rickyp wrote:I take it that basically you guys (Steve anyways) argue for the status quo.

I don't know that banning home lunch is a great idea, (And its lousy if the food at the school isn't appetizing and healthy) but its an attempt to answer this problem.

With 34% of Americans classified as obese with another 32% deemed medically overweight, it needs to be asked where the kids are expected to learn healthy eating habits if not in school -fully two-thirds of the adults are bad role models in that regard, and simply might not know how to prepare a healthy meal without highcalorie, processed foods. Teaching the kids at a young age the fundamentals of healthy eating, and making sure they eat at least one healthy meal a day, might help to correct what is a rapidly becoming the leading public health risk in North America.

So Steve, is your "leave us alone" attitude actually going to affect positive results in this problem? Or don't you care about the problem?

You don't get it. The government contributes to the problem by refusing to let kids be kids, then decides it will correct the problem for ALL children (even those not in the 34% overweight category). This is not a serious attempt because it is one-prong: the government MUST solve the problem.

Consider the absurdity of it anyway: will the school adopt a "zero tolerance" policy on Twinkies? Will kids be selling homemade cookies on the black market?

This is idiotic--and an unconstitutional usurpation of parental authority.

We live in a country where minors can get abortions without their parents approval or knowledge, but can't buy alcohol or get married. "Kids" of 26 can stay on their parents' health-insurance policy, but they cannot be legally claimed as "dependents."

This makes as much sense as those things: it's too dangerous for kids to "play" and when they get fat as a result, the government will "solve" the problem by forcing everyone onto a diet?

Is there any limit on governmental power? I'm asking--is there any line they cannot cross?

After that deluge of information, your going to continue to pretend that the government has some corner on nutrition?

I'm not arguing for the status quo at all.

After that deluge of information, your going to continue to pretend that the government has some corner on nutrition

First, the story i quoted was about one principal in one elementary school in Chicago.
He saw a problem and acted.
He ain't the govenrment. He's one man with a limited jurisdiction that he is close to, and probably is close to the parents affected as well. It doesn't say anything in the story about his parents reactions... What if they are majorly supportive?

What I know from personal experience, trying to teach nutrituion to high performance atheletes, is that children are at the mercy of their parents when it comes to food. If their parents have lousy eating habits they will pass them along to their children. Even children who are superior athletes end up falling short of their potential because they eat crap.

This principal seems to believe that intervening by "forcing" his schools childen into a limited choice that is going to be high quality nutrition will benefit the children. Are you arguing that for the sake of freedom alone, that these children should continue to eat like their obese parents?
How is that freedom? Freedom to create my children in my own obese image?

This person acted with great sincerity and meant the best for his kids, I doubt anyone would argue that. The problem isn't in his heart, it's in his actions and assuming he knows better. The problem is not with every child let alone every overweight child, some fat kids are eating healthy foods at school and pigging out when they get home, sitting on the couch playing video games, eating their lid sister, who knows? The principal must decide where the problem is on a case by case basis.

When he sends out report cards, does he give the entire class a C and ignore those that have earned their A's or F's?
No, case by case basis,
Tommy failed, Tommy suffers
Ricky got an A, good for Ricky

To assume he knows better is simply false, first I doubt he's a nutritionist, I know he has no idea what a kid will or will not eat (just TRY to get me to eat something I don't like, now or when I was in school, it NEVER happened and never will). He assumes his school serves "nutritious" lunches, of that I seriously doubt that is correct, I suppose some school somewhere serves only wholesome food but I have not seen it yet, even where they claim it to be so.
The principal has no authority over parents and parent rights in this case (especially in his general ruling) trump his rights by a mile. If however he finds some kid (named Tommy no doubt) severely overweight and bringing nothing but crap to school for lunch, THEN he has a case and THEN he can (and indeed should) act.

I just learned one of my friends is in a kickball league. How cool is that to be playing kickball in your 30s.

My daughter was in a bar league kickball league last summer, they seemed to have a ball. Even one of the local sports radio hosts played in the league, he's about 40ish, what's wrong with it????
Good for them

rickyp wrote:This principal seems to believe that intervening by "forcing" his schools childen into a limited choice that is going to be high quality nutrition will benefit the children. Are you arguing that for the sake of freedom alone, that these children should continue to eat like their obese parents?
How is that freedom? Freedom to create my children in my own obese image?

