1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Food police confiscate 4-year old’s lunch, bill parents

Discussion in 'The OT' started by cj9788, Feb 15, 2012.

  1. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003
    "by Peter Grady
    A pre-school in North Carolina has created a stir around the country after it was reported that officials forced a child to eat a school lunch and billed the parent because her lunch brought from home did not meet school standards for nutrition. The incident happened at the West Hoke Elementary school in Raeford. According to the North Carolina Journal, the four year old student’s mother, who wants to remain anonymous, had prepared a lunch for her daughter consisting of a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, apple juice and potato chips."


    I don't want to be all what the fu@k, but WHAT THE FU@K?

    How the hell is a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, apple juice and chips not a healthy lunch? If this ever happens to me there will be a hell storm rained down on the school.
     
  2. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,322
    500
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    Must be the potato chips, or the sandwich was on white bread, not whole wheat.
     
  3. bills

    bills Legend

    114
    0
    Nov 7, 2002
    welcome to police state .
     
  4. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Before anyone goes nuts on the "keep the federal government out of my business" rants...

    This was a state government problem, and not a federal one. It was the local (NC) people that were the problem.

    Second, I'm not even sure it was a policy/law problem as much as it was an idiot (yes I said idiot) who thought they had the right and duty to enforce this "policy."

    I think it is good that we have schools that try to provide nutritious lunch for those who choose to eat there... but they need to stay out of kids' lunch bags unless they bring something illegal into the school. If mom had sent her kid to school with Snickers' bars and soda it still shouldn't be the school's duty to trash that lunch and "provide" a lunch that they then bill for.

    Even under the scenario where they think they need to provide a lunch... I think they should provide the lunch that day for free, send the kid home with her lunch intact and a note to mom (or dad) asking for a meeting to discuss... and honestly, I still think it is none of their business... but absolutely trashing the kids' lunch and forcing the parent to pay for a school lunch is even more over the top than the interference in the first place.

    I remember being a kid in school and having snack time... and one day my mother bought me a big bag of chips because it was cheaper to do that than buy the small size... the idea was that I would bring it home after school and we would eat them at home or perhaps I could use for future snacks... but the teacher made me share the whole bag with other kids even though that was not the intent.

    I also had another incident in 2nd grade... we had a boy in the class with low blood sugar so he needed to have a snack and milk. At some point they started getting snacks and milk for all of us... not because any kids complained... we all knew that this boy needed his snacks for his life basically, and nobody was jealous... but the adults decided it wasn't "fair" somehow for the kid with a health problem to get "special" snack time more than the others.

    Adults seem to routinely much up things for kids in school is basically what I'm saying... and it isn't necessarily part of a political agenda.
     
  5. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,599
    370
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    The article fails to mention the school admitted their error. The story has now become a FUD piece trying to fault national government, when it's actually a state issue.
     
  6. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003
    Well as the OP I never mentioned the feds, nor did I think they were to blame. But since people are mentioning this as an attack on the feds the states maybe doing this a as precursor to any federal mandates that may or may not come later on.

    This story sickens me as the states try and FORCE healthy foods on the masses. Here in Florida a bill (which failed) was proposed to eliminate junk food from the food stamp program. By junk food they included all cookies sodas cakes, ice creams, hot dogs, burgers, kool aid and other powdered drinks. IMO that is outrageous. I don't use food stamps and I have no problem with people who have them even if they choose not to use them wisely. The bottom line is the government state or federal need to back the hell up at of peoples lives.

    The NC law that allowed this to happen is a perfect example of how the government is trying to turn us into sheeple. The people enforcing this law are tasked with inspecting lunches and use their own judgement as to what they think is healthy. Whether the school admitted it was a mistake or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is it happened and will no doubt happen again.
     
  7. RobertE

    RobertE New Member

    8,024
    0
    Jun 9, 2006
    The taxpayers damn well should have a say in what they are buying with taxpayer money.
     
  8. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003

    They already do, you can not buy smokes or alcohol or prepared hot foods. I agree with the smokes and alcohol but draw the line on food items. They are called food stamps for a reason. To buy food. So what if they buy cake or porterhouse steaks with them. Even as a taxpayer what business is it to you or me what they buy.
     
  9. AntAltMike

    AntAltMike Hall Of Fame

    3,787
    108
    Nov 20, 2004
    College...
    The published headlines were BS. They didn't confiscate the meal. They determined that the meal did not meet the vegetable/fruit portion requirement and provided the student with a cafeteria meal tray that met the requirement, and then the student chose to eat just three "nuggets" - which I take to mean chicken nuggets, but who knows - and nothing else from either the cafeteria tray or from her home,-packed meal, which they did not take away from her.
     
