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 person who was inspecting all lunch boxes that day. [WHAT GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO INSPECT WHAT A MOTHER CHOOSES TO FEED HER OWN CHILD?]
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 [AND IF I CHOOSE FOR MY CHILD TO BE A VEGETARIAN, THEN WHAT?], one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
Click on "Comments" for the rest of the article.
16 comments:
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.
“I don't feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home,” the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative. [IT IS NOT THE $1.25 THAT WOULD CONCERN ME]
“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” said the girl’s mother. “I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables.”
When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.
“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,” her mother said. “You’re telling a 4-year-old. ‘oh. your lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food.”
While the mother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.
“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.” The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.
“If a parent sends their child with a Coke and a Twinkie, the child care provider is going to need to provide a balanced lunch for the child,” Kozlowski said.
The state regulation reads:
“Sites must provide breakfast and/or snacks and lunch meeting USDA requirements during the regular school day. The partial/full cost of meals may be charged when families do not qualify for free/reduced price meals.
“When children bring their own food for meals and snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the specified nutritional requirements, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements.” [WHAT MAKES A GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRAT MORE QUALIFIED THAN THE PARENT IN DECIDING WHAT TO FEED THAT CHILD?]
Still, Kozlowski said, the parents shouldn’t have been charged. [IDIOT! TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT!]
Lisa said...
I read about this one a couple of months ago and it angered me too! On so many levels!
Nanny state gone wild? Not hardly! With all the child abuse going rampant in homes today, the state wants to make sure abused children are getting at least one square a day. Studies show that most parents don't have a clue about nutrition, while their kids with decaying teeth, subsist literally on chips, candy and soda. Here where schools can help. It's one good thing from my taxes. The school will get no complaint from me!
Sarcasm, right? Now that is funny! So, so funny! UNLESS, you were serious. If you were really serious, THEN we need to start a debate on this issue. But, you were kidding, right?
Do I sound like I'm kidding? Seriously! Kozlowski says parents shouldn't have been charged and you're calling him an idiot, with CAPS. These so-called government bureaucrats are parents too. They perform an extremely valuable service, then off the wall, misinformed blogs rip them to pieces with unfactual posts and name calling. What gives them the right to inspect what a mother chooses to feed her own child? Remember the Tylenol scare, major recalls and salmonella poisings, etc? Protecting our children is what's at stake here! The nutrition benefits that help keep our children in good health are an added bonus. These efforts by our schools need our support, not our derision!
Lisa said...
Whoever wrote that last comment is hilarious! What a great joke, I love it! He or she intentionally set out to sound as brainwashed and indoctrinated as they could. You just can't top that. LOL!
Isn't it fun to have people like "anonymous' spicing things up? Comments like his/hers are just what we need for a good debate. But surely anonymous jests and if not, fess up and let us know who to attack. Just kidding, you certainly are entitled to your opinion. BUT, seriously, do you really think McNuggets are nutritional? Personally I think that governmental policies CONTRIBUTE to obesity. They started paying farmers to grow as much corn as possible a generation ago (because they were actually stupid enough to think cars would run on ethanol-and they were wrong about that too) and that led to the development of the corn processing industry. The worse offender is high fructose corn syrup, which has become the backbone of the American diet. In the 70’s when corn processing was in its infancy only 15% of Americans were obese. Besides, human beings have been doing just fine for many thousands of years without a government agency telling them what to eat. The jokes over, who are you anonymous?
Is your hilarity a polite dodge? We need to get our facts straight to see who is brainwashed here.
Stupid enough to think cars would run on ethanol? Take the car you drive to the lab and analysis will prove that your car is driving on gas that contains ethanol. Every gas station sells gas with ethanol. It's the law.
HFCS the backbone of the American diet? Browse the grocery shelves at your local grocery store and notice "No High Fruitose Corn Syrup!" on numerous items. Sugars in general – and fructose and high fructose corn syrup in particular – have been in decline since 1999. The Department of Agriculture recently concluded, "There is no longer an association between HFCS and obesity in the United States: per capita consumption of HFCS has declined in recent years, whereas obesity rates continue to rise."
Actually, Chicken McNuggets made with white meat, wrapped up in a crisp tempura batter are nutrional. Only 193 calories, they contain 22 percent of the daily recommended value of niacin and 15 percent of the daily recommended value of iron per serving. McNuggets are a healthy source of protein and are typically low in carbohydrates. Their sodium content can admittedly be a concern.
When it comes to our children's nutrition at meal time, the nanny state is doing something right.
Carol said: You're full of hot air anonymous. Publish your name if you want a REAL conversation.
Lisa said...
