Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home
To encourage healthful eating, Chicago school doesn't allow kids to bring lunches or certain snacks from home — and some parents, and many students, aren't fans of the policy
Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.

"Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?" the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.

Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!"

Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: "Do you see the situation?"
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.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.

A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals.

"While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments," Monique Bond wrote in an email. "In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom."

Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.

"Some of the kids don't like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast," said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. "So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something."

"(My grandson) is really picky about what he eats," said Anna Torrez, who was picking up the boy from school. "I think they should be able to bring their lunch. Other schools let them. But at this school, they don't."

But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain.

"The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children.

Such discussions over school lunches and healthy eating echo a larger national debate about the role government should play in individual food choices.

"This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry.
"Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Wilson said. "This is the perfect illustration of how the government's one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again. Some parents may want to pack a gluten-free meal for a child, and others may have no problem with a child enjoying soda."

For many CPS parents, the idea of forbidding home-packed lunches would be unthinkable. If their children do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals, such a policy would require them to pay $2.25 a day for food they don't necessarily like.

"We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk," education policy professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach wrote in an email. Her son attends Nettelhorst Elementary School in Lakeview. "Not only would mandatory school lunches worsen the dietary quality of most kids' lunches at Nettelhorst, but it would also cost more out of pocket to most parents! There is no chance the parents would stand for that."

Many Little Village students claim that, given the opportunity, they would make sound choices. They're afraid that we'll all bring in greasy food instead of healthy food and it won't be as good as what they give us at school," said student Yesenia Gutierrez. "It's really lame. If we could bring in our own lunches, everyone knows what they'd bring. For example, the vegetarians could bring in their own veggie food."

"I would bring a sandwich or a Subway and maybe a juice," said seventh-grader Ashley Valdez.

Second-grader Gerardo Ramos said, "I would bring a banana, orange and some grapes."

"I would bring a juice and like a sandwich," said fourth-grader Eric Sanchez.

"Sometimes I would bring the healthy stuff," second-grader Julian Ruiz said, "but sometimes I would bring Lunchables." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/e...7.story?page=2

[ilbegone]

This would piss me off if it had happened locally when my kids were in school.

[Ayatollahgondola]

So....... California isn't the only nanny state after all

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Chicago Kids: Get Your Hands Off My Lunchbox!
No wonder Chicago Public Schools have a dropout rate near 50%: now the government school system is telling kids what to eat.
Fearing that mother’s lunches will be inferior to bureaucrats’, Chicago schools are now banning lunches brought from home. And kids ain’t happy about it. The Chicago Tribune reports:
Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.
"Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?" the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.
Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!"
Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: "Do you see the situation?"
The last thing failing schools should be worrying about is what kids are eating for lunch. With miserable track records at educating children, how can we expect them to get nutritional needs right?
Government schools do not run our lives. Some things should still be sacred including, yes, a home-packed lunch.
This is further proof that government-run education is failing and it’s why kids are leaving it in droves for educational options that work.
http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleo...ff_my_lunchbox!


Now our freedom to chose what we eat is in question.

New York Welcomes the Unhappy Meal
Parents have many responsibilities. Getting the kids up and ready for school, making sure they do their homework and practice proper manners. Parents manage carpools, play-dates and sleepovers; they sooth scraped knees, bruised heads and injured feelings. But perhaps the most basic thing a parent does is feed their children. Feeding a child means more than just spooning mashed carrots into a baby’s mouth or preparing a simple peanut butter and jelly sandwich for a toddler. It requires a firm constitution when children demand a meal mom and dad might not consider healthy.
Most parents deal with these demands by simply saying “no” to the pestering child, but apparently this is a feat too difficult for parents -- at least according to one New York City council member.
Taking a page from the San Francisco ban on toys in McDonalds’ Happy Meals, New York City Councilman Leroy Comrie just announced his plan to introduce a bill to ban fast food restaurants from using these “predatory marketing techniques” unless they meet “certain satisfactory nutritional requirements.”
Of course, Comrie is just the latest public official to jump on the anti-Happy Meal bandwagon. San Francisco passed its own ban last year despite there being no evidence that these bans result in children and parents making healthier food decisions. And there’s the rub: What seems to escape Comrie and the rest of the food nannies is that something else comes with these toys—yummy food that kids love. French fries, chicken nuggets, hamburgers--these items taste good to kids (and adults). Kids will still clamor for these appealing items, even if a toy isn’t included.
Fast food restaurants are already voluntarily altering their menus so that customers have healthier choices. McDonalds now offers apple slices, yogurt and oatmeal on their menu. At Burger King, customers can order a veggie burger as well as a variety of salads and grilled chicken sandwiches. The entire fast food industry has been experimenting with oils that don’t contain trans-fats to get ahead of trans-fat bans and many fast food restaurants post the calories contained in each item—some even directly on many of the food containers.
And, of course, parents can stop their children from eating unhealthy fast food by not giving them the money to purchase these meals. But that's not enough for the nation’s food nannies, who want government to step in and do parents’ job. The engine behind most of these proposed regulations is the Center for Science in the Public Interest—which last year made a media splash by announcing it would sue McDonalds for daring to give your kids a free toy (the nerve!). And they’ve followed through with the suit.
In December, CSPI and California mother Monet Parham filed suit against McDonalds Corporation because the company “exploits very young California children and harms their health by advertising unhealthy Happy Meals with toys directly to them.”
Talking about the lawsuit, Parham explained the harrowing ordeal she faces saying no to her children’s constant demands for McDonalds: “Needless to say, my answer was no, and as usual, pouting ensued and a little bit of a disagreement between us. This doesn’t stop with one request. It’s truly a litany of requests.” Does anyone truly believe that Parham’s children won't still demand french fries, even when packaged without a toy?
Parham captures perfectly how the CSPI views parents: spineless, weak, and at the mercy of children and advertisers. While the CSPI might try to portray itself as being on the side of these poor overwhelmed moms and dads, the truth is the CSPI has nothing but contempt for parents. They view parents as hapless creatures, incapable of making sound decisions about when—and when not—to give their children a treat. American parents everywhere should recoil from this kind of government paternalism.
I, however, feel a little sorry for Parham. Someone needs to get her a Happy Meal.
http://townhall.com/columnists/julie...py_meal/page/2