What part of "Some 86 percent of CPS students qualify for free or reduced lunch" is not sinking in? If there's a problem with obesity and/or malnutrition it's got everything to do with the school's meals and not the tiny fraction of kids who bring sack lunches. I'm hard pressed to believe that in that environment where the government doesn't even expect 86%+ of parents to even provide or pay for their child's meal that the small group of parents who take responsibility are the problem.

The only realistic scenario I can imagine is kids coming from such broken homes that they have no one willing to fill out the forms to qualify them for the free meals, thus they are left to their own devices and pack whatever they can get their hands on. In which case they might need more of an intervention then being forced onto the lunch program.

tom
He assumes his school serves "nutritious" lunches, of that I seriously doubt that is correct

He runs his school Tom. Lets assume he has control over his cafeteria shall we? Lets also assume that if he recognizes a problem with the nutritional value of his students lunches its because he does indeed know about nutrition. He is a man with a university degree or two.

The principal has no authority over parents

Are you certain of this? Doesn't he have authority over what happens within his school? Or can parents come into his school and behave as they wish?

and parent rights in this case (especially in his general ruling) trump his rights by a mile

And what of the childs rights?

Here's what i asked:
Are you arguing that for the sake of freedom alone, that these children should continue to eat like their obese parents?
How is that freedom? Freedom to create my children in my own obese image?
Just wondering how your response answers the problem of "inherited" obesity in any fashion? That is, children who learn eating habits from their parents that ensures they'll grow up fat?
remember the numbers . 66% of American adults are medically over weight. Case by case basis could add up quickly.

neal

What part of "Some 86 percent of CPS students qualify for free or reduced lunch" is not sinking in? If there's a problem with obesity and/or malnutrition it's got everything to do with the school's meals and not the tiny fraction of kids who bring sack lunches. I'm hard pressed to believe that in that environment where the government doesn't even expect 86%+ of parents to even provide or pay for their child's meal that the small group of parents who take responsibility are the problem.

The part that says that although 86% qualify it doesn't say how many take advantage of that.
How do you know from what you've offered or read in the article I quoted what portion of this Principal's children are bagging lunch?
And if they are, why are they?
What if it isn't economic but mental? By that I mean the parents are quite happy with them eating chips and soft drinks for lunch? That they, being fat pigs themselves with lousy eating habits, don't understand or seem to particularly care what they are doing to their children?

So it's robustly middle class families and above in Chicago that don't qualify for lunch subsidies that are behind the childhood obesity epidemic? Um no.

Also if they know who the fat kids are then why don't exercise them more? It's not rocket surgery they have them 7hrs a day.

rickyp wrote:tom
He assumes his school serves "nutritious" lunches, of that I seriously doubt that is correct

He runs his school Tom. Lets assume he has control over his cafeteria shall we? Lets also assume that if he recognizes a problem with the nutritional value of his students lunches its because he does indeed know about nutrition. He is a man with a university degree or two.

.

Well, the odds are that he does not have control over his cafeteria dude. Most likely it is contracted out by the district with the contractor making the day to day decisions on food purchased and served.

As to the nutritional aspects of the food served, I will never forget the day I saw a box of hamburgers in my school cafeteria that said "Grade D but edible" on the side. That cured me from ever wanting to eat Cafeteria food ever again. Of course that was 25 years ago so things could have changed since then. However, since schools are usually operating on lowest bidder concept so I doubt it.

Also, the quoted post was the most interesting example of screwed up formatting I have ever seen. Interested to know how you screwed it up so bad.

Perhaps we should look at the Welfare system as well. Should we have only "healthy" food allowable to be purchased with the card? If you use a Government program, then you should be open to the restrictions. If you do not participate, then the Government cannot place a restriction upon you. It all depends on who gives you the money. Sound familiar? Remember when I said the employer can make the choice, and the employee can make the choice based upon that? Same thing here. If you take the Government's money, You are beholding to it's regulations

Sometimes I like the way you think, RickyP!

Are you arguing that for the sake of freedom alone, that these children should continue to eat like their obese parents?

