Not much wrong with decent quality sausages in moderation. Saturated fat in itself is not bad for you.
OI! Don't be coming on here contradicting peoples lazy, ill-founded (but righteously and loftily indignant) assumptions with your actual evidence based nonsense
I've spotted a sausage on that menu! Its evil, I tell you.[b] EVIL!!!![/b]
*phones social services*
:chubby:
As long as the meals have to meet decent standards on nutrition I guess I can live with it, I still don't see a valid argument for why I'm supporting other people's kids if they can afford to themselves. If I wanted to pay for walking talking money-pits I'd make some myself.
I'd say wheat is likely to be worse for you. Especially white. No-one compains about sandwiches though do they?
Saturated fat in itself is not bad for you
You're right, apart from the links between it and:
Heart Disease
Colorectal cancer
Ovarian Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Reduced bone density
FW - extend your argument further, are you happy to pay to educate other peoples' kids if they can afford to pay for it (look at the Merc and BMWs and new FS29ers in the car park?). Or should all public services be means tested???
Are you against the concept of universal benefits?
If I wanted to pay for walking talking money-pits I'd make some myself.
🙄 sigh...
I'd say wheat is likely to be worse for you
It depends on what form you eat it in. Getting hold of Wheat in high quality form is getting more and more difficult. White bread is very bad, not only as it is processed and loses 60% of the health benefits during the process, but more and more it has additives (including sugar).
100% whole wheat is really good for you though. Great source of Fibre, Managanese and Magnesium - good for type 2 diabetes.
LHS - Everything gives you cancer. And heart disease. Then a new survey says it doesn't, then its actually good for you, then its not again, then it gives you cancer again. Repeat.....
Anyway... I'm intrigued now. By your righteous disapproval of the menus illustrated (which seem fine to me). So... if you were drawing up a menu of a cooked meal, for a week, of school lunches, what would be on it. Go on... humour me....
And I've got a suspicion as to your real identity. Are you.....
[img] 
[/img]
? 😀
As long as the meals have to meet decent standards on nutrition I guess I can live with it, I still don't see a valid argument for why I'm supporting other people's kids if they can afford to themselves. If I wanted to pay for walking talking money-pits I'd make some myself.
As one of STWs leading childless offspring-haters (apparently), I don't have a problem with paying for childrens' education and if feeding them properly helps then that's a good idea IMO.
No thanks.
NO SAUSAGES **** that... My kids love em, nice big fat ones from the butchers down the road, i even have them made specially sometimes... nom nom nom... Though there diet is a very typical italian one as well.
No matter how much bad stuff i hear about sausages, im not stopping..
On the point of School pack lunches, it's incredible what you'r not allowed to take in, nothing processed, no nuts, no sugary foods, no smoothies (but they are allowed juice - go figure)> they are allowed petit filous things, but not natural yougart type (still don't undersatnd that one).
Some links for you to debunk, LHS
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/#axzz2fFbokKIn
http://www.menshealth.com/health/saturated-fat
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/start-spreading-the-news--saturated-fat-is-not-so-bad-says-study-8482321.html
100% whole wheat is really good for you though. Great source of Fibre, Managanese and Magnesium - good for type 2 diabetes.
Yep, great soure of gluten too.
Why are so many people opposed to the:
"if you can't afford to feed kids you shouldn't have them"
I've heard all the arguments...personally I'd like to think that there would be some sort of fall back should my family hit hard times in the future, but I wouldn't dream of having kids (intentionally) if I couldn't afford them - obviously it's always a struggle to start with, but I think it irresponsible to expect strangers to financially support your decisions.
Producing offspring isn't and shouldn't be a basic human right.
Come on LHS... just give us one example of a lunch you could/would cook for a group of children..
[img] 
[/img]
Why are so many people opposed to the:"if you can't afford to feed kids you shouldn't have them"
It's not the kids fault though is it. Seeing as these kids exist, let's feed them properly.
but I think it irresponsible to expect strangers to financially support your decisions.
You go mountain biking, sometimes in the mountains? If you had an off and needed a medivac would you be happy to personally pay for the helicopter and medics or would you be happy for strangers to financially support your decisions?
If you had an off and needed a medivac would you be happy to personally pay for the helicopter and medics or would you be happy for strangers to financially support your decisions?
