School “lunch inspector” replaces child’s healthy lunch with “nuggets,” bills mother

[John81]

School “lunch inspector” replaces child’s healthy lunch with “nuggets,” bills mother
by Joel McDurmon on Feb 15, 2012

They have a “lunch inspector,” but they’re a few fries short of a happy meal. A North Carolina mother was perturbed when she learned that the healthy lunch she packed for her 4-year old was replaced by cafeteria food, most of which the child wouldn’t eat.
Carolina Journal Online reports,
A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.
The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.
Did anyone miss the obvious (besides the state bureaucrat)? Not only was the move intrusive and arrogant, it was wrong.
Turkey = 1 serving of meat
Cheese = 1 serving dairy
Bread = 1 serving of grain
Apple juice + banana = 2 servings of fruit
But hey, I admit, I am no certified lunch inspector.
The mother was admirably miffed:
“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” . . .
“She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her. . . . You’re telling a 4-year-old. ‘oh. you’re lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food.”
A state bureaucrat reviewed the situation and decided the answer to the first bureaucrat’s misjudgment was for the bureaucracy to get more involved: “It sounds like maybe a technical assistance need for that school.”
Fox News covered the story with Megan Kelley arguing that “the point” is “get outta my kid’s lunch bag. I’ll decide. . . .”
I have another suggestion: the “point” is, quit trusting your kids to tax-funded bureaucrats in loco parentis and then complaining when that person usurps the role of the parent. There’s only one way to ensure your parenting decisions are honored, and that is be there yourself.

http://americanvisio...ts-bills-mother

Edited February 15, 2012 by John81

[2Tim215]

What is this world coming to? I grew up on bread and peanut butter for school - was lucky if I got cheese and turkey. Kids these days are spoiled and the government one tree short of a few branches.

[Anon]

That article made me fighting mad this morning, when I read it...

[John81]

Totally out of control!

What many of us, and especially our parents or grandparents grew up eating would today be called unhealthy and in some cases these nutty socialists would claim criminal!

[JerryNumbers]

It seems that there are many that object to this.

Is our present 1st lady at fault, as least partly, for this taking place.

[John81]

It seems that there are many that object to this.

Is our present 1st lady at fault, as least partly, for this taking place.

She isn't helping matters. Her efforts are actually helping to push the idea the government needs to be in control of childrens diets.

[no name joe]

I have a few thoughts about this:

1. Children need good nutrition to maximize their performance in school. A sad reality is that there are many children that go to school, and the only meals they will get is what they eat at school. School lunches for low income students is a necessary and good thing. Yes, their parents ought to do what is right and feed them good food at home. However, some parents do not do that. Hungry children will disrupt class and learning. School lunches are a good thing, if done properly.

2. The way school lunches have evolved, school lunches are not nutritions. They have evolved from a time when the cafeteria workers cooked REAL food and they were nutritious for the most part, to a day where frozen chicken nuggets and pizza is shipped in and reheated. This is very unnutritious. Thanks to good folks like Jamie Oliver, some friends of mine who are local, organic farmers, and other folks like this, there is a big push to get REAL food into the school cafeteria again. This is good for local economies (support your local farmer!), good for the children's diets, good for the cafeteria workers (once they get over their grumbling that they have to cook, they can learn to cook and have job they take pride in once again), good for the community (children can go out and see where their food is grown, perhaps they could have a school garden to grow food that is then cooked in the cafeteria. The possibilities are endless, but it will take good people in their local school districts to get this going.

3. I applaud the move to remove sodas and candy vending machines from schools. They have no place in schools.

4. My last thought is how media has failed us. There is a need to have a school lunch inspector. Why? Some low income children whose paretns are not doing the right thing may not send lunch, or the kid may find change and buy a candy bar and soda for lunch. This leads to feeling terrible and the child acting out more. That leads to class disruption. That leads to problens. Sometimes, the school needs to replace what children bring with what is more nutritious. In this instance, that was not done, actually, the opposite was done!

