School menu ridiculousness

misskerouac

There was no school cafeteria until 10th grade when I went to the Senior High (and even then, you had to pay for any food so I rarely bought my lunch there). Elementary and Jr. High you had to bring your own lunch.

IF you were a struggling family you could fill out a form for your child/children and they would have a bagged lunch provided for them which usually consisted of a sandwich, a piece of fruit, milk, and one other item.

MisterDerpington

What did you eat in the cafeteria? As someone who was in the school system from the mid 90's to 2007, this sounds about accurate for the last few decades.

toaster6

What are the portion sizes? I didn't eat school provided lunches in high school, but I remember in middle school, the portions weren't that big-- usually smaller than the kids meals at fast food places. Of course, this was about ten years ago, so I obviously can't say if it's changed. All I would suggest is to try to find out what the calorie counts and nutritional values are and if you just don't have the time to make a home lunch for your child, make a dinner to satisfy any nutritional holes.

stealthq

What did you eat in the cafeteria? As someone who was in the school system from the mid 90's to 2007, this sounds about accurate for the last few decades.

I was in the public system in the 80's, and the public school lunches were worse than what I'm seeing reported here.

One of what the school system seemed to think was a 'healthier' lunch was chicken fried steak fingers, mashed potatoes, cream gravy, and wacky cake. Maybe it was better than the frito pie smothered in cheese, who knows.

Needless to say, most seniors were relieved to get the privilege of eating lunch off campus.

Glad I almost always had lunch from home.

stealthq

Yeah... see, you are worried about morals and who is to blame for what. Nice tautology there, but I really could care less because we don't need all that reasoning when we have evidence of what's wrong and what helps. Considering the costs, even 1/10th of the claimed benefits would make the program worthwhile.

You argument reduces down to "unfortunately we can't act to break the cycle of poverty, because that would create a moral hazard, and chaos would ensue". Fortunately, most people grow out of their Ayn Rand stage and we have better policies than that.

You know, I'm curious. If the school lunch program has such benefits and there's no better way to help poor hungry kids, how do countries like Canada (most provinces, I believe there is one that has a school lunch program) and Australia that don't serve lunch in school manage? Last I heard they are not inundated with starving children.

From a study by the Canadian Council on Social Development after a study of the efficacy of school lunch programs (http://www.ccsd.ca/perception/234/sf.htm):

"As school food programs have developed, their goals have shifted. Programs that were begun simply to feed children now try to address multiple goals such as nutritional adequacy for all children, nutritional education, positive socialization, school attendance, family time-stress, community mobilization, partnerships and social supports. One reason for this shift is that programs have been unable to demonstrate reductions in hunger and enhancements in nutrition."

and

"From this review of school food programs, it would seem that they are an inadequate or inappropriate response to hunger in children for a number of reasons, including the following:

Programs can only address a symptom - hunger - of one or more underlying problems.

Typically, hungry children and their families use other means to alleviate hunger - such as food banks, relatives, neighbours - before using school food programs.

Lack of data makes it very difficult to know, other than through anecdotes, what percentage of hungry children in any given school area participate in programs.

The nutritional value of programs and of the food that is served may be inadequate. A lack of documentation means that there is insufficient evidence to measure the nutritional value.

From a developmental perspective, hunger and undernourishment can have the most severe effects on preschool-aged children, rather than on school-aged children. Children not yet in school should probably be the priority recipients of food programs.

Most programs are elementary-school based, thus disregarding youth. <-- this is not the case in my area

Most programs are based in schools rather than in other community facilities, so the food is available for only about half the year.
"

spaingirl2011

I just want to chime in and say that I think this is a very interesting discussion.

After reading many of these responses, it's interesting to me that many see school/education as mutually exclusive from nutrition education. I don't necessarily think that this is true. Especially when children are young (between the ages of 4-11) we teach them how to be good citizens, how to interact with one another, and(if their PE budget isn't cut) how to be active. When I was in elementary school (almost 25 years ago) we had age-appropriate health and nutrition lessons. What kind of educational example would schools be setting, after having a child in a 7-8 hour school day learning not just reading, writing and math, but how to be healthy, and then present them with a smorgasbord of processed foods that resemble nothing like the examples they were shown in class?

Yes, parents do have the responsibility to teach their children about nutrition and health. But children's schooling does not and should not omit education by example. A whole wheat tortilla with lowfat cheese and fresh fruit is a better option (and food children can connect to their lessons) than a Poptart--even if it is whole wheat.

