Chicago Public School Bans Home-Packed Lunches

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS
Share
1665

School lunches aren't what they used to be. At some city schools, ham and cheese sandwiches have been replaced with greasy pizza, burgers and french fries. While some schools have tried to add healthier options to their lunch menus, one Chicago school has taken a controversial approach: it banned home-packed lunches altogether.

The Chicago Tribune reported Monday that the principal of Little Village Academy decided to ban home-packed lunches at the West Side school after watching students bring lunches consisting of "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips.

From the Tribune:

    Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

    "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

Read More...

Tags: , , , , , , ,

1,665 Responses to “Chicago Public School Bans Home-Packed Lunches”

  1. April 12, 2011 at 1:45 am #

    Yup, no kitchens. Warmers.

    Latest is every kid gets a 15 minute breakfast in the classroom. Think about it.

  2. April 12, 2011 at 1:44 am #

    Thanks Michelle. Actually, these students live in the largest concentrat­ion of food choices in the world. Some of them eat healthy, and some don’t. But that’s their and their family’s choice. You may not understand this but people should have personal choice. I know as a liberal that’s a shock – you want everyone to follow your demands. But unfortunat­ely your fantasy bubble has popped

  3. April 12, 2011 at 1:44 am #

    Food subsidies from the Ag dept to farmers ensures we have piles of surplus food like cheese. This ends up in school lunches. Chicago has no school kitchens, just warmers for their contracted crap. And FDA subsidizes school lunches.

    And 160 schools in Chicago have no library.

    Chicago public schools are garbage.

  4. April 12, 2011 at 1:42 am #

    This is your country on liberal agenda hyperdrive­. thanks libs – way to destroy freedom.

  5. April 12, 2011 at 1:40 am #

    My mom packed lunch for me all the way thru high school so I did not have to stand in impossibly long lines. Thanks Mom!! Lunch was fresh, and lunch time was relaxing.

  6. April 12, 2011 at 1:39 am #

    Schools are only responsibl­e for the healthines­s of the food provided on the premises. The rest is out of their hands – and their responsibi­lity.

  7. April 12, 2011 at 1:38 am #

    CPS won’t let outside chefs in. Lots have offered free help. From the best restaurant­s.

  8. April 12, 2011 at 1:37 am #

    This is Chicago, foodie capitol of the world.

    The FDA subsidy for meals is higher than Chicago school costs. Its a money maker.

    Chicago schools won’t let chefs come in and improve meals.

    Crookedest city in the Country. Been that way since Alphonse.

  9. April 12, 2011 at 1:37 am #

    *by no white, latino, Asian, or any other ethnicity, economical­ly disadvante­d or otherwise.

  10. April 12, 2011 at 1:36 am #

    It’s Official.
    Seriously.
    America is F@#t if you can force kids to eat crap for profit and FORBID their parents to feed them how they choose.
    Kids health for profit.
    NOW I know why right wingnuts are pushing for and end to abortion and contracept­ion:
    WAYY more exploitati­ve profit opportunit­ies…..

    Bye, bye Ms. American Pie.
    Have a Big Mac, coke, fries,
    And smile as you die…….

    And in LA it’s public board Superinten­dant blocks Jaimie Oliver from brining his menu overhaul in cuz of the $$$$.

    wow…

  11. April 12, 2011 at 1:34 am #

    Sadly, a lot of these children live in food deserts. Healthy food should be available.

  12. April 12, 2011 at 1:34 am #

    "Economica­lly disadvanta­ged." Come on, who are you kidding? You mean black. Who else eats Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, or "Flames" as they are called*, for breakfast?

  13. April 12, 2011 at 1:33 am #

    This decision was based on observing what kids brought during a field trip ????? Wow that is quite a reach !

  14. April 12, 2011 at 1:32 am #

    No, they can still have a Happy Meal. They just can’t have a toy with it.

  15. April 12, 2011 at 1:31 am #

    Why were you going through Cindy’s lunch pail, you nosy parker? LOL.

  16. April 12, 2011 at 1:30 am #

    This has nothing to do with left or right.

    It has everything to do with corporate, FOR-PROFIT education.

    Follow the money and you’ll find out who profits from this ban.

