Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Mar 28th 2005, 8:35 am
#1
Home and Happy
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,814
Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Sorry if the majority disagree with me, but this seems to be one step too far by the Nanny State. If they only want the kids to eat fruit, let them provide the fruit! I really feel for those poor kids who feel like humiliated criminals for daring to take a bag of crisps for part of their lunch.
And would someone like to do a survey of how many teachers are spotted eating crisps or chocolate in front of children - or - shock horror!!!!- drinking fruit juice!
from The CourierMail 27th March 2005:
Lunchbox police
PRE-SCHOOL teachers are acting as lunchbox police to help prevent childhood obesity.
The contents of some Queensland children's lunchboxes are confiscated as pre-schools introduce tough new "no junk food" policies, an investigation by The Sunday Mail found.
Early childhood teachers believed the inspections were the only way to stop children eating junk food, regularly packed for them by their parents.
But a leading nutritionist has slammed the idea, saying it would have no effect on children's dietary habits.
"That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard," Griffith University senior lecturer of public health, Shawn Somerset, said.
Ormiston College, on Brisbane's bayside, has strict rules on junk food. Banned foods included lollies, fruit juice, chocolate, chips and any highly processed foods.
"The children will not eat anything that has been packed for them that is inappropriate," pre-school teacher Debbie Stange said.
"When they have morning tea, I'll walk around and check what's in their lunchboxes.
"If someone has something that is not appropriate they actually dob each other in."
Ms Stange said "offending parents" were spoken to at mid-term interviews.
"We really have to do it (confiscate food) only a few times and they all step in line," she said.
The school's head teacher Glenda Seawright said since the regime was introduced, the children's concentration had improved.
"This year we are trialing a fruit-only morning tea," she said.
"It is an education for the parents because they see packaged food as convenient. We would never humiliate or embarrass the child."
Melissa Mathews, whose son Layton, 5, attends Ormiston College Pre-school, supports the strict approach to junk food.
"We were told ahead of time that if it's in there they have it taken away and then at the end of the day they'll have it given back," she said.
"They're just trying to promote good eating habits . . . you see too many kids who are overweight."
But Mr Somerset dismissed the no junk food ban as a band-aid solution.
"It sounds well meaning at the surface, but it's not instituting any change at home or on weekends," he said.
"The first assumption is that the child-care centre actually knows what is an appropriate lunchbox and what isn't and that's not always the case."
An Education Queensland spokesman said state pre-schools encouraged healthy food choices, but food should not be taken from students.
"Teachers supervise pre-school children while they eat the food they have brought from home," he said.
"Food provided by parents should not be confiscated."
And would someone like to do a survey of how many teachers are spotted eating crisps or chocolate in front of children - or - shock horror!!!!- drinking fruit juice!
from The CourierMail 27th March 2005:
Lunchbox police
PRE-SCHOOL teachers are acting as lunchbox police to help prevent childhood obesity.
The contents of some Queensland children's lunchboxes are confiscated as pre-schools introduce tough new "no junk food" policies, an investigation by The Sunday Mail found.
Early childhood teachers believed the inspections were the only way to stop children eating junk food, regularly packed for them by their parents.
But a leading nutritionist has slammed the idea, saying it would have no effect on children's dietary habits.
"That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard," Griffith University senior lecturer of public health, Shawn Somerset, said.
Ormiston College, on Brisbane's bayside, has strict rules on junk food. Banned foods included lollies, fruit juice, chocolate, chips and any highly processed foods.
"The children will not eat anything that has been packed for them that is inappropriate," pre-school teacher Debbie Stange said.
"When they have morning tea, I'll walk around and check what's in their lunchboxes.
"If someone has something that is not appropriate they actually dob each other in."
Ms Stange said "offending parents" were spoken to at mid-term interviews.
"We really have to do it (confiscate food) only a few times and they all step in line," she said.
The school's head teacher Glenda Seawright said since the regime was introduced, the children's concentration had improved.
"This year we are trialing a fruit-only morning tea," she said.
"It is an education for the parents because they see packaged food as convenient. We would never humiliate or embarrass the child."
