Schools started - suggest me what is good for snack for kids, what type of Lunch should I keep?

Schools started, somebody should suggest me, what I am suppose to keep
for snack for kids, also for lunch (health ones), also where can I get
those snack an dlunch types. Appreciated.

wrote in
ups.com:

Schools started, somebody should suggest me, what I am
suppose to keep for snack for kids, also for lunch (health
ones), also where can I get those snack an dlunch types.
Appreciated.

what did they eat for snacks & lunch before school started?
send that.
lee
--
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
1984-George Orwell

"enigma" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in
ups.com:

Schools started, somebody should suggest me, what I am
suppose to keep for snack for kids, also for lunch (health
ones), also where can I get those snack an dlunch types.
Appreciated.

what did they eat for snacks & lunch before school started?
send that.
lee
--
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
1984-George Orwell

Potato chips, the guilt-ridden yet extremely popular convenience snack, is
totally verboten in my son's kidergarten class. School officials have said,
very explictly, "DO NOT PACK POTATO CHIPS IN LUNCHES." Cheetos are
particularly offensive as the same orientation sheet also reads, "DO NOT
PACK CHEETOS IN LUNCHES" just a few lines down from the generic chip ban.

Most parents in the class, whether they admit it or not, are going to be
modifying their kids diets to meet school standards.

They suggest things like cheese cubes, dairy products such as yogurt, and
celery sticks with cream cheese.

The cheetos are an obvious nuisance. No one likes the orange powder.
Potato chips in general, particularly the less oily variety like Pringles
snack packs, aren't grossly inferior to cream cheese IMHO.

Anyway, according to my school, cheese cubes are in. Cream cheese is in.
Dairy is in. Vegetables are in. Fruit is alright. Never pack PBJ
sandwiches because the class is on alergy alert. And god help us when
nutrition rules are rewritten in the next decade. ;-)

John wrote:

Potato chips, the guilt-ridden yet extremely popular convenience snack, is
totally verboten in my son's kidergarten class. School officials have said,
very explictly, "DO NOT PACK POTATO CHIPS IN LUNCHES." Cheetos are
particularly offensive as the same orientation sheet also reads, "DO NOT
PACK CHEETOS IN LUNCHES" just a few lines down from the generic chip ban.

Why not chips? That just seems stupid. Cheetos I can see because of
the mess. But if you are going to ban messy foods, the list is
incredibly long. I hate this kind of micromanagement in schools. I
don't even support the peanut butter ban. If they are going to ban
peanut butter, they might as well ban bees in the school yard. Far
more people are allergic to bees. What about other nuts that are made
in facilities that process peanuts? Those have just as much potential
for causing reaction in many students. The whole thing is just out of
hand, IMO. Where do you draw the line?

-L.

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

John wrote:

Potato chips, the guilt-ridden yet extremely popular convenience snack,
is
totally verboten in my son's kidergarten class. School officials have
said,
very explictly, "DO NOT PACK POTATO CHIPS IN LUNCHES." Cheetos are
particularly offensive as the same orientation sheet also reads, "DO NOT
PACK CHEETOS IN LUNCHES" just a few lines down from the generic chip ban.

Why not chips? That just seems stupid. Cheetos I can see because of
the mess. But if you are going to ban messy foods, the list is
incredibly long. I hate this kind of micromanagement in schools. I
don't even support the peanut butter ban. If they are going to ban
peanut butter, they might as well ban bees in the school yard. Far
more people are allergic to bees. What about other nuts that are made
in facilities that process peanuts? Those have just as much potential
for causing reaction in many students. The whole thing is just out of
hand, IMO. Where do you draw the line?

-L.
Why not chips? Because they have absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever.
High in fat and salt - why would you feed them to your children when they
could be eating all the wonderful tasting healthy foods that are around!

Liz

"Staycalm" wrote in message
Why not chips? Because they have absolutely no nutritional value
whatsoever.
High in fat and salt - why would you feed them to your children when they
could be eating all the wonderful tasting healthy foods that are around!

Yes, potato chips are not the most healthy. However, if you have a few chips
in a little baggy for lunch, it's not the end of the world. I don't like the
micromanaging either and I can manage my own family's eating habits
thankyouverymuch. I believe in moderation and if I want to pack the girls a
treat, then so be it. Banning peanut butter I can see, because we have some
highly allergic children in both the schools the girls attend. It makes it a
little more difficult, but if my child was the one with the allergy, I would
want parents to take it serious.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

In article , Staycalm says...

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

John wrote:

Potato chips, the guilt-ridden yet extremely popular convenience snack,
is
totally verboten in my son's kidergarten class. School officials have
said,
very explictly, "DO NOT PACK POTATO CHIPS IN LUNCHES." Cheetos are
particularly offensive as the same orientation sheet also reads, "DO NOT
PACK CHEETOS IN LUNCHES" just a few lines down from the generic chip ban.