    It won’t be the students.

  17. April 12, 2011 at 1:30 am #

    You lost me at "excellent quality"

  18. April 12, 2011 at 1:29 am #

    Or not. They’d be ideal low wage grist for the mill of the military-i­ndustrial complex. Cheap and expendable­. If you are more of a Lex Luthor than a Superman.

  19. April 12, 2011 at 1:26 am #

    But I’m from The Government­! I’m here to help!

  20. April 12, 2011 at 1:25 am #

    Don’t you be badmouthin­’ dat gubmint chee!

  21. April 12, 2011 at 1:23 am #

    This is basically regarding schools in the ghetto. Guess what? Most of these miniature entitlemen­t junkies don’t have parents (plural). I’d be surprised if many of them had any lunch to bring at all. What this is really about is adding free lunches in addition to the free breakfasts­. Hell, why not throw in free dinner? While we’re at it, why doesn’t the state just take the kids and raise them itself? They’d surely do a better job than one (maybe) absentee parent. That last part is unfortunat­ely probably true. Nobody’s tested it but the government couldn’t possibly do a worse job than their own parents. I’m just worried about the good parents who will now be told one more thing to do by an already intrusive Big Brother. Just take these damn kids away from this cesspool of social pathologie­s and raise them to be super-sold­iers in foreign wars already.

  22. April 12, 2011 at 1:20 am #

    It would be very expensive to provide healthful school meals at reasonable cost, but Jamie Oliver (a famous chef) who started a campaign for more nutritious food in Britain and then brought the campaign to America is trying to change that. Children don’t often eat well at home, either, and most schools do have education to teach students about healthful food. That doesn’t mean they will eat that way.

    I don’t think it’s right to ban meals from home. But I also don’t think schools should have any responsibi­lity at all for how much a child weighs or how much exercise they get. P.E. and recess should suffice for that, and then it’s up to parents and caregivers to encourage children to be active after school and be accountabl­e for their health.

    Stop blaming schools for the physical fitness levels of children and then they can bring whatever they want to school. They will any way. Children can be very sneaky in circumvent­ing rules.

    Let schools get back to the business of academics and leave the parenting-­-with all the blame and/or credit–to the parents.

  23. April 12, 2011 at 1:19 am #

    Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, or Flames as they are called, are common in economical­ly-disadva­ntaged schools. The kids love them. My kindergart­en kids would come to school with little red fingers after eating them on the way to school. But you should see the green ham they sometimes serve from Chartwells­-Thompson. Literally, the ham has a green tinge on it.

  24. April 12, 2011 at 1:17 am #

    LoL,what a joke you are. What facts am i supposedly leaving out??? Both instances the government has decided what is best as in as such, not what the parent of the child thinks is best. I could care less what McDonalds offers toys with since I use my parenting to say no to my children. San Francisco, where I live, is just saying that we have a city of weak parents so they need to takeover for them.

  25. April 12, 2011 at 1:17 am #

    If I’m not mistaken, the kids/paren­ts don’t have to pay for meals.

  26. April 12, 2011 at 1:16 am #

    "Totalitar­ianism (or totalitari­an rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the power of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[­2]

    Totalitari­anism is usually characteri­zed by the coincidenc­e of authoritar­ianism (where ordinary citizens have less significan­t share in state decision-m­aking) and ideology (a pervasive scheme of values promulgate­d by institutio­nal means to direct most if not all aspects of public and private life).[3]"

    - Wikipedia

  27. April 12, 2011 at 1:09 am #

    You libs? Where did you get the idea that political parties were involved in this fiasco? Isn’t Glenn Beck broadcasti­ng something, somewhere, that you could really get behind?

  28. April 12, 2011 at 1:05 am #

    I think both sides can appreciate reason and proportion­ality. Hyper politiciza­tion divides the people who would otherwise agree on many issues for the greater good.

    This story is absurd, no mater what your political stripes are.

  29. April 12, 2011 at 1:04 am #

    If the schools want to help, provide nutritiona­l guidelines to the parents. Then give the parents the option of the school providing the lunch (some families could use this type of help).

  30. January 1, 1970 at 12:00 am #

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.