What irks me is that this could very well be an isolated incident. The lunch inspector did wrong, no doubt. However, the solution is not to complaind to the media. THe solution is for the parent to go thte principal and work it out. The principal can then explain to the inspector how she failed in this instance, can learn and can then do a better job in the future. Instead, the parant apparantly griped to the media, the media ran with it because they knew it would be an inflamatory story, the lunch inspector, who was merely doing her job will likely receive hate mail instead of being constructively criticized and corrected, etc.

This kind of story leads to nothing positive. In fact it leads to pure negativity. Instead, this should have been a local problem, handled by the parent and principal, a solution found, the inspector trained to do a better job, and everyone could benefit.

So those are my thoughts about this.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

The "inspector" may need to make sure that the cafeteria food meets requirements, but they need to STAY OUT of a kid's private lunch. My lunch was usually some form of leftovers from the last night's supper, but there was NO WAY I was eating the stuff from the cafeteria --- it may have been nutritious but it tasted like pasted together slop!

Do we next inspect lunches that workers bring on the job with them?

You can give a kid something he doesn't like (examples with me: applesauce, grapes, spaghetti, bologna, lasagna, creamed corn, blintel beans -- but I love roasts, ham, chicken [not nuggets], most every other kind of bean, most fruits and vegetables, whole kernel and cob corn) but you can't make him eat it. So now you took his lunch from home and gave him something he won't eat, and that was an improvement?

Edited February 16, 2012 by OLD fashioned

[HappyChristian]

I agree that this should have been a local issue. The mother should have gone to the principal, and the principal should have reined in the "inspector."

I do not agree with school lunches being provided at taxpayer expense. I'm old enough to have seen it's beginning and the warnings that were sounded that parents would begin to rely on the free lunches and neglect their kids...and that soon breakfast would be served. And it has indeed come to that. That is wrong. Initiative is taken away when things are provided "free."

However, if government funds are used for feedings, then, yes, some type of regulation and oversight needs to be done. However, when a parent sends lunch with a child, no person, NO PERSON, has the right to even check the lunch, let alone make any decisions as to the nutritive value of said lunch. That is one thing that many schools, public and private, seem to forget: the parents are the authority and just being in a school does not negate that, nor does it give the right of school personnel to countermand something the parents have done or said.

I have always been in favor of homeschooling. And the more things I see and hear about kids in schools, the more I favor it. That's not to say that all schools are bad - I don't believe that. But I do think that parents will have more success in training their kids in the way they should go if they oversee their education.

[no name joe]

I do not agree with school lunches being provided at taxpayer expense. I'm old enough to have seen it's beginning and the warnings that were sounded that parents would begin to rely on the free lunches and neglect their kids...and that soon breakfast would be served. And it has indeed come to that. That is wrong. Initiative is taken away when things are provided "free."

However, if government funds are used for feedings, then, yes, some type of regulation and oversight needs to be done. However, when a parent sends lunch with a child, no person, NO PERSON, has the right to even check the lunch, let alone make any decisions as to the nutritive value of said lunch. That is one thing that many schools, public and private, seem to forget: the parents are the authority and just being in a school does not negate that, nor does it give the right of school personnel to countermand something the parents have done or said.

I disagree strongly that schools should not provide lunches and even breakfast for certain students. I agree that in the ideal world, this would not be needed. However, having worked with low income children in a mission church, I know for a fact that many of them go hungry on a regular basis. The fact of the matter is, that even if the parents have money, a drug addict mother will not spend the money on food for her children, she will spend it on drugs for herself. Taking away the school lunch and breakfast programs for these children punishes the children, not the adults. We found 5 children in a home where they had not seen their mother in two weeks due to a crack binge. They had no food, no electricity, and were very hungry. They showed up to our church, but never told us of the problem. One of our members dropped by to see them and learned of this situation. The only food they were getting were through school, and through church on Sunday afternoon where we fed them. Is it ideal? No, it is not. However removing the school lunch and breakfast program makes a bad situation worse. At least we know these children are getting 2 meals a day. We worked with the school to provide backpacks of food to hand out on Friday so kids in these situation would have something on the weekends. Most kids in school do not rely on the school breakfast or lunch. However, some children do.

