There’s one thing that’s been bothering me about this school dinners thing going on in the UK. I understand the point about chips and turkey twizzlers, scrotum burgers and the rest but here’s one comment concerning Jamie Oliver:
"Jamie does not suggest that high-calorie foods should be banned. He is
just trying to make sure that children get at least one nutritious meal
a day."
OK, now how many meals a day do children eat? Not having any myself I don’t know but I assume it’s three? Schools provide one of those. So, at maximum, schools are responsible for one third of children’s nutrition?
So forgive me if I sound a little confused here, but why do we seem to be insisting that it is the duty of the State to provide that one nutritious meal a day? Have we actually given up hope that parents will feed their own children? If so, don’t we have a rather larger problem as a society than whether we are spending 37p or 50p on the ingredients for a school lunch?
If it really is that bad, that parents are feeding children on the same rubbish at home, why is there not a campaign for State cafeterias at which all children eat all their meals? By law?
Or kitchen inspectors, if they find frozen pizza, your child is banned from eating at home? Or a licence system, parents having to prove that they can make a nourishing salad n’tofu before they are allowed to feed the little blighters themselves?
As I say, I do get the point about making school lunches better, but I don’t get the one about blaming all child nutrutional problems on it. What are the parents doing?
Leave a Reply