My point, is that while parents are responsible for teaching their children about nutrition and making good choices, schools are educational establishments that should also be supporting those lessons.

Anyway, I just wanted to contribute to this discussion. All best!

krees78

Coming from Australia, where, as mentioned we don't have cafeterias where the children have to eat - this is ridiculous.

Our schools have canteens, where students can buy lunch if needed, but there has been a big change in what is offered in the past 10 years.

When I was at school, the canteen offered pies, cakes, chips, sausage rolls etc. These are never seen any more.

Lunches mostly consist of sandwiches/rolls, salads, quiches and pasta. Nachos occasionally, or something similar, but nothing like the good old days. And steamed dim sims are usually still offered.

But, I will say that even though I never got to eat the canteen food (my parents couldn't afford it), and I had sandwiches and fruit for school lunch - and I grew up on a farm - hundreds of miles away from the nearest McDonalds, and was physically active, I still became obese, mainly from the volume of food I ate.

pcastagner

Yeah... see, you are worried about morals and who is to blame for what. Nice tautology there, but I really could care less because we don't need all that reasoning when we have evidence of what's wrong and what helps. Considering the costs, even 1/10th of the claimed benefits would make the program worthwhile.

You argument reduces down to "unfortunately we can't act to break the cycle of poverty, because that would create a moral hazard, and chaos would ensue". Fortunately, most people grow out of their Ayn Rand stage and we have better policies than that.

You know, I'm curious. If the school lunch program has such benefits and there's no better way to help poor hungry kids, how do countries like Canada (most provinces, I believe there is one that has a school lunch program) and Australia that don't serve lunch in school manage? Last I heard they are not inundated with starving children.

From a study by the Canadian Council on Social Development after a study of the efficacy of school lunch programs (http://www.ccsd.ca/perception/234/sf.htm):

"As school food programs have developed, their goals have shifted. Programs that were begun simply to feed children now try to address multiple goals such as nutritional adequacy for all children, nutritional education, positive socialization, school attendance, family time-stress, community mobilization, partnerships and social supports. One reason for this shift is that programs have been unable to demonstrate reductions in hunger and enhancements in nutrition."

and

"From this review of school food programs, it would seem that they are an inadequate or inappropriate response to hunger in children for a number of reasons, including the following:

Programs can only address a symptom - hunger - of one or more underlying problems.

Typically, hungry children and their families use other means to alleviate hunger - such as food banks, relatives, neighbours - before using school food programs.

Lack of data makes it very difficult to know, other than through anecdotes, what percentage of hungry children in any given school area participate in programs.

The nutritional value of programs and of the food that is served may be inadequate. A lack of documentation means that there is insufficient evidence to measure the nutritional value.

From a developmental perspective, hunger and undernourishment can have the most severe effects on preschool-aged children, rather than on school-aged children. Children not yet in school should probably be the priority recipients of food programs.

Most programs are elementary-school based, thus disregarding youth. <-- this is not the case in my area

Most programs are based in schools rather than in other community facilities, so the food is available for only about half the year.
"

Both those countries feature more extensive and generous social welfare programs than what is seen in the USA. They are frequently cited by the political right in the US as examples of how awful things will be if we allow "socialism" to run rampant.

I will totally agree that the USA should abandon school lunches and adopt more generous and sensible programs for addressing food insecurity, inadequate medical care, and the cycle of poverty.

SToast

Wow, our school menus are nothing like that. Gone are the deep fried/fatty foods and highly processed foods. Fresh fruit every day, low sodium, whole grain breads. Still not as good as packing your own lunch but I was impressed with it.

BeachIron

I just want to chime in and say that I think this is a very interesting discussion.

After reading many of these responses, it's interesting to me that many see school/education as mutually exclusive from nutrition education. I don't necessarily think that this is true. Especially when children are young (between the ages of 4-11) we teach them how to be good citizens, how to interact with one another, and(if their PE budget isn't cut) how to be active. When I was in elementary school (almost 25 years ago) we had age-appropriate health and nutrition lessons. What kind of educational example would schools be setting, after having a child in a 7-8 hour school day learning not just reading, writing and math, but how to be healthy, and then present them with a smorgasbord of processed foods that resemble nothing like the examples they were shown in class?

