Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home

[Big Phil]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/educ ... ory?page=1

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

By Monica Eng and Joel Hood, Tribune reporters

3:42 AM CDT, April 11, 2011
Advertisement
Click to learn more...Quantcast

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."

meng@tribune.com

jhood@tribune.com

Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune

Opinions? This strikes me as an absurd reaction to some kids eating garbage for lunch, as well as being blatantly unconstitutional.

[That NOS Guy]

Opinions? This strikes me as an absurd reaction to some kids eating garbage for lunch, as well as being blatantly unconstitutional.

Why is it unconstitutional?

[ArmorPierce]

I really can't see how it's unconstitutional.

Rather, I do see it as an attempt to force kids to cough up money and purchase food from the school instead of bringing food from home and masking it with pr campaign of being for the good of the children.

[PainRack]

Or..... it could also be true that the schools believe insitutional control is neccessary to overturn the increasing childhood obesity seen in kids.

It would actually be interesting to see if any studies suggest that such social engineering such as school lunches would provide a better outcome. Oh wait, I think there is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... centration

Perhaps from a taste point of view, could anyone tell us what the recipes involved in these school lunches involve?

[Big Phil]

Unconstitutional might be a reach, although I'm fairly sure that while FEDERAL or STATE governments (and perhaps even municipalities) might have the legal backing to enforce things like this (i.e., such as the healthcare mandate), a school cannot force its students to eat specific foods. I'm fairly sure that's beyond the scope of the school's authority. I also question whether this is really "for the children," rather than being a way to raise some additional revenue for the school.

[Highlord Laan]

Given the absolute shit I remember the school menu being while in high school, I call bullshit on the whole idea. It was nothing but grease-soaked, preservative-laden and poorly prepared garbage. It was bad enough that one senior in my eighth grade year brought a box of Milk Bones to the cafeteria and passed then around to his friends.

We all agreed that not only did they get a better meal than the rest of us that day, but their suspension was completely worth it.

School menus are shit. This is the rule nation wide.

[PainRack]

Unconstitutional might be a reach, although I'm fairly sure that while FEDERAL or STATE governments (and perhaps even municipalities) might have the legal backing to enforce things like this (i.e., such as the healthcare mandate), a school cannot force its students to eat specific foods. I'm fairly sure that's beyond the scope of the school's authority. I also question whether this is really "for the children," rather than being a way to raise some additional revenue for the school.

Would you mind providing some insight as to how this might be the case?

Aren't school lunches already part of the Chicago system as it is? A cursory reading of the article suggest that the district would have to pay even more money to the caterer for each lunch provided.

Are you referring to kickback disguised as school sponership equipment?

[Bakustra]

Or..... it could also be true that the schools believe insitutional control is neccessary to overturn the increasing childhood obesity seen in kids.

It would actually be interesting to see if any studies suggest that such social engineering such as school lunches would provide a better outcome. Oh wait, I think there is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... centration

Perhaps from a taste point of view, could anyone tell us what the recipes involved in these school lunches involve?

Okay. We can agree that people eating healthier is better, right? So why don't we ban unhealthy foods outright from the stores and the restaurants of the USA, or around the world? After all, the rationale is the same for both schools and nations- beneficent use of authority to combat a threat to public well-being. Of course, the problem is that this is infantilizing, condescending, and doesn't really address why people eat unhealthily. The main difference is that it's considered acceptable to infantilize school kids and, apparently, parents and deny them any sort of choice in their time at school. Then we wonder why most kids hate school, and we produce adults either resentful of authority and suspicious of claimed benevolence on its behalf or completely dependent on authority to get through life, and we don't bother to try and teach kids about nutrition to build healthy eaters, no, we must force them into compliance, and their know-nothing parents too!

The article you posted, however, was about remodeling the choices, rather than eliminating them, and about providing a better environment, not about forcing children into compliance. I think that that is the critical factor- it allows kids to retain a sense of agency and control while giving them only good options to choose from, rather than eliminating that sense of agency not only for the kids, but for the parents as well.

[Bluewolf]

Obesity problems will continue as long as we live in a society where both parents work, removes the time and eduction invested into the knowledge of actual cooking/food as well as the time to produce decent meals. If children don't know their choices, don't try them early on nor do they not know at least basic cooking skills then they will continue to devour trash. They will then grow up with this lack of knowledge and pass it onto a generation which is rather unhelpful. Teaching these skills at an early age and developing them is important to a more healthy future. This goes to the parents too, though changing them is undoubtedly harder. It is not conductive to anti obesity efforts if the parents still chug unhealthy foods toward children. Of course problems such as poverty and lack of education on THEIR end is a major problem in itself.