  10. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    The problem is two fold. One, they were using U.S.D.A. Guidelines. This automatically makes people think the feds are involved. Second, the story mentions the DHHS without specifying that it was the NC department, not the federal department.


    Actually, I do agree with it. Too many people using food stamps are buying junk food. So they have a house full of crap and their kids suffer. Either they suffer because they eat nothing but junk and are fat or they don't get any nutrition at all. I could give a rat's a** about the parents, but do about the innocent kids.
     
  11. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003
    Well people are stupid but it is their god given right to be that way. What about the parents who are NOT on food stamps and buy and feed their kids nothing but junk food? Why is it okay to control what one group of people buy just because they are on food stamps? Where is the equal protection for the well off fat kids whose parents are just as lazy or oblivious to the crap they feed their kids?

    Where does the government control begin or end? The state of North Carolina has persons inspecting home lunches at schools and by intimidation or other means are deciding a meal is unhealthy just by the looks of said meal. The person inspecting the lunch does not have access to the nutritional labels for the sandwich for all we know it could have been white wheat bread. It could have had light mayo on it. the cheese could have been light as well. This is all just ways that the government is slowly but surly taking away our freedom to chose how we want to live. This all may seem innocent and good natured looking out but if people just sit back and do nothing then the even stricter rules for our benefit will follow. They will ban salt because too much is bad, opps cant have more than 2 teaspoons of sugar because it is bad. Hey Mr fat ass no bacon for you this week because you have exceeded your monthly fat intake allotments.
     
  12. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,322
    500
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    I have to think the lunches I had at school weren't necessarily all that healthy. I specifically remember foot long hot dog day in elementary school. And that school only handled first and second grade, we used the high school lunchroom in the building next door.
     
  13. spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone DBSTalk Club

    12,563
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    At Target tonight, the lady in front of me was using food stamps (but it's a credit card now, apparently). Rang up all her stuff and they told her something didn't qualify - had to remove the Enfimil powder (I guess you can't buy stuff you use to make baby food). Tried again, no go - had to remove the two bags of discounted valentine candy she had in her cart. Finally worked and she was on her way. Seemed a bit ludicrous to me.
     
  14. Drucifer

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    9,406
    244
    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    There was news story a few months where a single mom lost her child because he was grossly overweight.

    Believe the child was around nine and over 300 hundred pounds.

    And the food coupon book has been replaced by the food card. So now it is very possible to prevent purchases of excessive sugary or salty items.
     
  15. RasputinAXP

    RasputinAXP Kwisatz Haderach of Cordcuttery

    3,145
    12
    Jan 23, 2008
    It's the candy, not the Enfamil. Enfamil qualifies for both food stamps and WIC. Wouldn't particularly know because my wife nurse(d/es) exclusively. Way cheaper.
     
  16. The Merg

    The Merg 1*

    10,289
    35
    Jun 24, 2007
    Northern VA
    It is perfectly okay to decide what people can and can't use the food stamps since they are being provided by the government for use by an individual. As part of the agreement for getting the food stamps, the individual has to agree to use them for only certain products. In this case, the government is trying to make sure that if someone needs food stamps they are using them to provide healthy meals for their families. You can look at it that if they are getting food stamps, they are most likely getting subsidized health care too. So, if you make them purchase healthy foods, hopefully they won't need medical care as much due to eating healthy.

    - Merg
     
  17. fluffybear

    fluffybear Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    7,316
    38
    Jun 19, 2004
    Peachtree...
    Was there a child with the lady?

    I ask because I read an article once about food stamps scams and one fo the biggest was people buying big ticket items such as baby formula then returning it to another store for cash or store credit which is then used to buy something such as booze or cigarettes.

    I can understand why the government may feel a need to patrol what is purchased with food stamps. Sadly, there are individuals who lack better judgement and may use their aid to buy enough food for one meal rather than enough to last them a week. I'm sorry but given a choice I would prefer she uses the aid to buy something like milk or eggs than candy.
     
  18. fluffybear

    fluffybear Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    7,316
    38
    Jun 19, 2004
    Peachtree...
    I always knew turkey was fowl.
     
  19. spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone DBSTalk Club

    12,563
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    Yes, she had a ~ 2 year old with her.
     
  20. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,449
    514
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Not ranting. It doesn't matter what level (local, state, or federal) the less government in our lives the better.
     

Share This Page