Only getting it twice a week

chips potatoes fried french fries
Copyright: claudioratti973 / 123RF Stock Photo
Obviously I'm talking about the most recent idea from our interfering overlords, about schools meals. And I'm referring to fried foods and pies.

My daughter is 14 and I'm fairly sure that if these rules are brought in at her school canteen then the children will just use the chip shop along the road on the three days that no chips are served. 

But even if the "fried food" twice a week maximum is applied at other schools, it's ridiculous. Why is fried food seen as unhealthy but macaroni cheese is not? I'm guessing a cheese dish has plenty of saturated fat, while chips can be fried in vegetable oils. (oh, hang on ... "we have introduced a new restriction on how often cheese can be served as the vegetarian option." from 'The Rules')  And a restriction on pastry? pastry?! Really? So quiche is out along with vegetable pies, fruits pies...(DD cried out "No strudel!" in horror)

I'm starting to wonder what will be left that children can eat, as a mum of a teen girl who is underweight and like many children worried about 'getting fat' I am concerned that this is going to adversely affect her.

Drinks with too much sugar are in the firing line too including fruit juice, but presumably diet drinks with aspartame will sneak through this unhealthily cordon? Water will be pushed as the best drink...good luck with that, if you have a fussy drinker prepare yourself for the inevitable cystitis when they go all day without drinking. Milk will also be promoted.

Bread crumbed food is classed as fried too apparently? Honestly it's the usual stupid interfering that in the long run won't change anything all it will do is anger parents and children, make it difficult for schools and cause bloggers to rage! (DD had confirmed they have oven cooked potato wedges often...) Crisps are also banned, as are all sweets, chocolate and cereal bars.

If the all powerful government want to really make a difference they will have to do better than banning things, they will have to actually look at what is healthy, create recipes and stick to them. (and take away some choice, like in the 'olden days' where the choice was take it or go hungry)

My daughter will continue to take a packed lunch, a habit we got into as local schools all had their kitchens removed in the 90s to save money (!) and no doubt many children will do the same, lunch box police not withstanding.

I don't have a problem with children eating healthily, when I was on the primary school PTA I actively campaigned for more fruit for the children and it was implemented very successfully, but I think it's about choice, making healthy the attractive option, not banning things. From experience forbidden fruit (or in this case forbidden junk) will become the preferred option for most children.

Banning things never works. Encouraging an interest in eating and new and interesting menus might (Jamie Oliver tried this technique but the government are now saying it's too complicated)

oh and tuck shops are out too. 

Do not get me started on the lack of playing fields, teachers car parks in play grounds and the banning of many 'active' kids games....

1 comment:

  1. No I loved the tuck shop, how am I meant to bribe the boy into school with no tuck shop?


Thanks for your comment, all comments are moderated, no links will be approved

Popular posts