Friday, June 09, 2006

Whose Kids Are They?

Stories like this drive me nuts. I learned about it from EIA (see blogroll at left).

PALMYRA, Pa. Jun 9, 2006 (AP)— Parents who visit their children at lunch would be required to eat school food rather than bring the children fast-food lunches under a proposed wellness policy in the Palmyra Area School District.

What I choose to feed my kid is my choice, not the school's. If I want him to eat nothing but peanuts, that what he eats. If I want to allow him to get fat eating McDonald's food every day, that's my choice as a parent. I can imagine that red meat would be next on the hit list, then perhaps milk.

By the way, would Togo's constitute fast food? How about Boston Market?

Why is it any of the school's business at all what my kid eats? I'm floored that adults could consider this. Don't want to sell soft drinks in school? Don't sell them! Don't tell me I can't send one with my kid in his lunch, though. Dont want to sell Frito's in the machine at school? Don't sell them, but don't tell me I can't send a bag of chips in my kid's lunch.

Teach the kid to read, write, multiply, divide, and integrate data. I'll worry about what he eats. Sheesh.


EllenK said...

Mark my words, if the mid terms and next major elections swing toward the left, you will see national legislation to tax fast food and probably some sort of national exercise referendum. While I would agree that kids should eat healthy, I have seen what school cafeterias can do to perfectly good food. My kids never paid to eat lunch where even the pizza is disgusting. In addition, my high school is raising the cost while decreasing the amount of food served. I already have students paying nearly $7 for a school lunch that ends up in the trash. Now that there will be less chicken tenders and fries, they will either pay more, or not eat at all. I wonder if my Cup A Soup is considered verboten....and what about my Green Onion Pringles????

Amerloc said...

Agreed. The more Micky-D's the kid eats and the more soda he drinks, the less likely he'll survive to leach off Social Security and Medicare.

Less cynically, I'll first agree right up front that educational bureaucracy has no business interfering in parental choices that way.

I think the rub occurs for the individual teacher: do we actually want "our" students to grow up unaware of healthier choices than fast food anymore than we want them to grow up unconcious of the impact of other economic decisions?

And yeah, school food leaves something to be desired. So does the food at any cafeteria, regardless of the name on the door.

KauaiMark said...

The real agenda is actually to keep the union school food service industry employed by reducing competing food sources off campus.

That the actual food is disgusting and over priced is just a side note.

EllenK said...

I think keeping union food workers employed is part of the reason that so little attention is given to who is recieving free meals at government expense. I know a woman who between marriages applied for free lunches. She got child support from the first husband, married the second and divorced him and got support and worked for the police department and STILL got free meals for her kids. I wouldn't mind if they needed it, but those kids all got brand new cars at 16 and incidentally, when you are a free lunch recipient, some colleges offer more in financial aid. Kind of makes you wonder what the penalties are for fraud.