I am sceptical of these moderating lunchbox schemes however. What it led to in the UK was the older students (if they could) going out to eat and it also led to a lot of angry parents. I question the usefulness of such ideas on their own the kids will just return home to the same unhealthy things that the school was trying to avoid. Though slightly illogical ,this sort of thing is also what some would call the "nanny state striking again". Though irrational, it's what it came across to many and such opposition is worth considering.

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe they just want to save money by not buying from the cafeteria?

[Flagg]

This strikes me as a money making scheme by the school.

[Phantasee]

Given the absolute shit I remember the school menu being while in high school, I call bullshit on the whole idea. It was nothing but grease-soaked, preservative-laden and poorly prepared garbage. It was bad enough that one senior in my eighth grade year brought a box of Milk Bones to the cafeteria and passed then around to his friends.

We all agreed that not only did they get a better meal than the rest of us that day, but their suspension was completely worth it.

School menus are shit. This is the rule nation wide.

You're an idiot.

[His Divine Shadow]

Opinions? This strikes me as an absurd reaction to some kids eating garbage for lunch, as well as being blatantly unconstitutional.

My opinion is thank god we don't have to worry about bullshit like this in Finland. Yay free school lunches, and no, we don't serve burgers & fries.

[Lusankya]

The school my sister will start attending next year has a policy about what they're allowed to bring in their school lunches, similar to the second school mentioned in the article. Unhealthy food is banned from packed lunches, as well as unnecessary wrapping. All of the students have apparently been provided with special lunch boxes that are compartmentalised to keep food fresh without the need for Glad Wrap and so on. My dad's girlfriend spoke about it positively, and gave the impression that the policy was well received by other people at the school, but then again, it's a pretty yuppie area, so who knows.

Completely banning packed lunches sounds like a pretty over-the-top idea, though. The article gives no indication that the first school tried any other method of improving the quality of packed lunches before simply banning them outright, which makes me suspect they don't really give a toss about the students, and just wanted to take the easy option.

[Serafina]

Opinions? This strikes me as an absurd reaction to some kids eating garbage for lunch, as well as being blatantly unconstitutional.

My opinion is thank god we don't have to worry about bullshit like this in Finland. Yay free school lunches, and no, we don't serve burgers & fries.

That would solve the problem quite handily: "sure, you can bring your junkfood your parents had to buy for you and you have to bother packing, or you can indulge in our full, free, varied meal that also includes some dessert".
Sure, children could still bring junkfood if they want to. There's just no reason why they'd want to do so anymore - the school meal would be cheaper, more satiable, more convenient and could still provide something for the children's sweet tooth (which isn't really a threat to ones health if you've just eaten a balanced meal).

Well, i suppose if your children are actually addicted to their junk food, then forbidding it might make sense. And is still useless when you don't provide a good alternative, and morally dubious if that alternative is not free.


The problem here is not the idea or intention, but the implementation. It could simply be done much better.

[Temjin]

I really don't see how this is any different than the ban and confiscation of student's cell phones. Or forcing them to wear clothes to a certain dress code. Or any of the other shit we force students to do, like forcing them to go to school in the first place. It's taking choices away from children for their own good. We already do it for numerous other things. This is an elemantary school, full of children that don't quite understand long term consequences yet.

And hell, maybe it will actually help with Childhood Obesity in that school.

[Simon_Jester]

As a general rule, we should keep arbitrary exercises of power to a minimum.

To teach children, you need to exercise some arbitrary power over them- the need to apply discipline* to children has been around as long as there have been children. But the school should not use that power excessively, to make them do things that are unnecessary, or to force them to refrain from behaviors that are harmless.

If school lunches cost money or don't taste good, banning students from bringing lunch from home is very unjust. If school lunches are tasty and free, even then it is an unnecessary, arbitrary exercise of authority for a relatively limited second-order goal. Especially when it's done in a hamhanded way, without other policies aimed at trying to accomplish the same thing without making it impossible for Mrs. Jones to give her daughter a sandwich made the way she likes it for lunch.

*Not as a euphemism for punishment, I mean discipline in the literal sense of the word.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The problem with school lunches is, even when they're DESIGNED to be healthy the students won't eat them. At my school students can eat pizza, chicken wraps, nachos, and chocolate milk every day. There are salads and healthier alternatives, but they either aren't eaten or they're thrown away.