Melissa Mathews, whose son Layton, 5, attends Ormiston College Pre-school, supports the strict approach to junk food.
"We were told ahead of time that if it's in there they have it taken away and then at the end of the day they'll have it given back," she said.
"They're just trying to promote good eating habits . . . you see too many kids who are overweight."
But Mr Somerset dismissed the no junk food ban as a band-aid solution.
"It sounds well meaning at the surface, but it's not instituting any change at home or on weekends," he said.
"The first assumption is that the child-care centre actually knows what is an appropriate lunchbox and what isn't and that's not always the case."
An Education Queensland spokesman said state pre-schools encouraged healthy food choices, but food should not be taken from students.
"Teachers supervise pre-school children while they eat the food they have brought from home," he said.
"Food provided by parents should not be confiscated."
Mar 28th 2005, 9:05 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Here in the UK everyone is talking about obesity in children etc, but when you think about it - you cannot blame the parents alone. The education system has changed so much that children don't get regular exercise and school dinners have changed enormously, guaranteeing that our children no longer get wholesome lunchtime meals. If the Govt are feeding junk to our children and taking away their exercise regimes, then parents have to be more responsible, but there is only so much they can do.
I have mixed feelings on the points that you raise as a grandmother of a seriously overweight child.
To this day we cannot understand why she is so big, her brother is probably at the other end of the spectrum being tiny for his age. (Where is the justice!!)
However, what gauls me more than anything is that the children are given packed lunches made up of wholesome foods, plenty of fruit etc, but the school tuck shops sell the kids junk foods. How can we win. Yes we've stopped the pocket money for the tuck shops, but kids being kids get around that with their friends offering to buy them 'goodies'.
Hopefully things will change in Australia, and she will eat more and more fresh fruit and veggies and get more exercise. I for one wouldn't be upset about the 'lunchbox police'.
However, I also agree that it does seem an over-zealous method of trying to educate parents into giving their children balanced diets.
Blossom
I have mixed feelings on the points that you raise as a grandmother of a seriously overweight child.
To this day we cannot understand why she is so big, her brother is probably at the other end of the spectrum being tiny for his age. (Where is the justice!!)
However, what gauls me more than anything is that the children are given packed lunches made up of wholesome foods, plenty of fruit etc, but the school tuck shops sell the kids junk foods. How can we win. Yes we've stopped the pocket money for the tuck shops, but kids being kids get around that with their friends offering to buy them 'goodies'.
Hopefully things will change in Australia, and she will eat more and more fresh fruit and veggies and get more exercise. I for one wouldn't be upset about the 'lunchbox police'.
However, I also agree that it does seem an over-zealous method of trying to educate parents into giving their children balanced diets.
Blossom
Mar 28th 2005, 9:05 am
#3
Bitter and twisted
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Upmarket
Posts: 17,503
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Any offers on what the most likely response to this thread is going to be?? 
G
G
Mar 28th 2005, 9:06 am
#4
Bitter and twisted
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Upmarket
Posts: 17,503
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Originally Posted by blossom
Hopefully things will change in Australia, and she will eat more and more fresh fruit and veggies and get more exercise. I for one wouldn't be upset about the 'lunchbox police'.
That was quick...even beat me to it.
G
Mar 28th 2005, 9:14 am
#5
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,337
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Just watch Supersize me on dvd. :scared:
Mar 28th 2005, 9:28 am
#6
Banned
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,551
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Originally Posted by Pollyana
"Food provided by parents should not be confiscated."
If the school is so worried then just provide a more healthy range of food at the tuck shop. I spose fatty muesli bars are ok are they?
Reality check time: kids get fat in OZ more to do with their meals at home and inactivity levels not simply due to what they bring for lunch. Taking a kids chips/crisps is like stealing the candy from the baby! shame! shame!shame!
I remember heaps of skinny kids when I was at school getting meat pies and cream filled donuts and chips etc. Usually we got to buy lunch once a week as a treat, in OZ though it can be hard due to the heat sandwiches can become "nasty" and even dangerous to eat if the filling is suseptibile to bacteria formation.
