I'm sorry, why is this the government's responsibility? Why can't parents be responsible for anything anymore?

grapefruitgal:Why can't parents be responsible for anything anymore?

It's the lunch the school provides. How is it reasonable for parents to be responsible for what the school serves? It's the school's responsibility.

And for chrissakes, they're kids. They aren't informed, rational consumers. Make 'em eat their goddam greens.

hillbillypharmacist:
It's the lunch the school provides. How is it reasonable for parents to be responsible for what the school serves? It's the school's responsibility.

FTFA: Television chef Jamie Oliver spearheaded a highly-successful campaign to remove junk food from school menus. However while the Government was forced to commit millions to replacing them with pasta, vegetables and fish, pupils have been turning their backs.

So no it's not. The article is about not letting kids off campus to buy junk food. Parents should be responsible for teaching their children proper eating habits. The school has already done its part.

If the campaign is so "highly successful", how come the kids aren't eating the results?

heres an idea "mandatory rugby"

"Healthfully," submitter.

What ever happened to natural selection?

hillbillypharmacist:It's the lunch the school provides. How is it reasonable for parents to be responsible for what the school serves? It's the school's responsibility.

I'm relatively sure kids are allowed to bring in lunch from home. My kid has breakfast offered at her school, and after they gave it to her free once (we then received a "bill") I made sure the breakfast lady, her classroom teacher and anyone else who got a copy knew she wasn't allowed breakfast without cash up front. I serve her a variety of breakfast items before school, and her sitter provides a lunch after her morning kindergarten. She doesn't need "breakfast" from school. The menu makes it look like crap anyway.

In another year, I'll be making her breakfast along with her dad's. She'll bring it from home.

People eat what tastes good, especially kids. Humans are not adapted for the land of plenty.

Just as long as they remember to announce "Code 10" when they see the fire brigade, there should not be a problem.

Visions of fat kids and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory running thru my head. Isn't the UK where the fat mommies tried to smuggle fatburgers into the schools so their fat little angels wouldn't have to eat healthy food?

Did we all see that Jamie Oliver special? The kids in that trial would hardly try his food, opting instead for the usual stuff.

grapefruitgal:I'm sorry, why is this the government's responsibility? Why can't parents be responsible for anything anymore?

Because of "free" health care. Nanny depends upon unhealthy minds but cannot afford unhealthy bodies.

Just imagine how gross, the food is in a UK school cafeteria.

Subby: Having tried the "not linking to the Daily Fail" approach and failed miserably at grammers, FARK schools may start locking 'nanny state' cliches in to stop them from being funny, force them to eat shiat.

FTFY

They are in the UK, they might as well get used to eating things that taste like shiat.

Many studies have shown that parenting classes have the best impact on the weight of overweight children. But let's ignore both common sense and reality, and continue to blame McDonald's and The School for our snowflake fatties.

hillbillypharmacist:And for chrissakes, they're kids. They aren't informed, rational consumers. Make 'em eat their goddam greens.

Seriously.

I was amazed to find the school down the street from me, a high school, let the kids out to buy whatever fast foods. This being the US, it meant they all got in their CARS to go drive to Wendy's etc. Well, that and smoke on the neighbors' porches, of course.

They've since stopped that and keep the kids on the grounds, I have no idea if there are junk food machines in the school or not.

The moms selling the food through the fence in TFA don't exactly seem the paragon of health, either.

Then don't let them leave

We couldn't leave our schools during lunch either, OHNOES!!!!

The Mail should only be seen as a screensaver at Wal-mart checkouts.

You wonder why the kids eat shiat, might want to ask the parents who read that drivel.

Headline...full...of...FAIL
/over

paulieY2J:Just imagine how gross the food is in a UK school cafeteria.

fixed your comma for you

nonannystate:Many studies have shown that parenting classes have the best impact on the weight of overweight children. But let's ignore both common sense and reality, and continue to blame McDonald's and The School for our snowflake fatties.

Do you have any links to those studies? I'd be curious to see them. My kids are both pretty thin despite our worst efforts.

grapefruitgal:I'm sorry, why is this the government's responsibility? Why can't parents be responsible for anything anymore?

Because the government is paying for their healthcare.

You can't have any pudding until you eat your meat.

/you guys are slipping

"The couple said they speaking out, only to warn other people planning weddings at the church about Rev Cameron, and not to recover the £500 cost of the wedding from the church."

'They speaking out'? And if the Vicar ruins another wedding they should NOT try and get their 500 pounds back?

meshman:"The couple said they speaking out, only to warn other people planning weddings at the church about Rev Cameron, and not to recover the £500 cost of the wedding from the church."

