...Educate instead.
According to a story broke by the Carolina Journal, a preschool girl's homemade lunch was deemed nutritionally incomplete according to USDA standards and was supplemented with school-provided food. Confusion ensued and the girl, supposedly thinking she was not allowed to eat the lunch packed by her mother, ate only the chicken fingers given to her by the school, choosing not to eat the other supplements because she didn't like them.
(Have you read the stories? Okay. Good. Let's move on)
My problem isn't just that schools are required to supplement homemade lunches that, upon inspection, are considered nutritionally incomplete - this in and of itself can cause confusion with young children regarding the food sent to school with them: what's wrong with the food my parents' made for me? Should I still eat what I brought? Will I get in trouble if I don't eat my lunch? I don't like the school food! And my problem isn't just that there is evidently lots of room for error in interpreting the USDA regulation by whomever is inspecting these lunches.
My problem is that there is a federal agency telling us what and how to feed our children, and has actually found a way to force schools to physically put this regulation into practice. Now, while I appreciate that schools are required to provide a "balanced meal" to those children that need to buy their lunch from the school cafeteria, that should be the extent of it. Lunches brought from home should be left alone.
This leads me to what I think is the bigger, more general problem: the government should stop trying to force everyone to eat healthier. I say, if parents want to feed their kids crappy food - which is not the case in the preschool girl's story, as her mom packed her a healthy lunch - then let the parents do so. Let them feed their kids food that may eventually lead to diabetes and/or obesity. Then, let them deal with the consequences of their parenting.
(And before you start going, "Oh, but what about the kids?!", just keep reading)
(And before you start going, "Oh, but what about the kids?!", just keep reading)
I think education would have a much better long term effect than the government forcing their will upon the people by, for example, having schools supplement a child's lunch with food the parent doesn't even know their child will be eating. When the government takes over the parenting responsibilities from the actual parents, the actual parents could possibly a) rebel by acting out, intentionally doing things that are opposite of what the government wants, negatively affecting their children, b) rebel by causing a ruckus, and that's when news stories break, c) become lazy due to additional, outside "parenting", d) not learn anything about improving their parenting skills. Or none of these things could happen. Those are just possibilities, and before anyone suggests that offering these theories is a sign of slippery slope on my part, I'll say that these theories, illogical or not, would probably not exist without the premise of government "parenting".
Now, let's talk about the kids. When the government takes over the parenting responsibilities from the actual parents, the kids a) can get confused about what they're supposed to do, b) can get confused about their parents' actions, c) start questioning their parents' actions, d) they may not learning anything useful.
In the case of the preschooler, A and B did happen.
Since I don't really want to live in a place where government mandate leads to small-time fascist action, and I don't want to live in a place where I'm told what to do on a such a basic level - what to watch, what to listen to, what to read, what to eat, I support the notion of education being the manner in which we learn how to feed our kids. The government can outline what they think are safe cooking temperatures, what amounts of what foods equals a balanced meal, and can even campaign against diabetes and obesity. That's all great. But good parents know their kids and will tailor their food preparation according to how their kids eat in order to get them to eat nutritiously. Bad parents will not and, so long as their actions don't go so far as to be considered abuse-by-way-of-unhealthy-diet, those parents will have to suffer the consequences. And yes, I understand that the kids will, too, but there's a way to combat that. It's called education.
Parents should be the first food educator to their child. After all, they will feed the child most often. But since school is a place that children will attend throughout the week, and is a major part of their days, food education should most certainly take place in the classroom.
Is a young student, even in preschool, ever too young to learn about what could happen if they eat too much candy? Too much McDonald's? Too many potato chips? If you eat too much sugar, one day you might rely on giant, scary needles everyday! If you eat too much fatty foods, you might become so overweight you'll never get to play kickball or on the swings again! Too many salty foods might stop your heart! There are tactful, useful, and effective ways to teach young kids at school about food just as they are taught other subjects, and if they are continuously educated - and I'm not talking about a special health-day during a single school year, either - the facts will stick in their brains. They may not be able to think about it on the level of an adult, but at least the possibility of questioning their snacks and meals at home is very, very present. And if a kid actually requests to eat an apple at home rather than an Oscar Meyer's Lunchables pack, or drink a glass of juice instead of a soda, what is the likelihood of a parent saying no? Forcing a kid to eat supplements that are supposedly missing from the homemade lunch they brought to school doesn't educate in this manner. And lunch isn't necessarily the best time to deliver this lesson, despite the fact that lunch is feeding time.
