This is a very interesting situation because it asks the question: what role should the government play in individual food choices? But what I find even more interesting is that the situation is almost comepletely reversed at New Trier. Personally I've always thought that people who brought their lunch ate healthier lunches as opposed to the fries, Uncrustables, chips, and soda that many New Trier students eat for lunch. I just so happen to be part of the group that brings their lunch to school and my lunches are almost always really healthy. Its only when I buy lunch that they are unhealthy. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've always been under the impression that bringing a lunch is healthier, like this poster suggests:
I am all for trying to prevent and fix childhood obesity but I think that the actions that the school took might have been slightly too drastic. I think maybe a better approach would've been to inform parents about the importance of a healthy lunch and ask them to make sure their son or daughter has a healthy lunch. But at the same time I feel like I can argue for the ban because I'm assuming that the children at this Chicago public school do not come from wealthy families. Kids might be bringing unhealthy lunches to school because they are cheaper. You can get a 12 pk of soda for $5 whereas a 12 pk of milk (and only 1/2 of the ounces of soda) costs $15. You can get 10 packaged hot dogs totaling 16 oz for $3 but only 9 oz of cut turkey for $5.
Forcing the kids to eat the school lunches would make sure that they were eating something healthy but then again they might choose to not eat anything at all if they don't like the options. And the fact that they have to "force" the kids to eat healthier lunches doesn't seem right either.Overall I think that the school trying to get kids to eat healthier is great, I'm just not sure the school went about it the right way.
I completely agree with your analysis of the situation, Alex. I am in the category with you in the lunch area. I always have a fruit, veggies, and a meat and carb and then baked goods. And more... but I'll keep it at that. I always am happy with what I eat, and I am very glad that I am not forced to eat what New Trier serves. Quite frankly, I think it looks disgusting half the time. So, I think that I should be able to bring what I want to school to eat. I also think that there may be kids who do bring a healthy lunch and whose rights are being abridged by this rule. What if they are actually eating healthier lunches than others? Shouldn't they be able to choose? So I agree. Maybe the school could choose another way to help kids eat healthier. Maybe a lunch inspection? That is less drastic, but still sounds like a militaristic or dictatorial society. Not what I'd like to go through, but at least it gives them an option. The other thing is, what if the kids just pitch the food in the trash? Then the school is wasting money and food, and the kids aren't eating anything. That kind of defeats the purpose, right?
ReplyDeleteAlex-
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I also bring my lunch to school every day. The principal of the school justified the ban saying students need to enjoy the "excellent quality" of the food served in their cafeteria, but if their food is anything like the food served in our cafeteria, I think "excellent" might be a little bit of an overstatement. The food might taste good but it's full of grease and fat. It's fine occasionally but not for every day. Even in elementary school, when we didn't have the option to buy chips and sodas at lunch, the lunchroom food was still highly processed and not very healthy. Picky students and students who only eat certain foods (vegetarians and vegans) would also pose a problem to this ban. Can you really force a vegetarian student to eat a meat-based meal because you refuse to let them bring an alternative? I think a school-wide ban on bringing soda to school or something less extreme would have been a better idea.
My Junior Theme is why has the U.S. become so obese,and my answer for that is because the government is subsidizing corn. The reason, for example, that soda is so cheap is because it is made from, in large part, commodity corn. Corn is (was) very cheap and that is why when stores sell soda, the soda can be sold cheaper then say milk. I think the choice of this principal was very interesting. Although I think students should have the choice of bringing their lunch to school, I think that in poorer Chicago areas the lunches brought from home are not typically as healthy as the lunches brought in from home at New Trier. Students at New Trier have more money then the students at Chicago Schools, and they can afford to buy whole fruits and vegetables for their lunch, which is much more expensive than a bag of chips or soda. I doubt that the school lunch is very healthy, but if schools had enough money to support healthy school-made lunches(given to them by the government), then I think making students eat at the school is a reasonable idea.
ReplyDeleteGreat pix, and good post here, Alex Steeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeern. You really have become a thoughtful blogger! Here I might link to the article for the sake of your readers. Overall, though, great job -- and terrific meta post!
ReplyDelete