'They speaking out'? And if the Vicar ruins another wedding they should NOT try and get their 500 pounds back?

Wrong thread.

/lol.

School administrators just can't get enough fun from being control freaks. OBEY!

And remember, boys and girls, schooling has nothing to do with education.

I think all the students should go on strike. See what happens when there is 0 attendance for lunch.

itazurakko:hillbillypharmacist:And for chrissakes, they're kids. They aren't informed, rational consumers. Make 'em eat their goddam greens.

Seriously.

I was amazed to find the school down the street from me, a high school, let the kids out to buy whatever fast foods. This being the US, it meant they all got in their CARS to go drive to Wendy's etc. Well, that and smoke on the neighbors' porches, of course.

They've since stopped that and keep the kids on the grounds, I have no idea if there are junk food machines in the school or not.

The moms selling the food through the fence in TFA don't exactly seem the paragon of health, either.

So they are responsible enough to drive, but not able to choose what to eat? Are you serious. You don't think people in high school can choose what they want to eat? They are not children.

It didn't work at Hogwarts, so no reason it'll work for Muggle schools either.

At my high school, I would love to eat healthy food.

Except, the 'healthy' food isn't all that... healthy. Or up to health code. It's to the point where the rice&gravy is green, the bread is stale and tastes like wood, and anything that wasn't brought in from the outside (i.e. nasty, greasy pizzas, king cake, donuts) is definitely NOT healthy. And anything half-healthy that they serve that isn't disgusting? It takes the whole lunch hour to get even close to the front of the line.

They sell chips outside, so I eat those instead.

Then again, this is America, not UK.

If I lived in England I wouldn't want to eat the homemade food either. Packaged and processed for me!

Steak and kidney pie!

Good. The little bastards don't know what's good for them. Also, they should be beaten daily with lengths of four-by-two to improve morale.

GBmanNC: So they are responsible enough to drive, but not able to choose what to eat?

Because driving and healthy eating are skills which are acquired at the same time and use exactly the same cognitive functions.

I could drive a bumper car pretty well when I was 8. I also would have survived on chocolate chip cookies if given a choice.

And why do you think the Freshman 15 is so common?

Are you serious. You don't think people in high school can choose what they want to eat? They are not children.

Technically, they are.

And schools are in loco parentis (at least in the US), and they can lock the kids in if they feel like it.

cakesalad or death!

theodicey:GBmanNC: So they are responsible enough to drive, but not able to choose what to eat?

Because driving and healthy eating are skills which are acquired at the same time and use exactly the same cognitive functions.

I could drive a bumper car pretty well when I was 8. I also would have survived on chocolate chip cookies if given a choice.

And why do you think the Freshman 15 is so common?

Are you serious. You don't think people in high school can choose what they want to eat? They are not children.

Technically, they are.

And schools are in loco parentis (at least in the US), and they can lock the kids in if they feel like it.

The freshman 15 refers to college freshman not high school freshman. And half the kids that would be leaving school grounds for lunch (jr and seniors) aren't even "children" legally.

I don't get the whole "British food sucks" cliche. I've been there, the food is awesome. Meat pies, chips with vinegar, mashed potato, delicious sausage and beer . . . English food rocks.

Well, DUHHH.

What's the big deal? My high school was "closed campus" and nobody made a big stink about it.

theolinc:heres an idea "mandatory rugby"

Whew...I thought you meant "mandatory rugbyjock".

High school should be when the students are starting to get taught to be functioning adults. It is during the teenage years that a person starts to shoulder the burdens which society puts on its productive members. However, with these burdens should come some priveliges. I think that a 16 year old is old enough that a school shouldn't be able to detain them.

But this reminds me of part of my high school experience. My school, like many others built in the 50's, had dingy, overcrowded cafeterias. The obvious solution to this problem from a student perspective was to eat one's lunch outside of the cafeteria. Accordingly, we would all find our little alcoves in the halls and sit down with our friends to eat and hang out for an hour and a half. This actually created a safety valve effect, which made the cafeterias somewhat tolerable during lunch time for those who did choose to eat there.

The problem with this is that high schoolers tend to be messy, and food garbage could be found all over the halls after lunch hour. So the administration understandably decided to curb the trend, and pack us like sardines into the undersized and overcrowded cafeterias. Unfortunately for them, this was entirely unenforceable. Every time they flushed a group out of one part of the hallway, they just moved into another part.

I suppose the moral of this somewhat tangential story is that if you want people, especially young people, to do something, it's usually better to make it attractive to them to do that thing, rather than just using authority.

/Really glad to be out of high school

Cambo_: Accordingly, we would all find our little alcoves in the halls and sit down with our friends to eat and hang out for an hour and a half.