There are a few different food education programs that exist to teach young school kids about food. But what I want to see is something that isn't an event, something that doesn't have a clever or fancy title, something that doesn't draw attention to itself because it's special. Because making basic food knowledge stand out makes the acquisition and practice of that knowledge special instead of normal. But normal is what we want, right? When kids - and adults - know that eating too much of one thing can be bad, that eating certain types of food more often than others can be good, that there are consequences to eating just like there are consequences to stealing and fighting with classmates, it has a greater chance of becoming part of their everyday set of useful tools, like math, English, and history.
An ongoing, in-class, food education curriculum that offers basic food knowledge and presents opportunities for kids to try different foods and even prepare different foods themselves will help normalize such knowledge. If we can help begin to normalize this knowledge in today's youth, then the next generation should benefit from it.
Now, let's talk about the kids. When the government takes over the parenting responsibilities from the actual parents, the kids a) can get confused about what they're supposed to do, b) can get confused about their parents' actions, c) start questioning their parents' actions, d) they may not learning anything useful.
In the case of the preschooler, A and B did happen.
Since I don't really want to live in a place where government mandate leads to small-time fascist action, and I don't want to live in a place where I'm told what to do on a such a basic level - what to watch, what to listen to, what to read, what to eat, I support the notion of education being the manner in which we learn how to feed our kids. The government can outline what they think are safe cooking temperatures, what amounts of what foods equals a balanced meal, and can even campaign against diabetes and obesity. That's all great. But good parents know their kids and will tailor their food preparation according to how their kids eat in order to get them to eat nutritiously. Bad parents will not and, so long as their actions don't go so far as to be considered abuse-by-way-of-unhealthy-diet, those parents will have to suffer the consequences. And yes, I understand that the kids will, too, but there's a way to combat that. It's called education.
Parents should be the first food educator to their child. After all, they will feed the child most often. But since school is a place that children will attend throughout the week, and is a major part of their days, food education should most certainly take place in the classroom.
Is a young student, even in preschool, ever too young to learn about what could happen if they eat too much candy? Too much McDonald's? Too many potato chips? If you eat too much sugar, one day you might rely on giant, scary needles everyday! If you eat too much fatty foods, you might become so overweight you'll never get to play kickball or on the swings again! Too many salty foods might stop your heart! There are tactful, useful, and effective ways to teach young kids at school about food just as they are taught other subjects, and if they are continuously educated - and I'm not talking about a special health-day during a single school year, either - the facts will stick in their brains. They may not be able to think about it on the level of an adult, but at least the possibility of questioning their snacks and meals at home is very, very present. And if a kid actually requests to eat an apple at home rather than an Oscar Meyer's Lunchables pack, or drink a glass of juice instead of a soda, what is the likelihood of a parent saying no? Forcing a kid to eat supplements that are supposedly missing from the homemade lunch they brought to school doesn't educate in this manner. And lunch isn't necessarily the best time to deliver this lesson, despite the fact that lunch is feeding time.
There are a few different food education programs that exist to teach young school kids about food. But what I want to see is something that isn't an event, something that doesn't have a clever or fancy title, something that doesn't draw attention to itself because it's special. Because making basic food knowledge stand out makes the acquisition and practice of that knowledge special instead of normal. But normal is what we want, right? When kids - and adults - know that eating too much of one thing can be bad, that eating certain types of food more often than others can be good, that there are consequences to eating just like there are consequences to stealing and fighting with classmates, it has a greater chance of becoming part of their everyday set of useful tools, like math, English, and history.
An ongoing, in-class, food education curriculum that offers basic food knowledge and presents opportunities for kids to try different foods and even prepare different foods themselves will help normalize such knowledge. If we can help begin to normalize this knowledge in today's youth, then the next generation should benefit from it.
