Schools Interfere With Home-Packed Lunches and My (Surprising?) Reaction

Who's poking around in your child's lunch bag?
Who’s poking around in your child’s lunch bag?

A few weeks ago, the Internet was buzzing over news reports that an elementary school in Richmond, VA — allegedly in accordance with federal law — is requiring parents to obtain a doctor’s note if they want to send a home-packed lunch to school with their child.   Then, this week, Dr. Yoni Freedhoff reported on his Weighty Matters blog that a Canadian mother was fined $10 under Manitoba’s Early Learning and Child Care lunch regulations for failing to include a grain product in her child’s home-packed lunch of  “leftover homemade roast beef and potatoes, carrots, an orange and some milk.”  (The child was supplied with less-than-nutritious Ritz crackers by the school.)  Both of these stories have gone viral, if my own Facebook feed is any measure.

These two incidents were reminiscent of other, similar stories I’ve reported on in the past:  in 2011, a Chicago school principal at the Little Village Academy placed an outright ban on home-packed lunches, setting off a barrage of criticism, and in 2012 there were widespread reports that a North Carolina “state inspector” had forced a child to give up her packed lunch of a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice because the meal did not meet USDA guidelines; instead the child was forced to take the school lunch of chicken nuggets.

Let me say up front that if my own kids’ home-packed lunches were inspected by a school or government official, I’d be quite ticked off.  (Not to mention, on some very rushed mornings in the TLT house, deeply, deeply embarrassed.)  But at the same time, these sorts of incidents just don’t fill me with the horror or outrage that so many have expressed in the blogosphere.  Here’s why.

First, as I’ve learned from experience, the media can often get their facts wrong in covering these instantly-sensational news stories.  For example, if you’d read conservative pundit Michelle Malkin’s account of the Little Village Academy incident, you could easily have believed that the packed-lunch ban extended throughout the city of Chicago  — and you certainly would never have known that the Little Village principal reportedly retracted her controversial edict just one week later.

Similarly, as I shared with you in 2012, an intrepid blogger dug deeper into the alleged “forced chicken nugget swap” and found credible evidence that the story was seriously misreported.  He concluded that:

someone at the school, whether a teacher, cafeteria worker, or a state program advisor (it’s still unclear which, though the first two seem much more likely if you’ve ever seen lunch time at a day care center) observed that the child lacked milk and suggested she go through the line to get some if she wanted it.  The child then mistakenly believed that going through the line meant she had to get an entirely new lunch.

And the most recent “doctor’s note” incident mentioned above?  According to contributors to the Skeptics Stack Exchange, one of whom actually corresponded with Virginia state officials, there is no “federal law” (as had been reported in the media) which mandates this practice.  Rather, the individual investigating the incident concluded:

I think it’s very safe to say this is a (misinterpreted) rule of the facility and staff of this Head Start preschool, rather than a broad requirement/law by the federal government as many of these blogs are implying.

But even when the facts are correctly stated, as I’m assuming was the case with the Manitoba Ritz crackers (for which Dr. Freedhoff actually posts a screen shot of the school’s note to the parent), it’s important to reflect for a moment on why schools might be peering into kids’ lunch boxes.

Underlying all of these incidents — no matter how misguided the particular actions of school personnel —  is a laudable desire to ensure that kids, especially economically vulnerable kids, get a decent meal at school.  In the case of the chicken nuggets, for example, the school in question specifically served at-risk pre-school students and was required to ensure that meals meet federal nutrition guidelines by supplementing home-packed meals that were nutritionally deficient.  In the case of Chicago’s Little Village Academy, a full 99% of the students qualify for free and reduced price lunches and, according to a Chicago Tribune report at the time, the principal said “she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring ‘bottles of soda and flaming hot chips’ on field trips for their lunch.”

Moreover, as Dr. Joyce Slater, a guest blogger on Weighty Matters, later pointed out with respect to the Ritz crackers incident, daycare workers are often greatly overburdened and undereducated when it comes to making the decisions required of them under Manitoba’s well-meaning nutrition policies.  The same could likely be said of the Head Start and pre-school teachers in the doctor’s note and nuggets stories as well, with respect to our own state and federal nutrition guidelines for those programs.

But what really upsets me when these stories go viral is how they’re gleefully pounced upon by right wing pundits —  not just as proof of Nanny State over-reach (which arguably they are), but as justification for undermining all federal child nutrition programs.

For example, Michele Malkin, writing for the National Review Online, worked the Little Village Academy story into a larger, angry screed against the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHKA), the 2010 federal legislation which provided a sorely needed overhaul to school meals.  In the Obama administration’s support for that law, she saw a nefarious plot to increase donations from organized labor to Obama’s reelection campaign:

The unwritten mantra driving Mrs. Obama’s federal school-lunch meddling and expansion is: “Cede the children, feed the state.” And the biggest beneficiaries of her efforts over the past three years have been her husband’s deep-pocketed pals at the Service Employees International Union. . . .

Big Government programs “for the children” are never about the children. If they were, you wouldn’t see Chicago public-school officials banning students from bringing home-packed meals made by their own parents.

Rush Limbaugh similarly used the chicken nugget incident to take a swipe at the HHKA’s improved school meal standards by erroneously attributing the “inspection” to “federal agents,” and by linking the incident to the First Lady, one of the HHKA’s most vocal supporters:

Do you believe this? I do! The food Nazis — and, by the way, this is Michelle (My Belle)’s program: No Child’s Behind Left Alone. . . .  I’ll tell you what, this is all coming from Michelle Obama.

And the Virginia school’s doctor’s note requirement has also been erroneously attributed in some conservative quarters to the HHKA, which contains no such provision.

