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

Chookie wrote:
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


If no junk food means less disruptiveness, which becomes more important:
the right of parents to feed children whatever they like, or the right of
children to learn?

That's a false dichotomy until you can actually back
the theory that no junk food means less disruptiveness with
actual, convincing data--and not just for some kids, or kids
with particular needs, or whatever, but for a large enough
proportion of the kids that it's clear this is a restriction
that should be imposed on everyone. So far, those data are
lacking.


sigh I'm plainly having trouble getting the point across.

It's a what-if. According to my city's allergy unit (as well as JAmie
Oliver!), there are some people who are sensitive to common food additives,
salicylates and/or amines in food, and that this manifests in behaviour,
particularly in children. I can't find the scale of the problem indicated,
however.

But what *is* "a large enough proportion of the kids that it's clear this is a
restriction that should be imposed on everyone"?

In my mind, the required proportion is dependent upon
the severity of the consequences and the age of the children.
With young children and peanut allergies, it doesn't take many
children because the consequences are life-threatening. When
it comes to these food sensitivities, clearly it's only some
children that are affected. The other kids could eat the
stuff and suffer no untoward effects. So, are the consequences
sufficient that unaffected children should be limited in order
to accommodate those who are affected? Or should it be the
responsibility of the affected children's families? I see
a couple of steps:

1) Very few children are affected-it's those children and
their families who are responsible for providing appropriate
foods.

2) Larger numbers are affected, but not most children-perhaps
the school avoids these additives in the food the school
serves, but there is no ban on what other parents can send
in.

3) Almost all children are affected, or many children are
affected and the resulting disruptions are large-this is the
only point at which I'd consider it reasonable for the school
to tell parents that they couldn't send in any foods
containing these additives.

Also, while I think there are children who are affected by
certain food additives, your argument that this needs addressing
in schools (either in terms of what the schools serve or
what parents are allowed to send) really hinges on this
notion that it leads to significant disruptive behavior.
I would want to see that verified before policy started
getting made. I mean, I'm thrilled with Jamie Oliver's plan
to improve food in school for a lot of reasons. We *should*
serve better food in schools for a whole host of reasons.
But to me, that's quite different from taking the next step
and banning certain foods. They may have seen improvements
after changing the foods the school provided, but there could
be many alternate explanations. Was it the additives? Or
was it that kids who were not getting essential nutrients
before were now getting better overall nutrition? Or maybe
it was just that the *social* experience of lunch changed
so much that it had effects on behavior at other times of
day! So, I realize you're saying "what if?" but I think
it's important to keep the emphasis on the fact that I
don't think we should ban things as a matter of public
policy without good, solid evidence. I'm happy to accept
much weaker evidence in order to advocate for schools to
provide higher quality meals or avoid providing junk foods
in vending machines and such, as I see that as a very
different issue from banning particular foods.

Best wishes,
Ericka