Column: Government shouldn't force health on children
Published April 19, 2011
The Chicago Public School District's Little Village Academy Middle School banned kids from bringing their own lunches. They may only eat what the cafeteria provides them, and some kids are refusing to eat lunch at all.
Principle Elsa Carmona finds it unacceptable that kids are bringing soda and chips to school for snack. Assuming parents are incapable of providing healthy options for their kids, she explains. "It is milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."
What about religious matters or picky eaters? How about vegetarians or vegans? There are no accommodations for them.
However, Elsa is not the only one; all of CPS is advocating this healthy initiative in all of the wrong ways. Some schools still allow the sack lunches, but principles can act like food-Nazis and confiscate them if a food is deemed unhealthy. Elsa insisted the policy is common practice, even though she could not name another district practicing the policy.
CPS recently implemented new, nutritional guidelines. They will now offer a different vegetable every day. I'm sure they are purchasing the cheapest, powdered potatoes they can find. A 25 percent whole grain requirement on breakfast was added, and these breakfast items cannot contain any "dessert or candy-type" ingredients. Oh, and only reduced fat salad dressings and mayonnaise will be offered. They are so proud of their new changes that they cannot put a menu anywhere online to glance at.
Looking at several food reviews from parents, since a menu is not posted, a 60-ingredient, grey chicken patty is served every day, alongside breaded fish wrapped in a starchy flour tortilla. Kids have the choice of getting a scoop of brown, iceberg lettuce on the side, and kids say the apples taste like hand sanitizer. Besides the obvious immorality of the food fight, the decision hurts CPS economically. 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. The school pockets its cut of the action.
Families who do not qualify for free lunch or a discount for their kids are forced to pay around $2.25 per day.
"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," Northwestern education policy professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach told Openmarket.org in defense of her healthy lunches.
I am well aware that 34 percent of Americans are classified as "obese"; however, obesity is not going to be cured by neglecting human rights or the rights of parents. The government is sending out a message through CPS saying parents are incapable of feeding their own children healthily.
We can eat whatever we choose, and parents can feed their children however they please. It's reported kids are throwing away their lunches untouched and chanting, "We should bring our own food!"
These kids have not even reached puberty, and the government is regulating their food choices. This is teaching kids nothing but rebellion. Plain and simple, the government cannot force feed them. Yes, provide healthy choices, but do not make the choices. If the children are being forced to eat what is provided, they will never learn how to delegate what is healthy on their own.
Comments (4)
10:23 a.m., April 20, 2011
Sean B said:
I can understand the stand point of reducing government intervention in how people raise their kids, these decisions should be reserved for the parents. However, with parents sending children to school on a daily basis with food that is unhealthy is something that needs to be remedied. While I agree that schools are unable to provide the nutrition in a very appetizing manner, but it is still trying to give the children what they need to be healthy. A more appropriate action for schools to take is to educate parents on what negative effects they are causing their kids by not giving them the proper nutrition. While you sound like an awesome mom, making a star wars sandwich is the coolest thing I have ever heard, some parents are unable to take the time to make their child a lunch everyday and are forced to make quick and poor choices. However, all of these things are expensive and most people are too lazy to change their daily life for better choices, so until that day the majority will have to suffer to ensure the overall nutrition of children.
12:11 a.m., April 21, 2011
Kristin said:
Hey kids! Taeler De Haes says eat whatever you want! Candy and soda for everyone! But she's not cool with socialized medicine, so don't expect her to ever foot any extra taxes to cover your diabetes meds. Health care isn't a human right, you know. But someone died to keep America free so you could shovel whatever crap you want into your mouth!
11:05 p.m., April 26, 2011
Tony Amorosa said:
First of all: "Elsa insisted the policy is common practice, even though she could not name another district practicing the policy." Wrong! The article you're referring to says "Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common." The difference is you said 'could not' when the article said 'would not'. Do you understand the difference between would not and could not? The former means "was not willing" and the latter means "was not able"; there is a mountain of difference between these meanings. Granted, it's possible that the principle was not willing because she was not capable, but there is no reason to believe that anymore than there is reason to believe she just didn't want to. Regardless, your implication is at best deceptive. Secondly, "I am well aware that 34 percent of Americans are classified as "obese"; however, obesity is not going to be cured by neglecting human rights or the rights of parents." What I think you meant to say is "Obesity should not be cured by neglecting human rights . . . ect" because I'm fairly certain that it is very easy to cure obesity by neglecting human rights -- many dictators have proven this experimentally. That's certainly not the way we should go about doing it, I admit. (Call me pedantic, but remember that I'm talking to someone who has trouble with 'could' and 'would'.) However, calling the new nutritional practices of CPS "neglecting human rights" is a massive stretch of truth especially considering CPS doesn't have guns, isn't imprisoning anyone and I'm sure there are no violations of the Geneva Code. 'Parental rights' is probably what you're looking for (And I may even agree with you on this), in which case they're more than free voice their objections in the public forum. Remember, this was enacted by the public's local government which came to be and can later be changed quite easily by LOCAL democratic processes. This is not some tyrannical despot imposing his will as he sees fit with no fear of consequence. Your use of specific phrases (i.e. human rights, etc)is obviously used to distort the situation for the reader and appeal to his/her emotions and nationality. This is, again, deceptive at best. Which brings me to my third point: "The government is sending out a message through CPS saying parents are incapable of feeding their own children healthily." How exactly do you conflate the actions of certain CPS principals to the entire the government? I thought this was a decision made locally by CPS? Last I checked, the federal government does not have health-marshals patrolling every cafeteria in the U.S. and snatching the twinkies from poor Timmy's hands. Did I miss a premise in your argument or something? It would be like saying "MU is sending a message through Taeler saying writers/journalists should practice wanton deception in order to hide our inability to construct coherent arguments."
8:43 a.m., April 19, 2011
John E. A. said:
I think you're burying the lede. School children are eating hand sanitizer???? No wonder they had to make changes. But really, the day a child demands vegetables over chips and sodas I think my head will explode. Why are you condoning their bratty behavior? Throwing away food and yelling? Those spoiled brats need to be punished and taught how to eat a healthy meal - as do all those obese and overweight adults.