The only reason these programs began were because schools had a problem with hungry children. Hungry children are disruptive and cannot learn. Most parents do not want to rely on the program, and will not rely on it. However, a drug addict parent does not care for his or her children. They let them go hungry.

As to your second point, I generally agree. However, again, that is assuming all parents are good and responsible. That does not take into account the kids like the ones I speak of above, who may bring nothing, or may bring a twinkie because that is all they had. The intention of the "inspector" as I see it, seems to be to make sure all kids are getting enough food and nutritios food to eat. This job is necessary to look out for the children who do not have responsible parents, and should be trained to do so. Someone has to look after these children. That may be my "bleeding heart" talking, but in my mind, it is the responsible of all of socieity to look after these children. Some children do not have parants like I had. Some children have parant's who leave them to fend for themselves. These kids are deeply woudned and hurt. They are emotionally and physically hungry. No wonder they act out!!! Once you get past the tough act, many of them are good children, who, if given some direction will do well. Their parants are not giving that direction, so it then falls on society, schools, churches...adults who go out of their way to look after these children. It is a social problem, and calls for social answers. Schools are one place that have the MOST contact with children such as these, and are in a position to spot children who are in these terrible situations, and can actually do something about it. If the child finds a church, then the church can reach that child as well, but without a parant, many of these chidlren will never step foot into church. Not to mention the scowls I've seen some church members have when these "problem children" come to Sunday School and say a bad word.

Sorry, this is a topic near and dear to my heart. I've seen these "problem children" treated very harshly in church because they are too rough, or say a bad word, or look dirty, etc. It is not the fault of the children! Let's not take it out on them. Their parant's are at fault. If we can help their bad situation, and do it for the child (the parants might as well be written off), work with the child to feed and cloth them, educate them, get them in church, etc., then there is hope the child will break the cycle. If we leave them to fend for themselves, then there is no hope. Yes, churches can and should play a role. So should schools, at that is the place where adults have the most contact and can spot the problems and be in a situation to really help. So government assistance is needed here to some degree.

[HappyChristian]

Kind, the problems you mentioned did not exist (or at least very minuscule) in 1946 (okay, so maybe I wasn't around at the very beginning, but I've seen it really go awry! ) when the free lunch program was begun. Bleeding heart you are, and I agree that I feel for the kids. But, you see, it should not be a federal issue. It is not in the purview of federal responsibility to legislate anything about education, let alone food. However, if a state or local municipality wish to provide lunches on the taxpayer's dime, and the taxpayers have no problem with it, go for it.

What you described is exactly what was forecast...and it is the inevitable result of the mindset that the government is to be the caretaker, because that is what is being fostered, and has been since 1946, whether "bleeding hearts" can see it or not.

And I would totally disagree with you that it is up to a school official to decide if a child's lunch brought from home was healthy enough for that child. It isn't their business. I've taught school, so I do know that what a child eats influences his/her behavior. But it isn't up to the school to mandate foods sent from home. Most children who bring only junk to school pack their own lunch once in a while and try to get away with just junk (the kids who use the free lunch program don't need to pack lunches, and usually don't). But that isn't the norm. Kids who need the free lunch program usually don't have twinkies at home...

I agree that we need to work with the child, but I totally disagree that the parents need to be written off. We have seen many parents come through our church who started out as addicts who neglected their kids. I'm thinking of one family right now. Both parents were addicted to crack and other drugs and were on the verge of losing their kids permanently. That sounded an alarm in their drug-fogged minds. Their kids were already riding our buses to church, and the workers were working with the parents (our bus workers have seen it all, let me tell you). Anyway, long story short, the parents started coming to our Reformer's program. Got saved. Got clean. And have stayed clean (although I would warrant that it's been hard for them at times). And are consistent in their church attendance. Three of their kids help us in our nursing home. And they are a tremendous blessing.