Yes, parents do have the responsibility to teach their children about nutrition and health. But children's schooling does not and should not omit education by example. A whole wheat tortilla with lowfat cheese and fresh fruit is a better option (and food children can connect to their lessons) than a Poptart--even if it is whole wheat.

My point, is that while parents are responsible for teaching their children about nutrition and making good choices, schools are educational establishments that should also be supporting those lessons.

Anyway, I just wanted to contribute to this discussion. All best!

You had me until you mentioned low fat cheese for kids. That's a big NO.

The ridiculous food limitations (cutting out fat, carbs, grains, milk, etc.) that show up on here for adults, only become all that more ridiculous and dangerous when they are applied to kids.

spaingirl2011

I just want to chime in and say that I think this is a very interesting discussion.

After reading many of these responses, it's interesting to me that many see school/education as mutually exclusive from nutrition education. I don't necessarily think that this is true. Especially when children are young (between the ages of 4-11) we teach them how to be good citizens, how to interact with one another, and(if their PE budget isn't cut) how to be active. When I was in elementary school (almost 25 years ago) we had age-appropriate health and nutrition lessons. What kind of educational example would schools be setting, after having a child in a 7-8 hour school day learning not just reading, writing and math, but how to be healthy, and then present them with a smorgasbord of processed foods that resemble nothing like the examples they were shown in class?

Yes, parents do have the responsibility to teach their children about nutrition and health. But children's schooling does not and should not omit education by example. A whole wheat tortilla with lowfat cheese and fresh fruit is a better option (and food children can connect to their lessons) than a Poptart--even if it is whole wheat.

My point, is that while parents are responsible for teaching their children about nutrition and making good choices, schools are educational establishments that should also be supporting those lessons.

Anyway, I just wanted to contribute to this discussion. All best!

You had me until you mentioned low fat cheese for kids. That's a big NO.

The ridiculous food limitations (cutting out fat, carbs, grains, milk, etc.) that show up on here for adults, only become all that more ridiculous and dangerous when they are applied to kids.

I only mentioned low fat cheese because I imagined that even with the best efforts at food reform, it would still be cooked with some kind of grease.

I was honestly just trying to talk about recognizable food (cheese made with 2% milk), so if that's really your only qualm with my point, by all means, translate it to mean food that isn't radioactive (like "chee"tos as a byproduct of cheese--in the same ways cafeterias are allowed to call tomato paste an actual fruit or vegetable).

BeachIron

I just want to chime in and say that I think this is a very interesting discussion.

After reading many of these responses, it's interesting to me that many see school/education as mutually exclusive from nutrition education. I don't necessarily think that this is true. Especially when children are young (between the ages of 4-11) we teach them how to be good citizens, how to interact with one another, and(if their PE budget isn't cut) how to be active. When I was in elementary school (almost 25 years ago) we had age-appropriate health and nutrition lessons. What kind of educational example would schools be setting, after having a child in a 7-8 hour school day learning not just reading, writing and math, but how to be healthy, and then present them with a smorgasbord of processed foods that resemble nothing like the examples they were shown in class?

Yes, parents do have the responsibility to teach their children about nutrition and health. But children's schooling does not and should not omit education by example. A whole wheat tortilla with lowfat cheese and fresh fruit is a better option (and food children can connect to their lessons) than a Poptart--even if it is whole wheat.

My point, is that while parents are responsible for teaching their children about nutrition and making good choices, schools are educational establishments that should also be supporting those lessons.

Anyway, I just wanted to contribute to this discussion. All best!

You had me until you mentioned low fat cheese for kids. That's a big NO.

The ridiculous food limitations (cutting out fat, carbs, grains, milk, etc.) that show up on here for adults, only become all that more ridiculous and dangerous when they are applied to kids.

I only mentioned low fat cheese because I imagined that even with the best efforts at food reform, it would still be cooked with some kind of grease.

I was honestly just trying to talk about recognizable food (cheese made with 2% milk), so if that's really your only qualm with my point, by all means, translate it to mean food that isn't radioactive (like "chee"tos as a byproduct of cheese--in the same ways cafeterias are allowed to call tomato paste an actual fruit or vegetable).

School lunches aren't perfect, but they do a pretty good job of providing growing children the needed calories and nutrition. Tomato paste for example, contains tomatoes, so yea, it's a vegetable (technically a fruit but meh) and is good source of vitamins. Vegetables don't have to be in a salad to provide nutrition. Ketchup? Yea, contains a little bit of tomato but not enough to provide any nutrition. Tomato paste, sauce and canned tomatoes? These are fine.