Now most high schools split up kids into multiple lunch periods so rather than having an hour and a half for lunch for all of the kids, you end up with 25 minute chunks for 1/4 at a time, splitting up classes and short electives and whatnot.

90 minute lunch? Crazy.

My high school was closed campus after sophomore year because some kid got into a fender bender and the parents threw a fit that the next kid would be DEAD or some nonsense.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Even the most responsible, teaching, caring set of parents on the planet cannot sit there with their kids at school all day to make sure they eat healthy. Kids who eat healthy get better grades and pay attention better because their blood sugar is better regulated, etc. etc. It's in the schools' best interest to keep the kids from going off campus and it's not exactly a god-given right to be able to leave school in the middle of the day anyway.

They'll get over it.

Batewoman:Even the most responsible, teaching, caring set of parents on the planet cannot sit there with their kids at school all day to make sure they eat healthy.

Unfortunately, it looks like many school systems seem to go out of their way to make sure the food is appealing to the kids -- to minimize waste -- but this does NOT equal "nutritious." Greasy pizza, taco bell, other fast food, these are not acceptable alternatives for nutritious food for kids, whether served at nearby establishments or contracted into schools. No, mystery meat shouldn't be an option, but there are always alteratives.

-- "Hamburgers" with healthy fillers instead of sawdust.
-- Salad bars, pay by weight
-- Veggie chips (sweet potatoes, etc) as alternatives to greasy fries.
-- Offer breakfast starting well before first bell. Nobody wants to do breakfast dishes at home!
-- Stir fry, whole wheat pasta dishes, vegetarian alternatives
-- Offer small sodas and select junk food at a really high price to fund various programs/clubs.

We can feed a school on a budget without throwing in grease and corporate junk food.

st.theresa:We can feed a school on a budget without throwing in grease and corporate junk food.

Oh I completely agree but that's the problem with AMERICAN schools. I tried to go on a diet in high school to lose an excess 10 lbs or so and lunch was the hardest time of day. There were simply NO healthy options. They had a deal with McDonald's so we could buy cheeseburgers and fries in the cafeteria but there were no salads or veggies or anything.

But the thread and the article are about UK schools which have lately begun offering only healthy options so I think keeping the kids on school grounds is a great idea.

So it was never really about informing them and letting them make their own choices, including the choice to disregard the advice to eat "healthier".

They were going to eat "healthier" whether they wanted to or not; the voluntary "educational" advice was just a way to wedge the door open.

I think this sort of thing is why some people have an almost knee jerk response towards "official" and/or "scientific" advice to the point where some claim that many people are anti-intellectuals (not the best words, but I can't think of another way to describe it).

It happens all the time-some group of researcher or self appointed advocates find something that can be bad if done excessively, when combined with something else, or not enough, etc.

They publish their results and usually the same group who did the study or made the findings gives some advice. Nearly always an advocacy group that has some connection to the substance of the study make recommendations as well. So far, so good. Just advice.

What nearly always happens is a year or so later, the same groups come back with language/tones/body language that implies disappointment, surprise, shock, etc. because people are still doing/not doing, enough/too much; essentially not following the advice they were given before.

The advocacy groups will usually start to call for bans or requirements aimed at the group with the least amount of economic and political power-those under 18.

Later, they'll claim that because people are still not following their advice, the government must force them to and they'll point to the (always) success (never failure) with this same action when it was taken towards people under 18.

In the end, there was no choice. You either "voluntarily" did it, or you would be forced to later.

We've seen this with trans fat, smoking, etc.

One sort of example of this is video game ratings. Various groups supported the system as a way to inform parents about what their kids were asking for and/or bringing home and allow them to make more informed choice-. The concept of "empowerment" is bandied about here and there. They sometimes even claim they're not interested in denying people under 18/17 the ability to play M rated games.

Later, these people will get on TV/radio/newspapers and claim that the rating system isn't working and the government needs to make laws because young people are still getting access to M/18/ whatever rated games. Some will even claim that this is necessary because parents aren't doing their job

Notice how the mere fact that young people are playing the games is the cause for concern and the action/behavior that needs to be stopped. Parents who allow their kids to play the games are implied to be shirking their responsibilities. So much for parental empowerment and choice.
It was only about getting their foot in the door to achieve their real goal-banning all people under a certain age from playing certain rated video games.

This sort of thing plays out a lot more often it seems-advice and information being used as a stepping stone to force and cercion.

pedrop357:In the end, there was no choice. You either "voluntarily" did it, or you would be forced to later.

I still think it should be within a school's power to keep kids on campus, especially if it makes them eat healthier and probably get better grades and stuff.

But you sir have a VERY good point.