Anonymous, since I truly thought you were kidding in your first comment, I was applauding you for being so humorous, as people do in an audience when the comedian is especially funny. Now that I know you were dead serious, all I can say is, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
Chicken McNuggets can actually be NUTRITIONAL? Maybe, if you're malnourished.
Some of the ingredients, it turns out, seem to belong more to an industrial factory of some kind, not a food retailer. According to the McDonald's Corporation, its famous Chicken McNuggets are made with ingredients including autolyzed yeast extract (which contain free glutamate, similar to MSG), sodium phosphates and sodium aluminum phosphate. But that's not the freaky part. According to McDonald's own website, Chicken McNuggets are also made with "hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness" and "Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent.
At least two of these ingredients are artificially synthesized industrial chemicals. TBHQ, a petroleum derivative, is used as a stabilizer in perfumes, resins, varnishes and oil field chemicals. Laboratory studies have linked it to stomach tumors. "At higher doses, it has some negative health effects on lab animals, such as producing precursors to stomach tumors and damage to DNA. A number of studies have shown that prolonged exposure to high doses of TBHQ may be carcinogenic, especially for stomach tumors."
Dimethylpolysiloxane, a type of silicone, is used in caulks and sealants, as a filler for breast implants, and as key ingredient in Silly Putty. Says Wikipedia:
"PDMS is also used as a component in silicone grease and other silicone based lubricants, as well as in defoaming agents, mold release agents, damping fluids, heat transfer fluids, polishes, cosmetics, hair conditioners and other applications. PDMS has also been used as a filler fluid in breast implants, although this practice has decreased somewhat, due to safety concerns. PDMS is used variously in the cosmetic and consumer product industry as well. For example, PDMS can be used in the treatment of head lice..."
And what about the chicken in Chicken McNuggets? It's factory-farmed chicken, not free-range chicken. So it's the kind of chicken that's typically treated with vaccines and hormones while being fed conventional feed products that are medicated with pharmaceuticals and grown with pesticides.
Yum!! Don't forget to ask for extra dipping sauce. We haven't even talked about what you'll find in there...
http://www.naturalnews.com/032820_Chicken_McNuggets_ingredients.html
Full of hot air? Uh. Ok. Don't believe I've insulted anyone yet. Someone needs to take their nice pill.
Ah Natural News is an authority? Course spinach, a half grapefruit or an apple is more nutritious than McNuggets, but as public school lunches go, they are one of the more healthy meat items, and children love them.
Lisa says...
Anonymous, all I know is, you are hysterically funny! There's NO WAY this person is serious, so now, come on, it's time to reveal yourself and tell us who you are. Garrett? Chaz? Neisha? Bob? Leo? I say it's Garrett. Who wants to bet? Let's have a contest and see who can figure it out.
Lisa says...
But in case you were serious (God forbid), YES, Natural News is a reliable, in-the-know, up-to-date, factual source of information. You can trust it to provide you with news and information about nutrution and health that you won't find elsewhere.
I found this blog while doing a search on the Raleigh, Carolina story. I have family there. My uncle is a judge in Page, Arizona. We believe that the government gets a bad rap most of the time. The title of this post is perfect example.
Nanny state gone wild?! Come on! The state agents were just doing their job. In North Carolina all pre-Kindergarten programs are required to evaluate the lunches being provided and determine if they meet USDA nutrition guidelines. West Hoke Elementary in Raleigh is doing a fine job protecting the health of school children in their district. Many parents are very supportive. This program may go federal. It's very effective. If you could see inside some of those lunch boxes, you'd understand why there needs to be some oversight!
Thank goodness the Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services isn't about to let a few do-gooders ruin an excellent program!
Sorry I'm late to the party. No offense, Anonymous, but I think you are all wet. You are a liberal if I ever saw one. You obviously think the government is the answer to our every ill.
Lisa said...
Anonymous, you said, "If you could see what's in the lunch boxes that children bring to school, you'd understand why there needs to be some oversight!" I don't need to take a peak into lunch boxes to agree with you; it wouldn't surprise me at all. That's what happens when government insinuates itself into our lives and assumes our responsibilties. As citizens, we've allowed government to run almost every aspect of our lives, and as a result, we've become lazy, dumbed down, and apathetic. You, Anonymous, sound as though you think parents and citizens in general should be MORE government-controlled, MORE government-run, and MORE government regulated BECAUSE they're lazy, dumb, and apathetic. But what you see as proof that parents need oversight, I see as proof that they have too much of it. Government needs to stay out everyone's lives and stop trying to make our decisions, give us information, set our guidelines and standards, pay for way, and raise our children for us. If it did, I believe we'd begin to see a return of happy, responsible, caring, respectable citizens. After all, there was a time when Americans were just that: happy, responsible, caring, and respectable. And that was when government was least involved!
Post a Comment