Too much is being made about how bad school lunches are, IMHO, without actually thinking carefully about what is available, and that will depend heavily on the specific school and school district. The details matter, and sweeping statements are rarely accurate.

That said, I've had lunch with my older daughter at her school a few times. Good choices are available, but it is my (and my wife's) job to be encouraging her to make them. Then again, so what if she eats some fried food at school and enjoys a piece of cake in the process? She is 7, very active, and she gets an array of healthy food at home. I guess I just don't get excited about all this because I'm not eager to put my parenting responsibilities on someone else. If the food at the school cafeteria were really "radioactive" then we'd be finding another school and/or packing her lunch.

So the TL;DR version is I guess, that a deep breath from most people in this thread would help.

edit: typos :grumble:

spaingirl2011

I just want to chime in and say that I think this is a very interesting discussion.

After reading many of these responses, it's interesting to me that many see school/education as mutually exclusive from nutrition education. I don't necessarily think that this is true. Especially when children are young (between the ages of 4-11) we teach them how to be good citizens, how to interact with one another, and(if their PE budget isn't cut) how to be active. When I was in elementary school (almost 25 years ago) we had age-appropriate health and nutrition lessons. What kind of educational example would schools be setting, after having a child in a 7-8 hour school day learning not just reading, writing and math, but how to be healthy, and then present them with a smorgasbord of processed foods that resemble nothing like the examples they were shown in class?

Yes, parents do have the responsibility to teach their children about nutrition and health. But children's schooling does not and should not omit education by example. A whole wheat tortilla with lowfat cheese and fresh fruit is a better option (and food children can connect to their lessons) than a Poptart--even if it is whole wheat.

My point, is that while parents are responsible for teaching their children about nutrition and making good choices, schools are educational establishments that should also be supporting those lessons.

Anyway, I just wanted to contribute to this discussion. All best!

You had me until you mentioned low fat cheese for kids. That's a big NO.

The ridiculous food limitations (cutting out fat, carbs, grains, milk, etc.) that show up on here for adults, only become all that more ridiculous and dangerous when they are applied to kids.

I only mentioned low fat cheese because I imagined that even with the best efforts at food reform, it would still be cooked with some kind of grease.

I was honestly just trying to talk about recognizable food (cheese made with 2% milk), so if that's really your only qualm with my point, by all means, translate it to mean food that isn't radioactive (like "chee"tos as a byproduct of cheese--in the same ways cafeterias are allowed to call tomato paste an actual fruit or vegetable).

School lunches aren't perfect, but they do a pretty good job of providing growing children the needed calories and nutrition. Tomato paste for example, contains tomatoes, so yea, it's a vegetable (technically a fruit but meh) and is good source of vitamins. Vegetables don't have to be in a salad to provide nutrition. Ketchup? Yea, contains a little bit of tomato but not enough to provide any nutrition. Tomato paste, sauce and canned tomatoes? These are fine.

Too much is being made about how bad school lunches are, IMHO, without actually thinking carefully about what is available, and that will depend heavily on the specific school and school district. The details matter, and sweeping statements are rarely accurate.

That said, I've had lunch with my older daughter at her school a few times. Good choices are available, but it is my (and my wife's) job to be encouraging her to make them. Then again, so what if she eats some fried food at school and enjoys a piece of cake in the process? She is 7, very active, and she gets an array of healthy food at home. I guess I just don't get excited about all this because I'm not eager to put my parenting responsibilities on someone else. If the food at the school cafeteria were really "radioactive" then we'd be finding another school and/or packing her lunch.

So the TL;DR version is I guess, that a deep breath from most people in this thread would help.

edit: typos :grumble:

I think it's fair to say that we tend to assume that there are more resources available than there actually are--especially when it comes to school food (especially with important programs being cut all over the place). It's no crime for a kid to splurge on a cookie or honey bun (my middle school indulgence). Or for that matter, it's no crime for a kid to enjoy Pizza Fridays. But I don't see how a poptart can't be replaced with whole grain toast and jam. If for no other reason than because the bread looks like it came off of the food pyramid chart that the children learn about. It's an interesting discussion and one definitely worth having an continuing.

Thanks for a good discussion!