School Sends Child's Lunch Home After Determining it Unhealthy

halfEvilTech writes "A North Carolina mom is irate after her four-year-old daughter returned home late last month with an uneaten lunch the mother had packed for the girl earlier that day. But she wasn't mad because the daughter decided to go on a hunger strike. Instead, the reason the daughter didn't eat her lunch is because someone at the school determined the lunch wasn't healthy enough and sent it back home. What was wrong with the lunch? That's still a head-scratcher because it didn't contain anything egregious: a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice. But for the inspector on hand that day, it didn't meet the healthy requirements."

one more reason to homeschool

[Adult film producer]

Sure, the teachers might not be at fault her (I need to insert that comment to pretend I give a damn about the needs of the teachers) but what have they done to stop this nonsense? *cough*

conservative rag.. nothing to see here

[Sebastopol]

I'll wait for some investigation into this. Note the source, TheBlaze, is an inquirer-like conservative rag.

Re:Article is BS.

[russotto]

Actual story:
- Lunch was not taken away from the girl; she was given extra food because they were worried she might not have enough.

Nor does the story say lunch was taken away from her. In fact, since she brought it home, it implies otherwise.

- A standard form letter was sent to the parent, which said that she may be charged for the food - in fact, since the child was enrolled in the right program, she was not actually charged for the food

This is also not at odds with the story, which said "which could result in a fee".

- The food given was milk and vegetables, not chicken nuggets.

Milk, a vegetable, a fruit, and chicken nuggets. Of which the girl, being a typical American 4-year-old, only ate the nuggets.

Re:Oh, come on, Slashdot!

[medcalf]

I used to really respect your opinion, but the reason now escapes me. I suppose, though, that it may do some good to mention that the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause is such that if they were in fact to manufacture incandescent bulbs, in their own house for their own use, the government could still come take them. Well, no, it probably won't do any good. People, it seems, are fine to tolerate creeping totalitarianism forever, so long as it creeps at a rate that doesn't inconvenience them personally.

Goin on The Federal Reserve Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry maggots, agenda 21 will be on your doorstep within the decade. Your feeble plans for a bright future are completely fucked. You sat an laughed at the electronic vote fraud, the us constitution being destroyed, and now you whine like a bitch when your childs is going to school with fema and the tsa.

Shut the fuck up now, and take your vaccines, drink your water with sterilization and lithium, floride, hexaflorine, gorge your pie holes with hormone meat, and fukushima/oil spill fish. Fuck your fireplace, it's a no burn day, only plutonium hot particles are allowed.

go support your local globalist psychopathic puppets, demand "democracy" fuck the constitutional republic, fuck your oath

Re:Despicable

[artor3]

No, that would only be the message if they do start charging and charge everyone no matter how nutritious the packed lunch is. The far more likely scenario is that they either will continue their current policy of providing the food for free, or they will only charge in cases where the lunch is clearly inadequate.

Stop listening to demagogues. They're making you paranoid. Your kid's lunch lady isn't out to get you, I promise.

Disagree with your interpretation

[einhverfr]

And yet you claim that "The School Person REPLACED the whole lunch with an ALTERNATE version, not just 'supplemented'," and then go off on a rant about the evil leftwing nanny state. You should be ashamed of spreading these hateful lies.

Sounds like they gave her an additional lunch and told her that her mother didn't pack something healthy enough. That they might have called it a supplement doesn't change the fact that it was functionally a replacement. That would be reasonable if the USDA provided objectively good nutritional standards, but instead we have an organization which has been legally required to recognize the tomato sauce on pizza as a serving of a vegetable having their standards used to second-guess a good wholesome lunch sent by the parent.

My suspicion is that this is a way for the school to bring in additional revenue. If I were the parent, I would send the school a letter saying that you had not agreed to the transaction and that you will not pay it. If they send it to collections you send a letter of dispute. If they persist, threaten to organize a class action law suit.

The USDA guidelines??? What a joke.

[Fished]

I used to weight 420 lbs. I had type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, severe sleep apnea (which could have literally killed me dead any night I forgot the CPAP), asthma, high cholesterol, IBS, and was diagnosed with type 2 bipolar disorder. I now weigh 194, have "the best cholesterol numbers [my doctor] has seen in a long time", energy to exercise, no breathing problems, I only poop when I want to now, and most of all I'm happy and stable without medication.

How did I do it, you ask? I realized that the USDA's purpose is to promote American grain-based agriculture (everything but corn, soybeans, and to a lesser degree wheat are considered "specialty crops") and not the health of Americans, and I quit following their stupid, lame, ineffective food pyramid. I save almost $10,000 in medications alone -- forget about all the other medical costs -- and I LOVE my tasty home-made bacon. That nasty corn, and wheat, and high-fructose-corn-syrup, and soybeans? Keep 'em the hell away from ME! I'd rather SMOKE than eat a school lunch -- it's better for me.

Want to lose weight? Grass-fed meats, vegetables (corn is not a vegetable -- except in school lunches!), fruit in moderation as a "treat". No added sugars of any kind. No wheat, corn, or god-help-us-soybeans-that-you-can't-even-eat-without-fermenting-them-because-they're-literally-inevitable-best-suited-for-feeding-pigs, ever.

Since the government started setting "preventative" nutritional guidelines, based on the then-unproven "low fat" theory from Dr. Ancel Keys, in 1977, have Americans gotten thinner or fatter? When the USDA publicly acknowledges that there is no "one true diet" for all humans, regardless of their ethnic background (and how recently that area developed agriculture) I MIGHT listen to them again. Until then, I think it would be insane to listen to them -- insanity being doing the same thing again and again and somehow expecting a different result.

It annoys me that the schools keep trying to tell my children that a low-fat diet is good for them. I can't imagine what I'd do if they started trying to force their hog-feed down my children's throats, but it would not be pretty.

Re:BOGUS STORY

[tomhath]

Well, maybe they didn't use the word "bad", but apparently close enough [wxyz.com]:

According to the child's grandmother, a state agent took away the girl's homemade lunch and replaced it with school cafeteria chicken nuggets. The girl later told her family that she only ate three of the nuggets. When asked to explain, the agent reportedly told the child that her lunch wasn't "nutritious" and "didn't meet USDA guidelines."