lots of foods, but even she has never been allowed to subsist on crisps and sweets and eats fairly healthily albeit within a narrower range than I would ideally like.

mrcow

Nicki, I completely agree. My daughter is terribly picky.

It took her to age three for me to get her to eat even banana. It's still pretty much the only fruit she'll eat. She'll eat some vegetables, but not fruit.

So for her lunch, she gets sandwich (cheese and marg - won't eat any other filling unless it's sweet which i won't give in to), banana, yoghurt and orange juice. Every day. She doesn't get anything else as it would mean that she wouldn't eat the rest of her lunch.

If you cave in to a picky child then it's a green light for them to become even more picky. The problem is that she's stick thin and not eating makes her even more skinny so I have to be certain that she's going to eat something. Her lunch is boring I know but the alternative is that her eating habits could become even worse.

meritaten

I take the point of the two posts above - BUT - I had an incredibly faddy fussy child and two children who would literally eat anything which was put in front of them - so dont say MY childs faddyness was BAD parenting - you obviously know nothing about it! I found that inference insulting!
What was I supposed to send him with? an empty lunchbox? or one full of stuff he wouldnt eat - I tried the last and it came home still full with not one bite taken out of anything! and that wasnt a one off either!

mrcow

meritaten wrote: »

I take the point of the two posts above - BUT - I had an incredibly faddy fussy child and two children who would literally eat anything which was put in front of them - so dont say MY childs faddyness was BAD parenting - you obviously know nothing about it! I found that inference insulting!

As mine is one of the posts above yours I take it you're referring to me?

I wasn't making any inference about your parenting - I hadn't even read anything about your parenting tbh let alone have the inclination to start "insulting" you. Not sure where you're getting that from?

I have three children too - two of which will eat practically anything. The third, sadly is not like this and i doubt she ever will be which is why I posted.

Teerah

I dont get the "my child wont drink water" that I always hear either. Why would a child not drink the one main drink that their body is designed to drink, one of the most important substances that the body needs? They are introduced to juice at a much too early age imo and of course a lot of children will drink juice over water, let it go on long enough and they will refuse water altogether.

I understand the argument that school dinners provide a "sweet" dessert but does that mean two wrongs make a right? Should the 'campaign' not be focussed on removing this from being a daily occurrence on the school dinner menu rather than focussing on being allowed to put whatever you want in your child's lunch-box? I am astonished at some of the thoughts on this thread! Moderation by all means is the key but I don't believe that providing a cake or sweet treat in a lunch-box on a daily basis is either moderation or a treat, that makes it expected and routine. My son takes a packed-lunch everyday to school and has a sandwich, some fruit, a yoghurt and a bottle of water.

Finally, sometimes government interference is required because no matter how much info is out there, the message is not always heeded and if we are talking about starting our kids out on the right path on life then it is important enough to warrant such interference imo.

meritaten

mrcow wrote: »

As mine is one of the posts above yours I take it you're referring to me?

I wasn't making any inference about your parenting - I hadn't even read anything about your parenting tbh let alone have the inclination to start "insulting" you. Not sure where you're getting that from?

I have three children too - two of which will eat practically anything. The third, sadly is not like this and i doubt she ever will be which is why I posted.

NO - I was referring to Nicki - and if you read back Nicki did actually say the words 'Bad Parenting'! and YOU agreed with Nicki 100%!
so I included you as one of the posters - If I read your post wrongly then I apologise.

if you havent read anything about my parenting (ie school packed lunch) then you havent read the whole thread as I refer to it several times.

I dont think parents should be JUDGED on what they send in thier kids lunchboxes! Some parents would LOVE thier kids to eat anything and everything - unfortunately the kids wont always co-operate, and for ONE meal a day a parent who sends junk should not be judged as a 'Bad Parent'!
Believe me - I've shed tears over my son returning my lovingly packed 'healthy' lunchbox with not a bite taken out of it! I tried everything I could think of to provide a good balanced meal - none of it worked!
My youngest was dairy allergic and had allergies to colourings and flavourings - I HAD to learn about nutrition and dietary requirements - fortunately youngest was the one with the appetite of a starving bear! DS1 wasnt interested in food and would only eat a very limited range of foods - NONE of which were suitable for lunchboxes! as he didnt like cold food! and wouldnt take a flask like DS2!!!
So? should I send him to school with NOTHING to eat? at least he had some not very desirable food - NONE of which he was allowed at home or on the weekends!
DS1 would eat cooked dinners, but not at school as the dinner ladies 'breathed' on it! that is how faddy the little so-and-so was! he wouldnt use any other knife and fork except his own! his own dad wasnt allowed to make his food! only me!
To me, while my kids were growing up - food was a nightmare! DD would happily eat me out of house and home, DS1 would only eat certain meals prepared by ME, DS2 would eat anything - but COULDNT because of his allergies!

Schools issue arbitrary rules on lunchboxes - but for parents its not easy if your child isnt one of the 'eat anything' type! sometimes compromises HAVE to be made if your child isnt going to go without or literally starve themselves!
its easy to be smug if your child will happily eat a sandwich, yoghurt piece of fruit - when they wont - its HELL!

Nicki

If you read my post meritaten, you will see that I said that one of my children has severe autism and has a very limited range of foods she will eat. However that is not an excuse to feed her chocolate and crisps (both of which surprisingly she will eat) for her meals, rather than something more nutritious from the limited range she will eat.

I am sorry I do think it is bad parenting to fill your kid with crap. If the only nutritious thing your child will eat is a plain ham sandwich, then by all means send them to school with as much of that as will meet their appetite. Or find something with some nutritional value which meets their faddiness, even if it is unconventional or not perfect, eg peanut butter on celery. But to send a child in with chocolate and crisps for their meal is worse for them than sending them with nothing at all in my view. At least a hungry child, just might out of sheer desperation, try something with some vitamins and minerals in it if offered. A child stuffed with sugar and fat will not, will derive no nutritional benefits either, and is also ironically likely to be starving hungry by hometime again anyway due to peak and trough of insulin which the sugar rush will cause, more so than if they had eaten nothing at all at lunchtime.

A child who is faddy, and will ONLY eat sweets and crisps, became that way because the parent introduced sweets and crisps into their diet before a sufficiently wide range of foods were tolerated. And given that it took many years to expand my own child's diet to an acceptable level, I do know and understand how difficult this can be, but it would have been irresponsible to give up the attempt and settle for junk, and had I done so, she would definitely not eat as many things as she now does.

gingin_2

meritaten wrote: »

To me, while my kids were growing up - food was a nightmare!

its easy to be smug if your child will happily eat a sandwich, yoghurt piece of fruit - when they wont - its HELL!

As you are talking in the past tense, I am assuming they are older - did they get less fussy?

Ds is making tomato pasta sauce in food tech on friday and asked if he could make it minus the tomatoes and onions!

Ames

rozeepozee wrote: »

That's outrageous - are they allowed to do that? Even when you click on the "nutritional information" tab, it only details the carbohydrates and doesn't break down which part of that is sugar, although, with 17% rainsins before you evne add in what inverted sugar they've used, it's likely to be fairlyhigh I suspect.

From the packet (per 100g/per 1/8 loaf serving)

Energy 310k/87k
Protein 7.3g/2.1g
Carbs 66.3g/18.6g
of which sugars 17.4g/4.9g
Fat 1.7g/0.5g
of which saturates 0.5g/0.1g
Fibre 3.6g/1.0g
Sodium 0.28g/0.08g
Salt 0.72g 0.20g.

I'm not an expert or a parent, but I don't think that looks too bad, especially for a kid who'll run around after lunch and burn it off.