Let me state again that, like most of my readers, I find the notion of school officials rifling through my kids’ lunches abhorrent.  And I also recognize that you don’t have to be a political conservative to object to these incidents; they’ve also been used as fodder for arguing against GMOs (contained in those Ritz crackers) and against the inextricable links between agribusiness and the federal school meals program, among other issues often raised by the political left.

But to the degree these isolated cases of bureaucratic overreach cloud the bigger picture, all I ask is that we step back for a minute and remember some key facts.  Over 16 million American kids are presently food-insecure.  Over 31 million children rely on the National School Lunch program for needed nutrition, and most of them live sufficiently close to the poverty line that they qualify for free lunches or meals offered at a reduced prices.  These are not kids, by and large, who would otherwise come to school with a well-balanced, home-packed lunch.  So if federal nutrition programs are imperfectly administered, and even imperfectly conceived in many ways, they’re also critically important to kids in need.

A few screw-ups here and there seem like a small price to pay to keep millions of kids from going hungry.

[This post also appears on Civil Eats.]

Do You Love The Lunch Tray? ♥♥♥ Then “like” The Lunch Tray! Join almost 7,000 TLT fans by liking TLT’s Facebook page (and then adding it to your news feed or interest lists) to get your Lunch delivered fresh daily, along with bonus commentary, interesting kid-and-food links, and stimulating discussion with other readers. You can also join almost 4,000 TLT followers on Twitter, check out my virtual bulletin boards on Pinterest and find selected TLT posts on The Huffington Post. And be sure to check out my video for kids about processed food, “Mr. Zee’s Apple Factory!”

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 Bettina Elias Siegel


  1. says

    Excellent post Bettina–what an important point you make about these types of isolated incidents creating negative perceptions of much-needed government child nutrition programs (not to mention the flaws in reporting these incidents that sometimes make them downright inaccurate).

  2. says

    So true! And let’s remember that the reason why these stories become “news” is that they happen so rarely. Is one child’s lunch being mistakenly deemed “insufficient” by a misguided daycare worker really that big a deal, when every day over 31 million low income kids are eating school meals?

  3. April says

    EXCELLENT! My husband and I disagree politically and so I did not tell him about the manitoba story when I read it, because he would revert to the “nanny state” argument. I was trying to figure out how to explain how I felt about it, but was unsuccessful. Your clear and concise writing has done it all for me! thanks!

    • Bettina Elias Siegel says

      April: Well, it’s “easy” to be clear when you take three full days to mull it all over and then several hours to write it out! :-) But I’m so glad to help — though I hope I’m not fueling any marital discord – LOL.

  4. says

    Very well said! Thanks for putting into words the bigger picture issues that go along with this incident. I hope it will lead to more discussion about why these programs are so important even when they’re not perfect and how we can support improvements.

  5. Lunch Lady Jane Doe says

    Standing up applauding.

    Each of these incidents were NOT because of a federal regulation … they were because of a misinterpretation at a local school level.

    Because of HHFKA, my kids (and I call all 35,000 kids I serve each day MY kids) get an entree of lean protein, whole grain, two servings of fresh fruit, one hot vegetable, one trip through our all-you-will-eat garden salad bar, and a skim milk. Considering 75% of those kids are going home to empty refrigerators and pantries, I cannot stress how important that lunch meal is for my kids.

  6. Gaye says

    What if you didn’t want your child to have a grain product? What if your child was on a restricted diet for one reason or another? Even if the kid has pizza, Skittles and Coke, it’s really no one’s business.

    • says

      If your kid was on any kind of restricted diet, you’d obviously get a doctor’s note. It likely wouldn’t be that hard to get one from most pediatricians, even if there was no clear “medical” reason — if you really felt strongly about it and could make the case to your doc that you’d pack better lunches, or your kid won’t eat the school food and is therefore not functioning well, the doctor would likely take care of dashing off a note for you.

    • CC says

      “Even if the kid has pizza, Skittles and Coke, it’s really no one’s business.”

      I hope that isn’t the attitude of the teachers at our school. Their job is to not only educate, but protect children. If a teacher notices a kid having something like this for lunch every day, then I hope the teacher will make it their business and say something.

  7. says

    Bravo Bettina, for taking the time to clearly and calmly examine the whole story and for articulating the bigger picture here. I’ve also been sitting on this for days; waiting to find the right words to express my own views. You’ve done a great job! The bottom line is that we have a complex task at hand; creating a healthier future for our kids. There are many players engaged in the process, and I’d like to think that all of our intentions are good. Sometimes the heat of the moment and the lightening speed of social media can sensationalize a small unfortunate incident out of proportion. Let’s ensure that cooler heads prevail. While school and child care nutrition policies are crucial, they need to be paired with solid real-world training for those dedicated folks on the front lines who are charged with implementing them in the lunch room.

  8. Kim says

    Thank you so much for this post. I have had this discussion with my husband since the Ritz story broke. Your post cleared up a lot of concerns and misconceptions I tried to explain to others in discussion as well about this. I often wonder how politically spun & dramatized these stories are just to “fuel the fire”. I for one am very happy with the work our First Lady has done with respect to children eating healthier. There was also a CBS Sunday Morning Show segment this morning about trying to advertise fruits and veggies and making them seem as exciting as say for instance coca-cola. Mini carrots was the veg of choice as they showed how they were trying to better market & package them. I was really excited about this, as was my 7 year old dancing and saying “yum I love those carrots!” :)

  9. Susan L. says

    I’m confused. Where is it okay to fine a parent $10 for packing his child’s lunch without OMG a grain? Also, as for the isolated incidents to which you refer, I personally know of a case locally where teachers were going through a child’s lunch and confiscated (I prefer to say STOLE) the Capri Sun that the parent, in a rush that morning, accidentally placed in the child’s lunch. How could that possibly be considered okay?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *