Chicago school: You're not allowed to bring a lunch(!)

[rbell]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...nch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story

At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.

I would say sending your school to such an indoctrination center is tantamount to child abuse.

 

[mandym]

The left is working hard to control people's lives. Freedom is not an option for them. And the fact that this comes out of Chicago is not surprising. I wonder what the bigger agenda behind the anti-freedom push for dictatorial healthy eating.

 

[Bob Alkire]

The left is working hard to control people's lives. Freedom is not an option for them. And the fact that this comes out of Chicago is not surprising. I wonder what the bigger agenda behind the anti-freedom push for dictatorial healthy eating.

Teaching parents and children to look to the government for most of their answers and help, and more government jobs!!! That has been their push for my entire life.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...nch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story

I would say sending your school to such an indoctrination center is tantamount to child abuse.

I don't think it's any surprise that something like this would happen in the People's Republic of Chicago. After all, they're the same ones who gave us Obama.

It's a city known for it's political corruption and lousy baseball.

What they're doing is indoctrinating the children that the government knows best and will take care of them.

Fortunately, most of the country understands that Chicagoans are as bad as New Yorkers.

The ironic thing is, I don't even know what's on the menu, but I would bet my bottom dollar that what we feed our children is better.

One more in a long list of reasons we refuse to send our children to government indoctrination centers.

 

[targus]

At the same time it goes quietly under reported that 140 Chicago public school students have been gun shot so far this year.

Why are they worried about what kids are bringing from home for lunch when they have a real problem with student on student violence?

 

[glfredrick]

Ironically, Chicago attacks both guns and lunches instead of dealing with the issue of people...

With the liberal control for decades now (Chicago does not even regularly field a conservative candidate on the mayoral ticket) the city SHOULD be utopia, as is Detroit, New Orleans, Milwaukee, etc.

But what is really there? Democratic socialism of the same sort found in pre-WWII Germany, with ultimately the same results.

 

[Benjamin]

I would say sending your school to such an indoctrination center is tantamount to child abuse.

On the other side of the coin is that, ...and speaking of child abuse, and the reality of as big of a shame on the parents,...is that the junk they probably serve at that school is most likely better than what the majority of parents would send their kids to school with.

 

[sag38]

I bet that at the end of the trail you will find a big dollar sign staring you down. Most likely the more kids who eat from the government teat the more money Uncle pours into the system.

 

[mandym]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...nch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story



I would say sending your school to such an indoctrination center is tantamount to child abuse.

You know what I doubt this would stand up in court. The schools cannot dictate what the parents are to decide they should eat. What kind of people would want to do such a thing?

 

[Gina B]

That goes beyond wrong!

I just went to see what a local elementary school is offering for breakfast today. (they eat breakfast at home, wonder if that will become illegal eventually?) Today's offering? Deep fried french toast sticks, a container of syrup, and fruit juice and milk, and the kids usually choose chocolate milk.

Soooooooo healthy!

Last Tuesday's lunch was mac and cheese, tater tots, pears in syrup, buttered toast, and their choice of white or chocolate milk.

Sooooooooo healthy!

Tomorrow's breakfast? Toaster strudel, sausage patty, buttered toast, and their choice of white or chocolate milk.

Tomorrow's lunch? Pizza, salad tossed in dressing, a strawberry cup (usually known as strawberry jello) and their choice of white or chocolate milk.

Their meals are advertised as wonderful nutritional values for children.

My daughter's typical self-packed lunch includes unsweetened apple sauce or a piece of fruit, a bottle of water, a handful of almonds or cashews, and a rice cake or some natural/organic style tortilla chips and salsa.

Perhaps, for the sake of her health, we should switch her over to school lunches! Her school menu today gives her the option to have pizza, french fries, and chocolate milk. YUM! That's SO much better than what she would bring from home!

 

[rbell]

People, the goverment doesn't care about your kids.

It cares about your $$.

And if you're mentally deficient enough to not know the difference, then do society a favor an don't have any more (short of abortion).

 

[Benjamin]

And if you're mentally deficient enough to not know the difference, then do society a favor an don't have any more (short of abortion).

I might say the same thing to the 30% of parents who train up their children to be overweight or obese by the age of 10-16.

People, the goverment doesn't care about your kids.


It cares about your $$.

I wouldn't support the government telling people how they "have" to raise their kids. BUT, *I* care about my $$, so on that note I'm sure many more of my dollars will be going to treat the 66% of the overweigth and obese adult population that is or soon will be suffering from diabetes, heart disease and orthopedic problems. Therein lies my bigger problem with the government which is forcing me to pay other's medical bills who unconsciously ignore the responsibilty to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Edit: being caught between a rock and a hard place comes to mind.

 

[menageriekeeper]

LOL, my husband and I were griping about how public schools continue to overstep their bounds into student's personal lives and what we'd do if our local district tried something so intrusive. Then we stopped and looked at each other. Duh, we've already done it!

Homeschool people!! Get your kids out and make your stance known!

Benjamin, there is no way the "food" that is served in most government run school kitchens can be considered any healthier than the lunches I sent with my kids when they did go to public school. (and our kitchen was as well run as any federally run program could be) Like Gina's daughter, my kids wanted a bit of cheese/meat with crackers and fruit or possibly a cup of yogurt with peanutbutter and crackers to go with. Our school menus are very similar to hers too. Here's link to one of the local schools:

http://trs.jasper.k12.al.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=40

Yeah, I don't need them telling me what to feed my kids!

 

[Havensdad]

I might say the same thing to the 30% of parents who train up their children to be overweight or obese by the age of 10-16.



I wouldn't support the government telling people how they "have" to raise their kids. BUT, *I* care about my $$, so on that note I'm sure many more of my dollars will be going to treat the 66% of the overweigth and obese adult population that is or soon will be suffering from diabetes, heart disease and orthopedic problems. Therein lies my bigger problem with the government which is forcing me to pay other's medical bills who unconsciously ignore the responsibilty to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Edit: being caught between a rock and a hard place comes to mind.

Apparently you didn't actually look at the lunches from the school...I am sorry, but enchiladas, tater tots, and chocolate milk, are NOT healthier lunch choices than a PB & J and a juice box...

The school lunches ARE THE PROBLEM. They are contributing to the obesity problem.

 

[Benjamin]

You guys might note that in my first post I called the school lunches "junk". Now, I know not many parents would admit to also sending junk food with their kids to school, but all one has to do is look at the statistics in the rise of childhood obesity to see where the trend begins.

YES, it begins...at home! But, the problem, which I have no solution for other than maybe being bold enough to speak out and promote awareness of the problems with obesity, is with a more responsible upbringing and maybe some principal somewhere wouldn't think he needed to mandate such a stupid policy. (BTW, I don't claim to know the motives of the principal, but suspect it has more ot do with kids bringing soda and chip to school than $$.)

I'm glad some here would send better food than most schools would provide. Yet, I could probably point to schools that have a much much higher obesity rate than 30%. As a matter of fact there was a tread in the health forum that discussed a nutritionist going to such a school and the flack he got for trying to improve school lunches blows my mind.

I just find it hard to criticize someone for trying to make a difference while totally ignoring what I consider the much greater problem facing our children today. Even when someone like the nutritionist I spoke of above tries to make a difference it is like taboo to even try. I just don't get it!

 

[Benjamin]

Apparently you didn't actually look at the lunches from the school...I am sorry, but enchiladas, tater tots, and chocolate milk, are NOT healthier lunch choices than a PB & J and a juice box...

The school lunches ARE THE PROBLEM. They are contributing to the obesity problem.

Ah, white "bread" (if you can call it that) and "jelly" (you have any idea where the calories in jelly come from? {sugar}) and most the box juices, again....sugar. I'll give a couple points for the peanut butter...

But, not very convincing there Havensdad...

 

[just-want-peace]

The biggest difference is not the modern caloric intake, it's the modern caloric burn rate!!!!