I realize that isn't the story of every single child, and I feel for them. I truly do, even if I sound heartless. But federal funding of feeding children is not right. It isn't constitutional - and folks who say they don't care if it is or not because children are being helped don't understand that in the long run, they are being hurt. Because they are de facto learning that the law of the land doesn't matter if it "helps" someone to override it. However, if states would take back their sovereignty, then states and local government could decide to continue something like that, with the taxpayer's blessing.

And I SO agree that many, many children are hurting and wounded...but public schools don't really give them what they need...(I guarantee you wouldn't see those children treated harshly in our church. Our bus ministry brings many, many underprivileged children to church every Sunday - giving them a meal in the mornings, and most Sundays a meal in the afternoon, and often bus workers taking them to lunch on Saturdays or other days during the week...and helping in other ways as well. We love our "bus" kids).

[JerryNumbers]

I agree, they should stay out of the brown bags lunches, its none of their business.

I hated lunch room food, the few times I ate in the lunch room I would hardly touch the food & go home in the afternoon very hungry. More than 90% of the time I carried my lunch in a brown bag, never had one of those cute lunch boxes with a thermos in it. And I would buy a coke out of the coke machine to wash down my sandwiches with.

My favorite sandwiches were fried spam or baloney.

You can't force people to eat & live healthy, but it seem that's what some want to force on others, not only that, they want to force all of their ways on everyone. We are a country of people that wants to force everyone to be like us, & do as we do. And many Christians, or at least professing Christians are just as bad as the infidels.

[JerryNumbers]

The thing is, most parents would buckle down & feed their children if they knew they would not get a free lunch at school. As long as the free breakfast, lunch, is found at school it will be taken advantage of.

Most that take advantage of the free lunches receives money, food stamps, to put food on their tables.

Free lunches, breakfast, at school encourages them to spend the government money they receive on their self, & to trade food stamps for things they lust for.

I don't know about 46, I was born that year, but I do know in the 50's & 60's, the best I remember, there was no free rides, lunches.

Back in that day people did not have much money, for for most, if they did not have money for the cheap school lunch, the reason was the father blew it on Friday through Saturday night on drinking & partying.

[John81]

The thing is, most parents would buckle down & feed their children if they knew they would not get a free lunch at school. As long as the free breakfast, lunch, is found at school it will be taken advantage of.

Most that take advantage of the free lunches receives money, food stamps, to put food on their tables.

Free lunches, breakfast, at school encourages them to spend the government money they receive on their self, & to trade food stamps for things they lust for.

I don't know about 46, I was born that year, but I do know in the 50's & 60's, the best I remember, there was no free rides, lunches.

Back in that day people did not have much money, for for most, if they did not have money for the cheap school lunch, the reason was the father blew it on Friday through Saturday night on drinking & partying.

Even the poor today tend to have more money than many folks did in the 50s and 60s and even into the 70s. Somehow they managed to feed their children whether it was a peanut butter sandwich and apple or a bologna sandwich and a banana or something similar. One kid I went to school with ate Slim Jims, Pop Tarts and a small bag of Fritos every day for dinner from the time we were in grade school all the way to high school.

While many folks back then would do all they could to avoid taking a hand out, most folks today look for every way to get a hand out. If they can get free meals for their kids they want it whether they need it or not.

I know the schools in this area encourage the parents of every student to fill out the free and reduced lunch application just in case they might qualify whether they really want it or not. The school district makes a lot of money off this program because the government sends them much more money per student than what they actually spend on food per student.

When the government gets involved it quickly becomes a racket and people are the worse off.

Amazing to think that folks survived for about 6,000 years without some government telling them how to manage their daily and personal lives but today so many think it's the governments job to babysit everyone and provide "free" handouts, never caring that nothing is free and someone else is being robbed every time somebody gets something for "free".

[swathdiver]

^{School “lunch inspector”}

^{It is child abuse to send one's child to a governme}nt ^{school. They are largely staffed with Proud, knowing-n}ot^{hing fools. For a Christian to send their child to a governme}nt ^{school is dis}ob^{ediance to the Word of God.}