Mar 28th 2005, 9:29 am
#7
Happy Daddy
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Dodgey West Midlands , UK
Posts: 1,312
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Originally Posted by Pollyana
Sorry if the majority disagree with me, but this seems to be one step too far by the Nanny State. If they only want the kids to eat fruit, let them provide the fruit! I really feel for those poor kids who feel like humiliated criminals for daring to take a bag of crisps for part of their lunch.
And would someone like to do a survey of how many teachers are spotted eating crisps or chocolate in front of children - or - shock horror!!!!- drinking fruit juice!
from The CourierMail 27th March 2005:
Lunchbox police
PRE-SCHOOL teachers are acting as lunchbox police to help prevent childhood obesity.
The contents of some Queensland children's lunchboxes are confiscated as pre-schools introduce tough new "no junk food" policies, an investigation by The Sunday Mail found.
Early childhood teachers believed the inspections were the only way to stop children eating junk food, regularly packed for them by their parents.
But a leading nutritionist has slammed the idea, saying it would have no effect on children's dietary habits.
"That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard," Griffith University senior lecturer of public health, Shawn Somerset, said.
Ormiston College, on Brisbane's bayside, has strict rules on junk food. Banned foods included lollies, fruit juice, chocolate, chips and any highly processed foods.
"The children will not eat anything that has been packed for them that is inappropriate," pre-school teacher Debbie Stange said.
"When they have morning tea, I'll walk around and check what's in their lunchboxes.
"If someone has something that is not appropriate they actually dob each other in."
Ms Stange said "offending parents" were spoken to at mid-term interviews.
"We really have to do it (confiscate food) only a few times and they all step in line," she said.
The school's head teacher Glenda Seawright said since the regime was introduced, the children's concentration had improved.
"This year we are trialing a fruit-only morning tea," she said.
"It is an education for the parents because they see packaged food as convenient. We would never humiliate or embarrass the child."
Melissa Mathews, whose son Layton, 5, attends Ormiston College Pre-school, supports the strict approach to junk food.
"We were told ahead of time that if it's in there they have it taken away and then at the end of the day they'll have it given back," she said.
"They're just trying to promote good eating habits . . . you see too many kids who are overweight."
But Mr Somerset dismissed the no junk food ban as a band-aid solution.
"It sounds well meaning at the surface, but it's not instituting any change at home or on weekends," he said.
"The first assumption is that the child-care centre actually knows what is an appropriate lunchbox and what isn't and that's not always the case."
An Education Queensland spokesman said state pre-schools encouraged healthy food choices, but food should not be taken from students.
"Teachers supervise pre-school children while they eat the food they have brought from home," he said.
"Food provided by parents should not be confiscated."
And would someone like to do a survey of how many teachers are spotted eating crisps or chocolate in front of children - or - shock horror!!!!- drinking fruit juice!
from The CourierMail 27th March 2005:
Lunchbox police
PRE-SCHOOL teachers are acting as lunchbox police to help prevent childhood obesity.
The contents of some Queensland children's lunchboxes are confiscated as pre-schools introduce tough new "no junk food" policies, an investigation by The Sunday Mail found.
Early childhood teachers believed the inspections were the only way to stop children eating junk food, regularly packed for them by their parents.
But a leading nutritionist has slammed the idea, saying it would have no effect on children's dietary habits.
"That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard," Griffith University senior lecturer of public health, Shawn Somerset, said.
Ormiston College, on Brisbane's bayside, has strict rules on junk food. Banned foods included lollies, fruit juice, chocolate, chips and any highly processed foods.
"The children will not eat anything that has been packed for them that is inappropriate," pre-school teacher Debbie Stange said.
"When they have morning tea, I'll walk around and check what's in their lunchboxes.
"If someone has something that is not appropriate they actually dob each other in."
Ms Stange said "offending parents" were spoken to at mid-term interviews.
"We really have to do it (confiscate food) only a few times and they all step in line," she said.
The school's head teacher Glenda Seawright said since the regime was introduced, the children's concentration had improved.
"This year we are trialing a fruit-only morning tea," she said.
