Chicago school bans homemade lunches, the latest in national food fight

[gaelic cowboy]

That's not entirely true

We still eat more than ever before

I wasn't disputing that the amounts of fat, sugar and salt we eat are large I merely pointed out the fact fatty food was never really expensive in times goneby.


To be honest I think they should force every kid to eat the school dinner and it should be mandated to have X amount of fruit, veg etc etc even here in Ireland I more and more hear of people especially young women not eating properly in the morning.

[Shibumi]

I've been making my kids' school lunches for years. And health wise they are better than what the school offers. And if they said I couldn't send them to school with a homemade lunch - I wouldn't send them to school.

That idiot law won't stand, it can't. It's not only un-American, it's un-everything.

That almost came out as if it was a bad thing.

You have an obesity problem.
You have the chance to make sure kids gets one healthy meal a day.

Do I need to play dot to dot here?

As to the argument of "but I can supply my kids with healthier meals" - sure. You can also make sure the school meal is healthy.

As to the argument of "Kids are not where obesity is a problem" - laughable. Kids metabolism is grand, and they can soak up a lot of junk. However, normalizing having a healthy lunch (warm food, salad on the side and so on) will do them loads of good later on. Normalizing eating stuff out of a bag for lunch might prove detrimental later.

In Sweden every kid in school eat the school lunch. We usually have one fish dish, one meat dish, one veggie dish - along with a salad buffet. Paid for by the state (if you have a state unwilling to make sure kids gets good and healthy food, you might want to reconsider your stance on taxes and what the states responsibility is).

Is that unamerican - very much so. Is obesity as big of a problem over here - not really. Worth considering, no?

[ReluctantSamurai]

I would be very interested in seeing how this school treats other aspects of their students existence. Sustenance for the body is only 1/3 of the program. What do they do for students spiritual (note: I am not referring to religion) and mental well-being?

If they have no programs designed to educate students as to what actually constitures a healthy diet, and why eating such a diet is better in the long run, then this law will be counter-productive. What sort of physical education programs are offered? Yoga? Tai-Chi? Other programs that combine physical fitness with mental and spiritual well-being or help with self-esteem?

If nothing else specifically designed to further the well-being of the whole child is offered at this school, then I see it as a ploy to make more money off of their students...as has already been mentioned.

Obesity is not simply a result of poor eating. It is merely a symptom of a general overall malaise that encompasses ones entire being. Treating symptoms without getting to the root cause will not have much success, in the long run.

[Subotan]

Obesity is not simply a result of poor eating.

Obesity is primarily a problem of diet though, especially in children.

Treating symptoms without getting to the root cause will not have much success, in the long run.

...The root causes are a combination of poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle.

[Beirut]

That almost came out as if it was a bad thing.

You have an obesity problem.
You have the chance to make sure kids gets one healthy meal a day.

Do I need to play dot to dot here?

As to the argument of "but I can supply my kids with healthier meals" - sure. You can also make sure the school meal is healthy.

I guess it comes down to what level of state authority over their children the parents are willing to accept. The food isn't the problem; being told you have to eat the food is.

It also depends on what kind of a school it is. If it is a private school, then things are often done under stricter guidelines that the parents have to accept before they can enroll their kids. But at a public school, if the parents have not agreed to give that level of authority to the school, then there is a problem.

As to the argument of "Kids are not where obesity is a problem" - laughable. Kids metabolism is grand, and they can soak up a lot of junk. However, normalizing having a healthy lunch (warm food, salad on the side and so on) will do them loads of good later on. Normalizing eating stuff out of a bag for lunch might prove detrimental later.

In Sweden every kid in school eat the school lunch. We usually have one fish dish, one meat dish, one veggie dish - along with a salad buffet. Paid for by the state (if you have a state unwilling to make sure kids gets good and healthy food, you might want to reconsider your stance on taxes and what the states responsibility is).

Is that unamerican - very much so. Is obesity as big of a problem over here - not really. Worth considering, no?

A school is for education. So, let the schools educate the kids on what constitutes good food. Spend a half-hour a day on healthy living. That would be great. More gym classes, that would be great, too. And if the school wants to offer the lunches and encourage the kids to eat school lunches with different kinds of incentives, great again. But to turn the issue into just more more level of the state saying "do as I say or be punished", is not a good thing unless arrived at through clear deliberation involving all the parties affected.

My guess is that this decision was arrived at by a select few seeking to impose their idea of a common good upon people who have no choice in the matter.

[Scienter]

Louis, that French school menu looks like a Michelin star meal compared to what I ate in school! Maybe it's just the way it's formatted. The only cheese we ever got was American "cheese."

[Louis VI the Fat]

here is what I was served

and back in my day it cst 1.50

http://www.neisd.net/foodserv/pdf/ElemMenuApr2011.pdf

I <3 pizza thrusday

Pizza! Yummie! That menu looks good.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

that French school menu looks like a Michelin star meal compared to what I ate in school! Maybe it's just the way it's formatted. The only cheese we ever got was American "cheese."

You must teach children to appreciate cheese! How else will they understand the fine things in life if not taught at a young age?


Cheese lesson at school, nothing fancy or elaborate, just a few simple selections for the youngest students:

[Crazed Rabbit]

School lunches are why I ate homemade PB&J for a majority of my school meals for over a decade.

Given how horrible our government is at determining what food is healthy, it's no safe bet that a "healthy" school lunch is actually healthy. Just get rid of the soda and candy machines.

In brief, I agree with ACIN and Beirut. Also, I must further admire Beirut's plan with the note.

Louis - please tell me that picture is of some rare occurrence where some millionaire paid to have a cheese tasting sampled for those kids or something.

CR

[Ice]

School lunches are why I ate homemade PB&J for a majority of my school meals for over a decade.

Given how horrible our government is at determining what food is healthy, it's no safe bet that a "healthy" school lunch is actually healthy. Just get rid of the soda and candy machines.


CR

Yup. Kids are rather ignorant or simply don't care about their health at that age. I remember being stupid and drinking a code red mountain dew every day at 8:30 in the morning after advanced gym simply because everyone did and I didn't know any better. Kind of counter productive, eh?

That being said, schools should focus on what CR said, and removing blatantly unhealthy stuff like fried chicken and pizza from their menu. Telling parents what they can feed their kids for lunch reminds me of something I'd say in North Korea or some other dictatorship.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yup. Kids are rather ignorant or simply don't care about their health at that age. I remember being stupid and drinking a code red mountain dew every day at 8:30 in the morning after advanced gym simply because everyone did and I didn't know any better. Kind of counter productive, eh?

That being said, schools should focus on what CR said, and removing blatantly unhealthy stuff like fried chicken and pizza from their menu. Telling parents what they can feed their kids for lunch reminds me of something I'd say in North Korea or some other dictatorship.

Yes, and we've all seen documentaries that show the tragic consequences of the failing North Korean dictatorship, such as a generation of children growing up grossly malnutritioned.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You have an obesity problem.
You have the chance to make sure kids gets one healthy meal a day.

Do I need to play dot to dot here?

I don't think anyone willingly wants school lunches to be a can of coke and a two pack of twinkies, just that it is improper for the school to impose itself on the youth like that.

I don't think anyone here can dispute the process of normalization that all humans go through to become accustomed to the society in which they are brought up in. I personally feel that such a blatant measure of control on the youth will normalize the nation's youth to a level of government involvement in their personal lives that is unhealthy for a future citizenship.

As to the argument of "but I can supply my kids with healthier meals" - sure. You can also make sure the school meal is healthy.

Exactly, we should strive for both.

As to the argument of "Kids are not where obesity is a problem" - laughable. Kids metabolism is grand, and they can soak up a lot of junk. However, normalizing having a healthy lunch (warm food, salad on the side and so on) will do them loads of good later on. Normalizing eating stuff out of a bag for lunch might prove detrimental later.

(Oops I didn't see you mentioned normalization here, anyway...) You are not normalizing them to eat a healthy lunch. Normalization is what it says, the gradual learning of what is normal in society. By having the school tell them to eat the lunch, they are learning it is normal for government to tell you what to eat sometimes, but american society is amazing in how children are susceptible to hundreds of advertisements every week that tell them to eat unhealthy stuff. Most people eat unhealthy, most restaurants are fast food. The normalization process on eating healthy is countered by consumer driven capitalism but the lesson of government sometimes can get involved in what you consume goes unchallenged.

In Sweden every kid in school eat the school lunch. We usually have one fish dish, one meat dish, one veggie dish - along with a salad buffet. Paid for by the state (if you have a state unwilling to make sure kids gets good and healthy food, you might want to reconsider your stance on taxes and what the states responsibility is).

I actually agree with you that we should provide a great set up like that for students. Still don't think they should be forced to eat it though.

Is that unamerican - very much so. Is obesity as big of a problem over here - not really. Worth considering, no?

Simple questions that to me, cannot be adequately responded to without an entire paragraph elaborating on how before we start this comparison, our respective cultures need to be analyzed and compared first. To say that the relationship between an American and his food is different from a Swede or a Brit or an Indian is...simplification to the extreme.