Here's the big problem Ricky,
The situation here is one where the Principal assumes all kids are guilty of eating poorly and ALL kids are prevented from bringing their own lunches. I have agreed the principal can step in when a situation exists, to force all kids to eat the same is flat out wrong. Yes SOME are fat and eating crap. But using this same "logic" then it would follow that all kids should stay after school for detention, sure only one or two kids deserved it but you want to treat them all the same and not base your decision on a case by case basis so all kids must stay after school for detention, I guess the principal can determine who plays flute and who plays trumpet in the band and he should take away all parental or child input, after all, he knows better?

neal

So it's robustly middle class families and above in Chicago that don't qualify for lunch subsidies that are behind the childhood obesity epidemic? Um no.

If Chicago is average for the US, then 34% of adults are obese and another 32% or overweight ... then I think that middle class Americans are part of the problem. (SInce only32% are left...unless you're middle class has shrunk incredibly).
I'll repeat, you can't tell from the information given whether or not students were taking advantage of the subsidized lunches.

Perhaps, the story doesn't say, the cafeteria was of the quality that the Archduke endured in high school. In which case, the principals actions could be construed as cruel and unusual punishment. I'm willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt and believe that he's offering a better alternative than that, and I've already stipulated that for his solution to work, he'd have to do so...

and is it all about the kids?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/13/chi ... e-lunches/

"the school district receives money from the federal government for each free or reduced-price lunch it serves, meaning that in banning homemade lunches could potentially put more money in the pockets of both the district and the school district's food provider."

"Not to mention the fact that some parents may be able to send their kids to lunch with a meal that costs less (and one that could be even healthier) than the school's offerings."
...the principal assumes she knows better in a blanket policy not a case by case one.

"The kids are upset, too. When the Tribune reporter visited the school, one seventh grader led students in a chant of "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!" Students say the school's food tastes bad. Bad-tasting food, parents say, often means that kids throw away the school lunch and go hungry."

per the Principal:
"it's better for the children to eat at the school. It's about nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom)."

and I can not find a menu online for this particular school, but I have NEVER seen a cafeteria serve "excellent quality food" have you? The FACT that kids throw most away seems to prove my position correct.
Just one year ago, the same Chicago school district had kids complaining about the quality of food being served:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/chicago-studen ... d=10193152

and I found this menu from Chicago
Lincoln Elementary School
http://www.lincoln.cps.k12.il.us/LunchM ... L_MENU.pdf

not a bad offering, but how "healthy" or how "excellent quality" is this?
I see pizza, grilled Cheese, Peanut Butter and Jelly (the stuff most kids would bring from home far cheaper), Fish tacos, BBQ Chicken Bites, Please, ...healthy?
because you offer a wilted salad or some canned mixed veggies that will not be eaten does not make it healthy.

tom

Here's the big problem Ricky,
The situation here is one where the Principal assumes all kids are guilty of eating poorly and ALL kids are prevented from bringing their own lunches. I have agreed the principal can step in when a situation exists, to force all kids to eat the same is flat out wrong. Yes SOME are fat and eating crap. But using this same "logic" then it would follow that all kids should stay after school for detention, sure only one or two kids deserved it but you want to treat them all the same and not base your decision on a case by case basis so all kids must stay after school for detention, I guess the principal can determine who plays flute and who plays trumpet in the band and he should take away all parental or child input, after all, he knows better?

See, here's the problem Tom. Your case by case solution would be unworkable. Are you suggesting that he intervenes one by one with the fat kids and investigates their lunch bags? I suppose Sue Sylvester gets put in control of this enforcement squad?
The only way to equitably, and effectively enforce his solution is to ban all but allergy excepted students from bagging lunches. Otherwise you have an overbearing principal singling out fat kids, and individually shaming specific parents.You can imagine how this would play out?
And I'll grant, again, that the principals solution doesn't work if the archdukes high school cafeteria is replicated in this Chicago school.

So what I'm amazed by is that none of you seem to have any ideas of something better than the status quo? Its the status quo of "personal parental responsibility" that has helped lead to the obesity epidemic. (Complicated by cheap fast food from a subsidized corn basis...) , And yet you fell comfortable defending it over this mans attempt to change it in his school.