Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Post No. 162d: Chicago School Bans Some Lunches Brought from Home


According to the Chicago Tribune, an Illinois school has banned certain lunches brought from home. According to the school head, the new policy is designed to assist students in making healthy food choices.

Is this a responsible or irresponsible approach?

Check out the article here.

11 comments:

  1. Everyone knows which foods are unhealthy and those which are not, and yet a significant number of people (adults included) choose to eat the poor foods. This leads to cancer and other diet related health problems which place a burden on our health care delivery system, costs us all in the long run.

    If the adult idiots of the world choose to eat poorly, then they should suffer the consequences alone, and our health care system should not have its costs increased affecting us all.

    I for one hate to see my tax dollars used for MediCaid and MediCare payments to people who cause their own health problems.

    Adults who eat poorly should be denied health care benefits.

    But children are different. If their parents do not have enough sense to feed their kids properly, then someone ought to intervene on the kids' behalf. The parents should be prosecuted for child endangerment, or at a minimum, sued for negligence.

    Children should not have to suffer for the screw-ups of their parents, if some simple policy like this can contribute to the good health of kids.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I contrast the attitudes and practices common 50 years ago, probably both in the US and the UK with the bitterness and anger seen in comments connected with such subjects as this now. Read the piece in the C.T. and comments below that.

    My secondary school was 13 miles from my country home. I took sanwhiches for two breaks and ate a two or three course lunch at mid-day. Simple food from ingredients, cooked in-house. Noboby was very impressed, but there were no pressure-groups with commercial backup promoting students' or parents' attitudes.

    The boys knew if they would be hungry at any given time of the day or not, and NOTHING at all was on sale at the school or anywhere near. Simple.

    The point is that neither parents nor authorities were accused of interfering or negligence - it all just happened, and i can assure you that no food was ever thrown away (except from a dinner plate). There was always enough boys around with eagle eyes for unwanted food. Obesety was very rare.

    What is the answer? Remove ENTERPRISE from Education and Health. Not entirely of course - it has never been like that anywhere - but pay people able to organise the systems emormous sums to do so without their sharing DIRECTLY in the fortunes that circulate in the process. Let these top people be rewarded in line with the health and education levels they achieve, not according to the commercial pies their fingers are in.

    There is obviously plenty of scope for corruption, but health and education can be monitored, however imperfectly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The referenced article was quite good. As I think back to my school days, I realized I stopped bringing lunch to school after I got through the 6th grade. It was just too uncool to bring a lunch. That didn't mean I then began eating the school provided food. I would cajole the girls to share parts of their lunch or just grab what I wanted (usually a dessert) from a nerd. Yeah, I was that guy.

    As I recall, what they served was bland at best, tasted bad at worst.

    My libertarian nature says this is a bad thing to ban lunches brought from home.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is definitely a positive approach, no harm in it, obviously if many students are having unhealthy food, I think this is a wonderful way to keep a check so that they develop a habit of eating healthy. children should not suffer due to parents mistakes, if this simple policy helps in developing good food habits, it would be a wonder

    ReplyDelete
  5. CorfuBob: In your comment, you used the phrase, "It all just happened..." in describing how society managed to take care of or address "things" without so much acrimony and bitterness.

    In our view, everything depends on jobs, jobs, and more jobs, and the ability of a family unit to make "decent judgment calls" because the heads of the family unit can find decent employment to decently take care of their basic family needs.

    Jobs, jobs, jobs, and the self-respect which derives from having a job.... We had them during the days we grew up CorfuBob. Jobs are more illusive today.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous, thanks for weighing in. Although reasonable people could differ with you with respect to your child endangerment or negligence assertions, you do raise an important issue.

    To what extent are the failures of parents their failures as opposed to society's failures. Is it the responsibility of every parent to make enough money to ensure that their children are fed in a healthy manner? Is it really about money or choices regardless of money?

    Are the children of poor parents more likely to eat poor foods that the children of wealthy parents?

    Is this an economic issue at all?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Douglas, the Libertarian. What other choices should society leave entirely to parents? How about going to school at all?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you Bharat for visiting our forum. There is no question that the effort is well-intentioned, and that if it succeeds in achieving its goal, something positive will have been achieved. But should a government or even a private entity intervene on behalf of children and arguably become an intermeddler in the parent - child relationship?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sounds responsible at first glance but seems to be an irresponsible approach as not all parents can afford $2.25 a day for their kids Lunch. What's with dietaty restrictions that are not medical, such as students who eat vegan, kosher and so on?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sounds responsible at first glance but seems to be an irresponsible approach as not all parents can afford $2.25 a day for their kids Lunch. What's with dietaty restrictions that are not medical, such as students who eat vegan, kosher and so on?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Everyone knows which foods are unhealthy and those which are not, and yet a significant number of people (adults included) choose to eat the poor foods. This leads to cancer and other diet related health problems which place a burden on our health care delivery system, costs us all in the long run.

    If the adult idiots of the world choose to eat poorly, then they should suffer the consequences alone, and our health care system should not have its costs increased affecting us all.

    I for one hate to see my tax dollars used for MediCaid and MediCare payments to people who cause their own health problems.

    Adults who eat poorly should be denied health care benefits.

    But children are different. If their parents do not have enough sense to feed their kids properly, then someone ought to intervene on the kids' behalf. The parents should be prosecuted for child endangerment, or at a minimum, sued for negligence.

    Children should not have to suffer for the screw-ups of their parents, if some simple policy like this can contribute to the good health of kids.

    ReplyDelete

"There Are More Than 2 Or 3 Ways To View Any Issue; There Are At Least 27"™

"Experience Isn't Expensive; It's Priceless"™

"Common Sense should be a Way of Life"™

Opportunity to Serve as "Guest Author"

This forum was designed to be YOUR forum for the civil exchange of ideas by people with all points of views. We welcome the submission of articles by all of our readers, as long as they are in compliance with our Guidelines contained in Post No. 34. We look forward to receiving your submissions.