Why not chips? That just seems stupid. Cheetos I can see because of
the mess. But if you are going to ban messy foods, the list is
incredibly long. I hate this kind of micromanagement in schools. I
don't even support the peanut butter ban. If they are going to ban
peanut butter, they might as well ban bees in the school yard. Far
more people are allergic to bees. What about other nuts that are made
in facilities that process peanuts? Those have just as much potential
for causing reaction in many students. The whole thing is just out of
hand, IMO. Where do you draw the line?

-L.
Why not chips? Because they have absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever.
High in fat and salt - why would you feed them to your children when they
could be eating all the wonderful tasting healthy foods that are around!

Phooey.

Of course chips have nutritional value. They're just not the best way to
*maximize* nutritional value in a meal. But kids actually *need* fat, and
aren't normally salt-restricted.

Does each and every meal a child has, have to be of maximum nutritional value?
Short of some specific medical conditions, the answer is - no.

There are other considerations, like what's packable, what will keep for a few
hours, what won't need heating, what the child likes to eat, and - yes this does
count! - what's convenient.

School lunches are only one meal of the day, typically one of the smaller, and
only 180/365 days' lunch at most. They can damn well be determined by the
parent, given *real* school needs (safety, storage), and considering all of the
factors I've listed and possibly more. I don't consider a school staff's
desire to proseltyze some absolute standard of nutrition to be a school need.

I dealt with this food nazi thing when my son went to a Montessori school.
Between (IMO quite real) needs to avoid peanuts for the sake of an enrolled
student, and all the school staff's sometimes quite puzzling ideas of maximal
nutrition, and my son's desires for food (an uneaten lunch = zero nutritional
value!), I was rotating three things: turkey sandwich, tuna salad sandwich,
jelly sandwich (why the heck jelly sandwich isn't considered just a sweet,
normally banned, I dunno, but it was the head of the staff that recommended it
to releive the tedium of tuna/turkey). And don't go and tell me all about
cheese cubes and clever little vege-thingies that can be made for kids - either
my son didn't eat them, or there was some storage objection to them. So there
you go.

Public school, thank the stars, wasn't on this by-force nutritional campaign,
and we could deal with the question of lunch in a normal manner.

Banty

"Staycalm" wrote in message
u...
"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

John wrote:

Potato chips, the guilt-ridden yet extremely popular convenience snack,
is
totally verboten in my son's kidergarten class. School officials have
said,
very explictly, "DO NOT PACK POTATO CHIPS IN LUNCHES." Cheetos are
particularly offensive as the same orientation sheet also reads, "DO NOT
PACK CHEETOS IN LUNCHES" just a few lines down from the generic chip
ban.

Why not chips? That just seems stupid. Cheetos I can see because of
the mess. But if you are going to ban messy foods, the list is
incredibly long. I hate this kind of micromanagement in schools. I
don't even support the peanut butter ban. If they are going to ban
peanut butter, they might as well ban bees in the school yard. Far
more people are allergic to bees. What about other nuts that are made
in facilities that process peanuts? Those have just as much potential
for causing reaction in many students. The whole thing is just out of
hand, IMO. Where do you draw the line?

-L.
Why not chips? Because they have absolutely no nutritional value
whatsoever. High in fat and salt - why would you feed them to your
children when they could be eating all the wonderful tasting healthy foods
that are around!

Liz


While I agree that chips are not a great food, it really is not the school's
business to tell the parents how to feed their children. And even if it
were, simply banning potato chips is not a very effective way of doing so.,=

SNIP
Why not chips? Because they have absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever.
High in fat and salt - why would you feed them to your children when they
could be eating all the wonderful tasting healthy foods that are around!

Do you mean that neither you nor your kids ever eat any foods that are
not nutrition-dense? Lentils and beans are both wonderful foods, but
they're not high on my list of foods when I want to treat myself, or
even for a mid-afternoon snack.

Most days, One takes a medium-junky snack (pretzels, granola bar) to
school. Occasionally, he's allowed pure unadulterated junk (Oreos,
chips). And sometimes its healthful (used to be peanuts, but they're
now banned). Combined with relatively nutritious meals, we think we're
doing an OK job so far.

Barbara

On 9 Sep 2005 01:25:24 -0700, "-L." wrote:


John wrote:

Potato chips, the guilt-ridden yet extremely popular convenience snack, is
totally verboten in my son's kidergarten class. School officials have said,
very explictly, "DO NOT PACK POTATO CHIPS IN LUNCHES." Cheetos are
particularly offensive as the same orientation sheet also reads, "DO NOT
PACK CHEETOS IN LUNCHES" just a few lines down from the generic chip ban.

Why not chips? That just seems stupid. Cheetos I can see because of
the mess. But if you are going to ban messy foods, the list is
incredibly long.

Because they are totally unhealthy and have no nutritional value
whatsoever for growing kids?