[Sela]

(disclaimer: Has not read whole thread yet, but will soon)

Clearly this kid has been reading "Frindle" . Andrew Clements deserves a medal.

Now, aside from that, I think there's two things here. The first issue: kids feel that school lunch sucks and is over-expensive so they use home-food to break the monopoly. There's no questions from my end on that. Homemade food is almost always a superior option in terms of health, price, and obviously customized to the taste (and in this kid's case - shape ). The school most likely reacted based on the financial incentive rather than the health one and obviously there's no reason to think that's a good thing.

That all said, the second issue: the dietetic angle is one that I think really merits more thought. Let's say for argument's sake that the school policy is to make it impermissible for children to bring in "more than X many calories of food with X many from dietary fats, cholestrol, and carbs" - an impossibly difficult standard to enforce rigidly, and probably an ideal one rather than banning specific food items. Given the problems America currently suffers from health-wise - I can't in good conscience say that such a law will be harmful to society. Laws are made to address problems within a community, and mandating healthy-diet in the formative years would do worlds to address the issues of diabetes, heart disease, atherosclerosis, and hypertension which are RAMPANT in America.
I recognize that it's unconstitutional, and that there's a definite slippery-slope risk here (if we ban one unhealthy lifestyle choice, then why not ban all of them - including 'risky-sex' ?). That said there's a definite *BENEFIT* to society here as well rather than just the individual. Statistically, patients with diabetes, HTN, and heart disease are one of the biggest drains on national medicare resources. The government should be doing something to try and keep those costs down since that's money that comes out of everyone's pocket including those who make healthier lifestyle choices. Further, this isn't a mandate on how the private sector should behave - it's a mandate on how public schools should be run which are already under government control. If we can make it illegal to 'bear arms' in school, then we can make it illegal to carry 1000 calories worth of junk-food in school.


This whole second issue - I recognize - is very much an aside. I doubt in the extreme the average public school really cares whether or not their students are morbidly obese. I know for a fact that my public high school sold literally thousands of calories worth of junk food, soda, and candy at the concessions stand which was open throughout the day rather than only at lunch. And that our lunches were about as far from 'dietetic' as you can get for that price.

[Temjin]

I just want to interject this before I go to sleep:

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.

From this, it looks like the kids aren't actually paying for their food. It actually looks like the school is providing them for free, or is at least offering a discount on what the actual food costs are.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Has anyone seen Jamie Oliver's shows about American cafeteria food? Its pretty bleak stuff, both from the viewpoint of the students eating it AND the people serving it.

When I last bought a school lunch (in 1996) chocolate milk was a luxury option you got twice a month maybe. Now, apparently, milk comes in three different sugary flavors.

[Serafina]

The problem with school lunches is, even when they're DESIGNED to be healthy the students won't eat them. At my school students can eat pizza, chicken wraps, nachos, and chocolate milk every day. There are salads and healthier alternatives, but they either aren't eaten or they're thrown away.

Well, then don't offer them any day. Duh!
My school only offered such things about once a week, and you had to pay a bit extra for it (all meals had a price, but students and teachers got a fixed detraction from that - about 2€ for a meal IIRC, and students got that reduced by 2€ - but IIRC 3€ for special stuff like pizza, so you had to pay extra for it). We still loved it, but as i said non-balanced meals were only available once per week so it was hardly unhealthy.

Really, i don't see what's so hard about this. If you want your kids to eat healthy, you give them healthy food - you don't offer them junkfood as an alternative. If you want to them to eat healthy while at at school, you do the same.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The problem is, schools in America either cannot or WILL NOT make healthy food that tastes good. And, as we've found, students will elect to NOT EAT rather than eat healthy food which tastes bad or at least doesn't taste like junk food.

[Big Phil]

I just want to interject this before I go to sleep:

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.

From this, it looks like the kids aren't actually paying for their food. It actually looks like the school is providing them for free, or is at least offering a discount on what the actual food costs are.

Per the article:

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.

Here's another alternative, also promoting healthy eating while not forcing people to buy food they don't necessarily want:

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.

I have zero problem with the approach at Claremont Academy, but the idea of forcing kids to buy the lowest-bidder shit they serve at public school cafeterias is asinine.

[His Divine Shadow]

In finnish schools there is no choice of what to eat, they don't have cafeterias serving a myriad of foods for whatever the students might feel like.

There is a food schedule consisting mostly of "husmanskost" (every mans food or something like that) that shows what will be served on what day. Like this day there will be pea soup and pancakes (for dessert ofcourse), or spaghetti and meatsauce. I know here the parents have input on forming what the school menu says too.