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

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:24:24 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


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

MsLiz wrote:
If I were given a choice between two schools; one that had a fairly
long list of restricted foods (the unhealthier choices) and one had no
restrictions, I'd definitely choose the restricted foods.

Because you like someone else telling you how to live your life
or.....what? IMO, that's absurd.

Because she likes that she can control what her kids are exposed to while
they're in school. She doesn't want her kids exposed to junk food. Junk
food is banned. She *chooses* to send her kids to that school. What's it
to you? If you could have that choice, you'd choose the other school.

*My* problem would be that it isn't my "choice" to send my kids to the
school they attend. It is the district in which we live, and sending
them elsewhere costs money.
I also reserve the right to send chips or candy in my child's lunch if
I wish to do so. The school should have absolutely no say in what is
packed in a lunch.

Nan

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:24:24 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


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

MsLiz wrote:
If I were given a choice between two schools; one that had a fairly
long list of restricted foods (the unhealthier choices) and one had no
restrictions, I'd definitely choose the restricted foods.

Because you like someone else telling you how to live your life
or.....what? IMO, that's absurd.

Because she likes that she can control what her kids are exposed to while
they're in school. She doesn't want her kids exposed to junk food. Junk
food is banned. She *chooses* to send her kids to that school. What's it
to you? If you could have that choice, you'd choose the other school.

*My* problem would be that it isn't my "choice" to send my kids to the
school they attend. It is the district in which we live, and sending
them elsewhere costs money.

I do believe I should be able to pack whatever I choose, but the poster said
if she had a choice, she would choose the school that had restrictions. I
defend her right to choose that. If it is a school you have no choice in,
then the school should not make those restrictions.

Jeanne wrote:
MsLiz wrote:
bizby40 wrote:

"MsLiz" wrote in message
groups.com...

Why not chips? Read on....

Whether or not chips are good for you is not the point. The question is,
does a school have the right to dictate to parents what they pack in their
child's lunch? I can see banning things like gum that can cause problems
for the school. But I don't think the school has a right to dictate based
solely on nutritional content. That is, I think every parent has the right
to decide what to feed their own children, and the school should not be
allowed to intervene unless it will adversely affect the school, or the
other students.

Bizby


Someone asked what's wrong with chips so I reponded with what I know
about them. Many people aren't aware of this issue. A dear friend of
mine, a pediatric facial cranial expert, shared the potato chip
information with me. He is not a health food fanatic (as I am :-) but
he will not allow chips in their household.


People know that chips aren't healthy, as they also know candy isn't
good and soda is probably more chemical than natural.

Are you against schools trying to ban soda machines and candy machines
in an effort to do something to curb obesity? Or is it that you don't
like the school telling you what your child can bring to school? FYI,
my daughter's current school has no restrictions whatsoever
(elementary).


I'm against schools making money by stocking vending machines with soda
and candy. I haven't found many schools trying to "ban" soda machines -
it's not like students can bring their own vending machines to school
with them.

You're right, there aren't many. I have heard of a few places where
they are banning soda and replacing it with water bottles.

Jeanne

Staycalm wrote:
"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...
If I were given a choice between two schools; one that had a fairly
long list of restricted foods (the unhealthier choices) and one had no
restrictions, I'd definitely choose the restricted foods.

Because you like someone else telling you how to live your life
or.....what? IMO, that's absurd.

Oh for goodness sake - we live our whole lives being told what to do and how
to live your life - by governments, our bosses, heaps of other authorities.
Don't kid yourself.
Related to the food issue - maybe some people do know better than to include
unhealthy things likes chips and sweets and fizzy drinks in their kid's
lunches. But many do this every day out of ignorence or lazyness. So what if
a school says please don't give them chips in their lunches. My original
point was about looking at all the other better for them foods you could
include.
We all suffer from a lack of imagination when it comes to treats or snacks.
I don't mind in the least if someone wants to help me do the better thing
for my child's health. I like to think we are all working together for the
same thing - healthier children - the healthier adults of the future!

I agree with you Liz...the bottom line is healthier children/healthier
adults. Obesity is rampant and who knows what diseases are a direct or
indirect result of poor food choices. When I send my daughter to
school with a healthy snack that I baked or perhaps paid a whole lot
of money for the organic, vegan whatever and she trades it for a bag of
store brand chips...well, :-) It kind of doesn't sit well with me,
hence the "I wish that schools would control more of what kids could
bring in."

Sorry to those of you who disagree so vehemntly, it's not about you ;-)
It's about how I feel. One of my first threads in this newsgroup, I
learned the hard way that you better be careful about what you say in
here. I see a pattern of no matter how clearly you use an "I message"
there are those who are going to get annoyed. Oh well. C'est la vie.

Liz

On 11 Sep 2005 16:24:20 -0700, "MsLiz" wrote:


I agree with you Liz...the bottom line is healthier children/healthier
adults. Obesity is rampant and who knows what diseases are a direct or
indirect result of poor food choices. When I send my daughter to
school with a healthy snack that I baked or perhaps paid a whole lot
of money for the organic, vegan whatever and she trades it for a bag of
store brand chips...well, :-) It kind of doesn't sit well with me,
hence the "I wish that schools would control more of what kids could
bring in."

Then perhaps you need to focus your energies on getting the school to
implement a "no trading/sharing of food" policy, as well as teaching
your child to follow your rules.
Our school has this policy and it works quite well.

Nan

Nan wrote:
On 11 Sep 2005 16:24:20 -0700, "MsLiz" wrote:


I agree with you Liz...the bottom line is healthier children/healthier
adults. Obesity is rampant and who knows what diseases are a direct or
indirect result of poor food choices. When I send my daughter to
school with a healthy snack that I baked or perhaps paid a whole lot
of money for the organic, vegan whatever and she trades it for a bag of
store brand chips...well, :-) It kind of doesn't sit well with me,
hence the "I wish that schools would control more of what kids could
bring in."

