Deals.Woot

Wow, i don't have kids, but that makes me mad. The poor kid had to go the whole day on only 3 chicken nuggets? What idiot would think that is better than the lunch her mom packed? And whats with state agents inspecting a preschoolers lunch? Thats just ridiculous.
Do you have a link to the article?

@miyoshinum5: I think the rest of the story is that the kid was actually given more than just the 3 nuggets, but didn't eat the rest of the school-provided lunch. I heard a radio report that the mother said the lunch she packs for her kid is based on what she knows her kid will eat and sending items the kid won't eat is just a waste.

I've experienced this my self (the kid not eating certain "healthy" items included in their lunch), my second grader had been throwing out half her sandwich, and sometimes her fruit/veggies, so I know give her a smaller lunch and feed her a bigger lunch when she gets home at 2PM.

like I said, I find it horrifying that the government is paying someone to inspect lunches brought from home.

In the origional story the contents of the lunch from home was a turkey and cheese sandwitch, a banana, apple juice, and chips. Sounds like a good lunch to me, and a lot healthier than nuggets. Also, the mother said she wasn't charged for the meal, but parents were notified they could be charged.

But,the schools get more tax money for the more kids they can make eat school provided lunches. If the school district needs more money, they force more kids to eat what they provide, then send the bulked up numbers to the dept. of education and get a bigger check.

thanks for fixing the "Texas" error, Woot staff, my bad. While you're at it, can you fix "kids" to "kid's"? Thanks, wouldn't want @tallerteapot to get upset.

@kamikazeken: Stay calm citizen, we're from the government and we know what's best for you.

I hope the government assists me in my next supper by giving me beer, personally.

I'm not surprised. I am appalled though. This is exactly the type of "big brother" crap that our constitution is intended to protect us from.

Not to mention the fact they then charged the mom for the chicken nuggets!

Stupid!

@joe43wv: While I have never been able to find a solid answer, I think what happened was the girl got an entire school lunch and only ate the chicken nuggets. The quote from the mom suggests that the girl thought the lunch she brought from home was bad (as in spoiled) so she did not eat anything from it and might explain how she ended up with a whole school cafe meal.

I just heard the scoop on the news. They said the girl misunderstood. They told her to go through the line and get milk to add to her lunch. Instead, she picked up an entire meal.

Edit: The man they interviewed said the milk was free.

The state regulation reads:

"Sites must provide breakfast and/or snacks and lunch meeting USDA requirements during the regular school day. The partial/full cost of meals may be charged when families do not qualify for free/reduced price meals.

"When children bring their own food for meals and snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the specified nutritional requirements, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements."

@ruger9mm: That's exactly what I thought!

embarrassed to say I live in NC

@missellienc: Thank you. I am not surprised that the rest of the story directly contradicts FauxNews' selective reporting. What's new, though?

From a government trying to ensure nutritional balance by providing a service (which is also free), to demonizing it for being Big Brother; to the gullible, self-assured chorus that doesn't want to hear all the facts and instead of believing in some soundbites.

It's all so typical and sad.

This is the craziest thing I have heard in a long time. How much tax money do you think is wasted on this "food police in schools?" If they want to waste money on policing all students lunches why don't they just use that money to give free or reduced price lunches to all the students.

@jumbowoot: I am a bit surprised that you would post that link, which is not even half of the story, from someone who just selectively reported what happened.

Here's a new updated report from a local TV station. It's a little different from the one I heard earlier. The video is different from the article, the teacher is not mentioned.

http://www.wxii12.com/news/30475470/detail.html

@lll0228: Noted. My intention was not to support or detract. I was merely verifying that there was some sort of story here incredible as it might be.

@missellienc: Just watched the video. Don't know if things have changed but when I was in school, there was no fridge to put the lunch in. I do not know of any parent that would put milk in a sack lunch for a child since there is no way it would stay at the recommended safe temperature during the school day to be still good by lunch time.

Also, there are kids that cannot drink milk due to allergies, are this kids required to get milk too? What options do they allow to them? The more they try to dig themselves out of a hole, the deeper they are becoming.

I am a public school employee. I have seen first hand what happens to lunches in a school cafeteria. We have a large number of students who through public assistance get free or reduced lunched. The kids who brown bag it, generally eat everything packed in their lunch. Those who are on the assistance programs leave much of the lunch on the trays, and often use their own money to buy ice cream or snacks to eat. Putting apples or oranges on the food trays leads to students rolling or throwing them around the cafeteria. There are approximately 200 students in each of the 4 lunch periods supervised by 2 monitors or study hall aides. Trying to control what kids eat is not a government job. Shall we expect the national guard next ?

I don't care if a kid gets a 12 pack of twinkies and a mountain-dew for lunch, the school and government have zero business getting involved. That is between the parent and the child. When you hand over all responsibility to the government, you are giving away your freedom in the name of comfort.

@moondrake: WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...show me PURE FACTS that say for 1 child intruded on there are "hundreds" protected....

that is like saying "beat 1 child so that all the others don't have to be beaten"

I mean no disrespect, but in a true Liberty, we do NOT give up our freedoms, so the Government can do what THEY THINK is protection.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin

Take out banana and replace with pudding and you have my school lunch for 5 years of elementary school. Ain't dead yet.

I think it is ultimately up to the parents to determine what their child should eat. Clearly there are instances, just look around, where parents just don't know, don't care, or can't afford to provide a square meal for their child every day. In those cases, and clearly this was not one of them, than I think the government stepping in to help is not a problem. Should the government be policing individual lunches? Absolutely not! Should they be assisting schools to develop a menu that is balanced in nutrition? Sure! Ensuring that our kids eat hormone free milk, fresh fruits & veggies and whole grains is key to conquering the current obesity epidemic in this country.

To those who claim the schools have no business ensuring the students are eating healthy food, you need to consider what the schools are held liable for. When students don't learn the material, don't pass standardized tests, and don't graduate, we hold the schools liable for that.
However, if the students aren't eating healthy food, their ability to focus and learn is significantly diminished. Hence the schools do have a responsibility to ensure that students are eating healthy meals that are well balanced sources of carbs, fats, and protein to ensure that they can function well as students.
Being as we've already seen that there is an excess of spin being applied to coverage of this story, we might never really know what actually happened. However, if you want kids to be able to eat junk then you need to release the schools of their liability to teach those same students.

@moondrake: to say "people want these laws to protect our children..." is a nit incorrect. All too often, these types of laws creep in with "people" not being aware that those NOT really needing help being included with those who truly do. Next thing you know, a majority falls under the auspices of these laws/programs, and it takes an incident like this to bring it to people's attention.

My family qualifies for reduced cost or free lunches for our school-age children, but we make plenty of money and can afford to feed our own kids just fine. Why am I feeling like a sucker because I don't let the government feed my kids for me? If you think about it, once you depend on someone else to feed you and your family, THEY OWN YOU.

@dontwantaname: ROFLOL! I remember that. I was (still am) an impossibly picky eater and was constantly getting in trouble for not eating my food in the school cafeteria. Some kid stationed by the trash can would rat me out, some teacher would make me sit down till I ate it, and just like at home, I was willing to sit there indefinitely without eating something I didn't want to. I'd end up in the principle's office, one of my parents would have to come in and explain that my pediatrician told them not to make me eat. I have a strong gag reflex and if I don't want something it will simply not go down, period. Since I never went two semesters to the same school as a kid, we had to repeat this scenario over and over. Eventually my grandmother and I negotiated the contents of a sack lunch and I ate the same thing just about every day of my school life after that.