I ate all those same calorie laded foods as a youngster, but stayed skinny AND healthy primarily because I was active. I kept a high metabolism cause I ran everywhere I went, played sand-lot ball, climbed trees, bicycled,and fussed when my parents made me slow down on 100+ degree days because "You will get overheated"!

What do the majority of kids do today? Play computer games, email, twitter, facebook, yada, yada, yada!

Any more than 12-1500 calories per day for most kids will lead to obesity, simply due to lack of physical exertion.

As to the OP, this is just one more bureaucratic "camel nose under the tent" feeler to see if they can get away with it, and hence a little bit more control over our lives.

I say slam the tent flap on this camel as well as clobber his nose with a sledge-hammer to make it very plain that he ain't welcome in our tent. Yeah, I know, it's just a pipe dream, but hey, I can dream can I not???

 

[rbell]

Well said, JWP...although I imagine that there ARE a couple of additional differences IN ADDITION to your very salient point:

1. I do think our kids consume more calories. Between being less monitored as a whole (I didn't get to decide to eat when I was 5-8 or so...I had to ask for a snack...and my mother cared!).
2. I do think that there is something to the hormones issue in our meat/dairy/etc. The obesity, plus the early puberty...I'm just wondering if we're putting something in our bods that wasn't supposed to be there. Just sayin'...


Now...for the good stuff: From Neal Boortz, the pot-stirrer, who weighed in on the issue (his somewhat intemperate language cleaned up by me)...

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this. I’ve been riding this talk radio bull for..a lot longer than eight seconds now, and I can clearly remember other cases where government schools took this step. I can remember one particular story – though I can’t remember which school in which state – where government agents (some call them teachers) would inspect any lunches brought from home. If the agent determined that the lunch didn’t have sufficient nutritional value the agent was empowered too seize the lunch and substitute an official government-approved lunch in its place. The parents would then be billed.

There are two messages at work here. One is that parents have to come to the understand that parents don’t know nearly as much about how to raise their children as the government does. The second message is delivered to the children .. and that message is that now is as good a time as any for you to learn that the government is going to be involved in virtually every aspect of your life – even down to what you are allowed to eat for lunch.

SOURCE

What else is there to say? Well said!!

 

[menageriekeeper]

Ah, white "bread" (if you can call it that) and "jelly" (you have any idea where the calories in jelly come from? {sugar})

Some of us make our own bread (from real flour!) and jam (from real fruit!).

Rbell, I have to agree with Boortz. Didn't this country revolt once over government interference in our daily lives? sigh, no one studies history anymore.

 

[Borneol]

Bill O'Reilly has a nice article about the lunches from home problem for one Chicago school.

School Lunch Madness
http://www.billoreilly.com/currentcolumn

Excerpt from the article:

Ms. Carmona went on to say that some parents are morons who allow their children to eat garbage, and that is not going to happen on her watch. The Tribune quotes her: "It's about... the excellent quality food that they are able to [eat here]. It's milk versus Coke."

Many students at the Little Village Academy qualify for free or reduced price lunches. Those who don't pay $2.25 for a meal. Some parents say that $11.25 for the week is far more than the brown bag lunches cost.

Predictably, Ms. Carmona's edict has caused an outcry, and now she says she was misquoted by the Tribune. Her lunch opinion is not a mandate, just a suggestion, she insists. But this story is not exactly an analysis of the federal budget. It strains credulity that the Trib got it wrong. What most likely happened is that Ms. Carmona got some heat from on high and is backtracking.

About one third of American kids are now overweight, and poorer children are the most likely to be in that category. So, educators are correct to be concerned about the nutritional welfare of their students. Every school should be encouraging good health, right?

But forcing parents to buy school food is going too far. This is nanny state stuff. I know that under President Obama, the nation is heading in that direction, but it is now time to pause and smell the meatloaf. Parents are the primary caregivers when it comes to raising children. The school educates kids, but has no right to dictate lifestyle choices. If there is a problem that impacts a student's ability to learn and socialize, the school has an obligation to bring the situation to the parents' attention. But telling kids what they can eat at lunchtime usurps parental authority.