Then perhaps you need to focus your energies on getting the school to
implement a "no trading/sharing of food" policy, as well as teaching
your child to follow your rules.
Our school has this policy and it works quite well.

Nan

I second this! We have a 'no trading food' policy at the public school
(although something like 95% of the children and staff buy lunch at
school -- they cook all meals scratch! amazing menus (well, excluding
the ubiquitous pizza day)! it's inexpensive! it's easy!).

My resistance to a 'restricted food policy' stems from DD1's experience
at a Montessori, which had the usual suspects of restricted
high-allergy foods (nuts, red dye #20, egg whites) and then ladled on a
layer of multicultural sensitive foods (pork, beef), leaving parents
with, well, not a whole lotta choices.

I wish xylitol gum were permitted for after lunch, or that there was
time given for brushing teeth, but that's a whole 'nother issue.

Caledonia

Caledonia

Nan wrote:
On 11 Sep 2005 16:24:20 -0700, "MsLiz" wrote:


I agree with you Liz...the bottom line is healthier children/healthier
adults. Obesity is rampant and who knows what diseases are a direct or
indirect result of poor food choices. When I send my daughter to
school with a healthy snack that I baked or perhaps paid a whole lot
of money for the organic, vegan whatever and she trades it for a bag of
store brand chips...well, :-) It kind of doesn't sit well with me,
hence the "I wish that schools would control more of what kids could
bring in."

Then perhaps you need to focus your energies on getting the school to
implement a "no trading/sharing of food" policy, as well as teaching
your child to follow your rules.

My energies are being focused exactly where they need to be.
I did all of the lobbying at my son's schools back when he was little
(he's an adult now). It did little good, but I tried. Today I have
too many schools, IMO, are not keeping up with the times. We're
working on changing school districts for when our daughter starts
middle school next September. I've been quite disatisfied with this
district and it's timeto move on. And no, it's not food related.

I teach my children to follow rules, I can't control their behavior
when they're not with me :-) No matter how well you raise a child...if
they are given the choice between a bag of chips and a granola
bar...your average 6th grader will pick the chips! Probably your
average adult too
:-)

Nan

MsLiz wrote:
No matter how well you raise a child...if
they are given the choice between a bag of chips and a granola
bar...your average 6th grader will pick the chips! Probably your
average adult too
:-)

I think what Nan was talking about (and what's in effect here) is that
your child is *not* given the choice, unless you've packed both. This
is a biggie here, mainly because children might choose foods to which
they're allergic, or have strong religious injunctions against
consuming -- hence, the ironclad rule. (Yes, I forsee a future where I
become one of the cafeteria ladies. Very tough folks, not to be messed
with. My kind of people, in other words )

Caledonia

Caledonia wrote:
Nan wrote:
On 11 Sep 2005 16:24:20 -0700, "MsLiz" wrote:


I agree with you Liz...the bottom line is healthier children/healthier
adults. Obesity is rampant and who knows what diseases are a direct or
indirect result of poor food choices. When I send my daughter to
school with a healthy snack that I baked or perhaps paid a whole lot
of money for the organic, vegan whatever and she trades it for a bag of
store brand chips...well, :-) It kind of doesn't sit well with me,
hence the "I wish that schools would control more of what kids could
bring in."

Then perhaps you need to focus your energies on getting the school to
implement a "no trading/sharing of food" policy, as well as teaching
your child to follow your rules.
Our school has this policy and it works quite well.

Nan

I second this! We have a 'no trading food' policy at the public school
(although something like 95% of the children and staff buy lunch at
school -- they cook all meals scratch! amazing menus (well, excluding
the ubiquitous pizza day)! it's inexpensive! it's easy!).

In my daughter's school, the children eat at their desk and their
teacher sits and does work. He/she does not sit and watch who shares
snacks, etc. It has been that way from 1-6th grade for my daughter.
My daughter's school has dress codes that are not strictly enforced,
girls are wearing terribly inappropriate clothing and not sent home.
If they can wear what they want, I'm relatively sure that they will not
adapt a "no sharing food" policy. I'm really looking forward to
leaving this district! My son went from preschool through college
without me ever wishing that he was in school elsewhere. I have wished
to be elsewhere throughout her entire elementary years. We have stayed
for financial reasons and she has had good teachers.

My resistance to a 'restricted food policy' stems from DD1's experience
at a Montessori, which had the usual suspects of restricted
high-allergy foods (nuts, red dye #20, egg whites) and then ladled on a
layer of multicultural sensitive foods (pork, beef), leaving parents
with, well, not a whole lotta choices.

That's certainly understandable. A medical issue for you is probably a
bit more urgent than my desire for healthier choices...but but
hopefully that doesn't minimize my priorities.

I wish xylitol gum were permitted for after lunch, or that there was
time given for brushing teeth, but that's a whole 'nother issue.

Gum is a big no-no here. Funny thing is, some of the healthier gums
are healthier than the snacks that are allowed.

Caledonia

Caledonia

On 11 Sep 2005 16:46:23 -0700, "MsLiz" wrote:

I did all of the lobbying at my son's schools back when he was little
(he's an adult now). It did little good, but I tried.

If your lobbying was to have the schools restrict what students can
bring from home, I'm not surprised it did little good. There are a
good number of parents that don't want restrictions just because you
think it's a good idea for your child.

I teach my children to follow rules, I can't control their behavior
when they're not with me :-) No matter how well you raise a child...if
they are given the choice between a bag of chips and a granola
bar...your average 6th grader will pick the chips! Probably your
average adult too
:-)

But that makes it your problem, not the school's problem.

Nan