This just in from the Food Police Chronicles ….
A state employee required a preschooler at West Hoke Elementary in Raeford, North Carolina on January 30, 2012 to eat chicken nuggets during lunch because her lunch brought from home was not nutritious enough.
The child’s lunch contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips, and apple juice.
The state agent decided that the girl’s lunch did not meet USDA guidelines and required that the child be given a “healthier” alternative. Â Furthermore, the state agent apparently inspected all the children’s lunches that day in the four year old classroom. Â No word if other children were asked to eat chicken nuggets as well.
USDA guidelines mandate that all children’s lunches contain one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables even if the lunch comes from home. Â The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires child care providers to supplement children’s lunches with whatever compulsory items are missing.
The mother of the child who ate the three chicken nuggets, who prefers anonymity fearing retaliation, said she received a note from the school warning her that her child’s lunch was not nutritious enough and that noncompliance in the future could result in fees from the school cafeteria.
Since when are industrially processed chicken nuggets (aka “pink goo”) fried in genetically modified, rancid vegetable oils and nuked in a microwave healthier than a turkey and cheese sandwich and a banana brought from home?
School cafeterias don’t even qualify as real kitchens in most cases as cafeteria workers only have access to giant microwaves that quickly heat up the overly processed, factory fat laden, genetically modifed, agricultural dumping ground food they serve.
Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, says that bureaucratic rules require that schools buy food only from the cheapest bidder.
The sad truth is that only the cheapest, most nutritionless, most highly processed garbage food makes the cut for the school lunch program.
Many parents are choosing to pack their children’s lunches until better food is served at school, but apparently these efforts are being thwarted by the Food Police who are determining that homepacked meals are not up to snuff.
This story is yet another outrageous overstep by an overly aggressive, nanny style government increasingly insistent on raising our children according to its own standards while ignoring our own.
Only a lawsuit is going to stop this sort of thing from progressing and getting worse in the future. Hopefully, this mother can gather her courage and file a legal complaint immediately to force these overzealous government workers back in their bureaucratic box.
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
My son attended a charter school for nearly two years in Texas, though we’re now homeschooling.
One of the problem issues we faced (in kindergarten) involved control of his diet. As parents, we chose to feed him breakfast at home, and send his lunch. The school, however, began feeding all children breakfast. This was at no cost to us, and we were not given the option to decline. The following pattern ensued: Our son would eat at home, then eat a second breakfast (sugary cereal and milk, usually) at school. He wouldn’t be hungry for the home-packed lunch. But he would be ready for the afternoon school-provided snack, which was a processed item such as sugary yogurt or individually sealed bags of cracker sandwiches, and juice. When I would pick him up after school (at 5:00 on most days, which was a normal schedule for this school), he would eagerly eat his packed lunch in the car. I felt he needed the nutrition, through it clearly compromised his appetite for dinner at home. The routine was a mess, and reclaiming our ability and responsibility as parents to influence our child’s diet was a sure factor in why we chose to withdraw from public education.
The first step I suggest is to make a date with the superintendent. If that doesn’t work, describe the problem in public comment at the next school board meeting, having prepared the board with an email to each board member and the superintendent. Don’t take an angry tone, since you want to evoke indignation rather than expressing it.
If the kid has food sensitivities, under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, that’s a disability that interferes with the major life activity of learning, and the district and its agents are on the hook for discrimination under those statutes and the accompanying federal regulations.
In that case, you can send a letter describing the discrimination to the superintendent, with a copy to the food service manager, asking them to stop that conduct and stating that they will be guilty of deliberate indifference if they do not. That’s where you go if being nice didn’t work. But this only applies if there is in facta foodd allergy or sensitivity problem.
Since that can easily be the case with any particular kid, the district is being very stupid to take its chances on that, and their attorneys will make them aware of it.
SHAME ON YOU FOR THIS POST. It is completely misleading, and parts are straight-up FALSE.
I dare you to cite a single reputable source for this statement:
“USDA guidelines mandate that all children’s lunches contain one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables even if the lunch comes from home. The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires child care providers to supplement children’s lunches with whatever compulsory items are missing.”
You won’t be able to, because it’s simply made up.
now sarah, it may have been a really long time since you’ve had a school lunch, but just a little FYI…
1. they do not fry the chicken nuggets, they bake them
2. the ‘pink slime’ you speak of is not a chick product. chicken is not pink.
chicken nuggets, especially the cheap ones, are made of rib meat stop.
i think you know that and are intentionally misleading people.