"It is an education for the parents because they see packaged food as convenient. We would never humiliate or embarrass the child."
Melissa Mathews, whose son Layton, 5, attends Ormiston College Pre-school, supports the strict approach to junk food.
"We were told ahead of time that if it's in there they have it taken away and then at the end of the day they'll have it given back," she said.
"They're just trying to promote good eating habits . . . you see too many kids who are overweight."
But Mr Somerset dismissed the no junk food ban as a band-aid solution.
"It sounds well meaning at the surface, but it's not instituting any change at home or on weekends," he said.
"The first assumption is that the child-care centre actually knows what is an appropriate lunchbox and what isn't and that's not always the case."
An Education Queensland spokesman said state pre-schools encouraged healthy food choices, but food should not be taken from students.
"Teachers supervise pre-school children while they eat the food they have brought from home," he said.
"Food provided by parents should not be confiscated."
Polly,
So what would the child eat if their food is confiscated?
If I was one of the parent's I would take them to court after consulting a solisitor. The state advises no such action, but teachers are taking it upon themselves to do it.
Where will it stop next!
I know, drop the fat kids off outside town and make them walk home.
Bye
Mark
Mar 28th 2005, 9:34 am
#8
Banned
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,551
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Originally Posted by markeh
Polly,
I know, drop the fat kids off outside town and make them walk home.
I know, drop the fat kids off outside town and make them walk home.
We all walked in groups home when I was a kid, and we knew about stranger danger(though it wasn't called that then). Fact is the vast majority of child molesterers are known by their victims and are often family members or friends of the family.
Mar 28th 2005, 9:44 am
#9
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,038
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
I must admit though........I am a fat bastard, ergo by default I need a nanny........please.
I thankyou
I thankyou
Mar 28th 2005, 9:55 am
#10
Banned
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,551
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Originally Posted by Nice Guy
I must admit though........I am a fat bastard, ergo by default I need a nanny........please.
I thankyou
I thankyou
LOL
Mar 28th 2005, 9:56 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Originally Posted by Pollyana
Sorry if the majority disagree with me, but this seems to be one step too far by the Nanny State.
from The CourierMail 27th March 2005
An Education Queensland spokesman said state pre-schools encouraged healthy food choices, but food should not be taken from students.
"Teachers supervise pre-school children while they eat the food they have brought from home," he said.
"Food provided by parents should not be confiscated."
An Education Queensland spokesman said state pre-schools encouraged healthy food choices, but food should not be taken from students.
"Teachers supervise pre-school children while they eat the food they have brought from home," he said.
"Food provided by parents should not be confiscated."
And the school mentioned also said "We would never humiliate or embarrass the child"
Mar 28th 2005, 10:30 am
#12
BE Enthusiast
Joined: May 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW.
Posts: 882
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Hi Polly !
Before we left Scotland, the same research had been done , but it was approached in a slightly different way. The Health Board actually delivered portions of fruit to the school fresh every day. The kids got to eat it at recess . It was all dished in little pots , you know , a small portion of sliced peaches , some pineapple, the kids got to choose. My daughter loved it and even though she does eat well it encouraged her to try different fruits that I perhaps hadn't given her before.
The school nurse was involved and did a subtle "health screen" on ALL the kids . Their parents were invited to attend . Kids were weighed and BMI assessed. They were asked what they had for breakfast , favourite food , what they eat at night , that kind of casual chat.If a problem was identified the nurse advised as appropriate and referred the family on if need be.All very discreet.
As for the lunch boxes , nothing was ever taken out but the kids were sent home with the rubbish in their box so you could see what they had eaten.
HOWEVER HERE .............No school nurses, no free fruit , the kids actually have points taken off there reward charts if they have biscuits or "bad food ! " and I do find it harder to provide a healthier lunch because there is no fridges and the lunch box is left outside in the sun all day , so no yogurts or salad sandwiches !
Don't know how they'll get around this one !
All the best,
Tass.