[Strike For The South]

School lunches are why I ate homemade PB&J for a majority of my school meals for over a decade.

Given how horrible our government is at determining what food is healthy, it's no safe bet that a "healthy" school lunch is actually healthy. Just get rid of the soda and candy machines.

In brief, I agree with ACIN and Beirut. Also, I must further admire Beirut's plan with the note.

Louis - please tell me that picture is of some rare occurrence where some millionaire paid to have a cheese tasting sampled for those kids or something.

CR

Americans heard that they had to reduce their intake of saturated fat by cutting back on meat and dairy products and replacing them with carbohydrates. Americans dutifully complied. Since then, obesity has increased sharply, and the progress that the country has made against heart disease has largely come from medical breakthroughs like statin drugs, which lower cholesterol, and more effective medications to control blood pressure.

Wait, Who here has said this before

Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?

O wait
It was me

[Ice]

Yes, and we've all seen documentaries that show the tragic consequences of the failing North Korean dictatorship, such as a generation of children growing up grossly malnutritioned.

Way to misinterpret what I just said. I meant the government telling people what they can and can't eat reminds me of a dictatorship. I used North Korea because its an easy example.

People in North Korea are malnourished because the government spends all its money on the military and hardly any of feeding its populace.

[Subotan]

Way to misinterpret what I just said. I meant the government telling people what they can and can't eat reminds me of a dictatorship. I used North Korea because its an easy example.

People in North Korea are malnourished because the government spends all its money on the military and hardly any of feeding its populace.

No, they're not malnourished because of that. Food production in North Korea never dropped below the minimum amount needed to ensure that everybody had the minimum amount of calories in their diet even at the height of the famine in the Nineties. The problem was the distribution of that food was utterly disastrous, as the economic system completely broke down as subsidies and fertiliser (North Korean agriculture was/is very fertiliser intensive) from the USSR/Russia dried up and the guaranteed market in the Eastern Bloc for North Korean goods disappeared. Urban North Koreans (Of which there are many - it is a heavily industrialised country) relied entirely on the "Public Distribution System" for their food, and when that disappeared in all but name, people in the cities just starved. Interestingly, people in rural areas generally did better as they had more ready access to food, so the North Korean famine is probably the only one in history where richer, urban citizens were hit harder than peasants.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Nanny State knows best. So eat yer soylent green and like it.

[Beirut]

Nanny State knows best. So eat yer soylent green and like it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Way to misinterpret what I just said. I meant the government telling people what they can and can't eat reminds me of a dictatorship. I used North Korea because its an easy example.

People in North Korea are malnourished because the government spends all its money on the military and hardly any of feeding its populace.

Oi! I don't misrepresent your point because I don't represent it! I tried to build on the debate by adding another angle. A government can supress by telling people what they can and can not do. This is the more common focus in at least American debate.

But what of a government which undermines the societal structures of people to organise themselves and learn and share knowledge. This is how many an indeginous society has been destroyed. Neither guns nor germs were necessary. More silent, more effective mechanisms were at work.

'Nobody is telling you what to eat' can be quite sinister...

Imagine, if you will, a four year old. He is handed the keys to a supermarket, has access to every food available. But nobody will ever 'tell him what to eat', as in, will educate him about food and nutrition. Neither parental guidance, nor simply showing by example, nor any formal nutritritional education. Not even television commercials, or the sightof other people eating.

I mean that as a thought experiment, not as a veiled critique. Surely, this boy is hardly free? Quite apart from him dieing pretty soon, surely he can't be said to be more free, receive a better deal, by nobody telling him what to eat? I would say the people who would inflict this on the boy are as twisted as anything North Korea subjects its children to.


On can easily build from this example a government, an educational system, a sytem of parenthood, that fails to protect children only slightly less than the theoretical example.

[ajaxfetish]

I mean that as a thought experiment, not as a veiled critique. Surely, this boy is hardly free? Quite apart from him dieing pretty soon, surely he can't be said to be more free, receive a better deal, by nobody telling him what to eat? I would say the people who would inflict this on the boy are as twisted as anything North Korea subjects its children to.

I would say he is more free, but doesn't receive a better deal. Freedom is not an intrinsically good thing, though I think attempts to limit freedom are not usually motivated by good. In the context of school lunch, guidance, nutrition education, and encouragement to eat healthily are all great. Prohibiting lunches brought from home in the process, not so much.