Before we left Scotland, the same research had been done , but it was approached in a slightly different way. The Health Board actually delivered portions of fruit to the school fresh every day. The kids got to eat it at recess . It was all dished in little pots , you know , a small portion of sliced peaches , some pineapple, the kids got to choose. My daughter loved it and even though she does eat well it encouraged her to try different fruits that I perhaps hadn't given her before.
The school nurse was involved and did a subtle "health screen" on ALL the kids . Their parents were invited to attend . Kids were weighed and BMI assessed. They were asked what they had for breakfast , favourite food , what they eat at night , that kind of casual chat.If a problem was identified the nurse advised as appropriate and referred the family on if need be.All very discreet.
As for the lunch boxes , nothing was ever taken out but the kids were sent home with the rubbish in their box so you could see what they had eaten.
HOWEVER HERE .............No school nurses, no free fruit , the kids actually have points taken off there reward charts if they have biscuits or "bad food ! " and I do find it harder to provide a healthier lunch because there is no fridges and the lunch box is left outside in the sun all day , so no yogurts or salad sandwiches !
Don't know how they'll get around this one !
All the best,
Tass.
Mar 28th 2005, 10:52 am
#13
Banned
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,432
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Originally Posted by Tass
I do find it harder to provide a healthier lunch because there is no fridges and the lunch box is left outside in the sun all day , so no yogurts or salad sandwiches !
Don't know how they'll get around this one !
Don't know how they'll get around this one !
Mar 28th 2005, 11:31 am
#14
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Posts: 527
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
Whilst im all for healthy eating id like to know who gave anyone the right to tell someone what they should or shouldnt eat.
Its not up to anyone else to tell someone how to feed their kids. They can be advised as to what they think they should be eating but deffo not be told what their child should or shouldnt eat.
Im wondering what happens to the poor child who does bring in a packet of crisps does he/she get picked on for bringing such foods and also does the child get something else from those who think they have a right to say what should be eaten so that he/she doesnt go hungry
I have 4 kids they all eat junk food not all the time but its not done them any harm they are all very slim and healthy.
Wonder what will be next ??? sweets will be banned and become a crimnal offence if seen eating them it makes you wonder
Debs xxx
Its not up to anyone else to tell someone how to feed their kids. They can be advised as to what they think they should be eating but deffo not be told what their child should or shouldnt eat.
Im wondering what happens to the poor child who does bring in a packet of crisps does he/she get picked on for bringing such foods and also does the child get something else from those who think they have a right to say what should be eaten so that he/she doesnt go hungry
I have 4 kids they all eat junk food not all the time but its not done them any harm they are all very slim and healthy.
Wonder what will be next ??? sweets will be banned and become a crimnal offence if seen eating them it makes you wonder
Debs xxx
Mar 28th 2005, 11:37 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Talk about the "Nanny State"...where will it stop?
I think there is probably a bit of "journalistic licence" in the newspaper article. We are the parents of an Ormiston College pre-schooler and there is no "ban" on junk food as such.
We are all supporting a fruit-only morning tea and healthy lunches, plus water only drink bottles. My understanding is that the teachers are only removing lollies and chocolate from lunchboxes, and then returning them at the end of the school day. Nothing else is "banned", although we've been asked to avoid pre-packaged high fat snacks.
We have already been given a polite reminder (via a lecture from our 5 year old) when we gave him a packet of crisps on a "panic - there's nothing in the larder" day. However, he was obviously allowed to eat them.
I think most of the parents are aware the school is treading a fine line between parental choice and "nanny state". However, the principle is being supported as we all generally think it is a good idea.
Ev.
We are all supporting a fruit-only morning tea and healthy lunches, plus water only drink bottles. My understanding is that the teachers are only removing lollies and chocolate from lunchboxes, and then returning them at the end of the school day. Nothing else is "banned", although we've been asked to avoid pre-packaged high fat snacks.
We have already been given a polite reminder (via a lecture from our 5 year old) when we gave him a packet of crisps on a "panic - there's nothing in the larder" day. However, he was obviously allowed to eat them.
I think most of the parents are aware the school is treading a fine line between parental choice and "nanny state". However, the principle is being supported as we all generally think it is a good idea.
Ev.