Ajax

[Ice]

No, they're not malnourished because of that. Food production in North Korea never dropped below the minimum amount needed to ensure that everybody had the minimum amount of calories in their diet even at the height of the famine in the Nineties. The problem was the distribution of that food was utterly disastrous, as the economic system completely broke down as subsidies and fertiliser (North Korean agriculture was/is very fertiliser intensive) from the USSR/Russia dried up and the guaranteed market in the Eastern Bloc for North Korean goods disappeared. Urban North Koreans (Of which there are many - it is a heavily industrialised country) relied entirely on the "Public Distribution System" for their food, and when that disappeared in all but name, people in the cities just starved. Interestingly, people in rural areas generally did better as they had more ready access to food, so the North Korean famine is probably the only one in history where richer, urban citizens were hit harder than peasants.

Thanks for the education (I'm saying this in a non sarcastic way). Would you agree though if North Korea cut its defense spending it would able to feed its populace? That's would I should have initially said.

Oi! I don't misrepresent your point because I don't represent it! I tried to build on the debate by adding another angle. A government can supress by telling people what they can and can not do. This is the more common focus in at least American debate.

But what of a government which undermines the societal structures of people to organise themselves and learn and share knowledge. This is how many an indeginous society has been destroyed. Neither guns nor germs were necessary. More silent, more effective mechanisms were at work.

'Nobody is telling you what to eat' can be quite sinister...

Imagine, if you will, a four year old. He is handed the keys to a supermarket, has access to every food available. But nobody will ever 'tell him what to eat', as in, will educate him about food and nutrition. Neither parental guidance, nor simply showing by example, nor any formal nutritritional education. Not even television commercials, or the sightof other people eating.

I mean that as a thought experiment, not as a veiled critique. Surely, this boy is hardly free? Quite apart from him dieing pretty soon, surely he can't be said to be more free, receive a better deal, by nobody telling him what to eat? I would say the people who would inflict this on the boy are as twisted as anything North Korea subjects its children to.


On can easily build from this example a government, an educational system, a sytem of parenthood, that fails to protect children only slightly less than the theoretical example.

Haha, I meant misintrept. Opps.

Anyway, I wasn't saying that the government should cease providing quality nutritional information, but simply that people (parents when the kids are young) should be free to chose what kind of food they want to eat. The government should not mandate any specific diet.

[Subotan]

Thanks for the education (I'm saying this in a non sarcastic way). Would you agree though if North Korea cut its defense spending it would able to feed its populace? That's would I should have initially said.

The most effective way North Korea could feed its populace is if substantial free market reforms were taken in food production and distribution - of course, that will never happen. If instead of >25% of GDP going on the armed forces more funds were allocated to food production, then it's possible that the majority of hungry people could now be fed, but there's no way all North Koreans could be fed without reforms to the way food is distributed. As an interesting side note, which I may have said in another thread, North Korean children today are smaller than at any other time during the 20th Century, even going back to the beginning of the colonial era under Japan in 1910, when Korea was an absolute hole.

[Greyblades]

Even worse than it is now?

[ReluctantSamurai]

...The root causes are a combination of poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle.

I would have to disagree with this. Obesity is the result of poor choices in diet. What determines what a person eats? On the surface, food to sustain life would seem obvious, but most "junk" food has bad side effects that probably do more harm than the food does good.

So what motivates a person to, on a regular basis, put food into their system that is 'harmful' in the long run? I would suggest that the need for "fast" food is symptomatic of the "instant gratification" generation of today. [Don't have time to fix a proper meal...too much work to do...don't know how to cook...don't really care...]

It's more of a state of mind than anything. Obesity, genetics aside, is a result of a lack of spirituality, and self esteem.

[Husar]

Oi! I don't misrepresent your point because I don't represent it! I tried to build on the debate by adding another angle.

But are you?

I already said that the government/school should rather educate the kids about how to eat healthy instead of forcing them to eat healthy.

However if you equate forcing them to eat healthy food with educating them about it, then I guess we have to disagree.
If the school educates the children about healthy food it is very likely that the kids will carry that knowledge home.
This can then indirectly lead to the parents either a) giving their kids better food when they go to school or b) giving them money to spend on the healthy cafeteria food.
If the problem with b is that the kids may spend the money on something else, then the parents might just as well pay the school directly.

Which leads to another issue, now that only cafeteria food is forced on people, does that mean they are also forced to pay for it or is it free?

[Graphic]

If the schools want to join the good fight against childhood obesity, they should focus on making their own food better, rather than forcing people to eat it.

I remember in middle and high school, the staple of the cafeteria food was disgusting square pizza with orange goop dripping from it.