As a taxpayer, I don't want to take the risk he may not pay, let him make his own way back.
No.....and I agree. Those kids who have parents that can't afford it shouldn't be at a disadvantage. (hopefully) Irresponsible parents will be hit in other departments that won't affect their children - though if you read the Daily Mail it's hard to see how sometimes.
But on this basis why give universal school meals at a greater cost to the tax payer? What's so bad about the status-quo?
I was browsing the broadsheets' website over lunch and, in the context of the earlier argument about don't have kids if you cant afford to feed them, thought Attenborough's ideas were relevant (in a tangential kind of way)
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/attenborough-correct-or-barmy-himself?replies=1#post-5346853
^^^ that is a totally different scenario. I am a definite believer in the universal healthcare system.
As stated I have no issues as a tax payer subsidizing the cost of decent food for people who can't afford it - though I still think it's irresponsible to have a child (intentionally) if you know that's going to be the case.
However, if you can afford it....why shouldn't you pay for it? It was after all your choice to have a child - surely you took the decision knowing that there would be sacrifices (only being able to take holidays at set times, paying for clubs, food, hobbies etc).
Personally, I think the benefit system should be there to help people get through rough times and ensure that kids growing up are not disadvantaged by their (sometimes irresponsible) parent's choices. It shouldn't be a right and it shouldn't be a way of getting out of working for life (even if that work ends up being some sort of state funded community service type thing).
Catering manager in a school.
All menus must comply with 14 food standards, like iron, vitamins, saturated fat, energy etc...
Only way to comply is to employ dietician or use a software.
The school food plan which came out in July is a bit more flexible. No need to analyse the menus, but compulsory to have fruit and veg every day etc...
The issue is not what is offered but enough staff in dining room to encourage kids to eat.
Quality of the food is not main reason for low take up on school meals. Peer pressure and social environment are much more important.
Some links for you to debunk, LHS
First one written by a hippy in Malibu, not exactly peer-reviewed research
Second one is an article on a particular race, not relevant to me.
Third one is not saying its good for you, just saying that margarine etec isn't exactly any better - something i agree with.
You're not prepared to enlighten us to the perfect lunch then LHS....
[img] [/img]
/p>
Saving it for your book? 😆
No.
Oil.
It was after all your choice to have a child
And that child will contribute to your well being later in life through paying taxes that will provide healthcare, pension etc. If you end up devoid of your faculties and unable to care for yourself it may be one of those children who ends up wiping your arse.
Coyote - I don't really see what your point is. The majority of people will choose to have kids and can probably afford to do so (me included). I think everyone agrees the world is not exactly suffering from a declining population (at least not globally).
I think everyone agrees the world is not exactly suffering from a declining population (at least not globally).
We are though
And the same Daily Mailers who don't want 'their' taxes to be feeding 'other peoples' kids (whether planned or not), don't want any of those bloody johnny foreigner, immigrants either.
Though the alternative is.......?
I don't see them coming up with many suggestions
What a child does or does not do at some point in the future does not obviate a parents responsibilities. Feeding your child being one of the most basic responsibility. Again a safety net for those who need it but not for those who can afford it.
I've no doubt that the benefits are there but these are from having a school meal, not having a free school meal. Make school meals compulsory and you'll see the same benefit without having to pass the cost onto the tax payer.
Make school meals compulsory and you'll see the same benefit without having to pass the cost onto the tax payer.
Hang on, you've just financially penalised me (oo-er)!
My daughter get's a balanced diet at home and in her packed lunch. Why should I be forced to pay £15 a week for school dinners?!
It wouldn't cost you £15 per week though would it. It would cost £15 less whatever it costs you now to provide those packed lunches. Besides these are the people who are going to be caring for you in your dotage so is that a price worth paying?
Are they making packed lunches illegal when they bring this in?
What about pushing Happy Meals, or a big bag of sausage rolls and pasties from Greggs, through the school fence? If I do that, do I qualify for a tax rebate?
How the hell am I supposed to dress my kids in Fred Perry and Polo, if I also have to pay for school dinners?
Again a safety net for those who need it but not for those who can afford it.
So far fewer kids take school meals, including fewer of those who are eligible for free school meals (possibly because all their mates aren't having school lunches or something). So the current situation is worse at providing a safety net for those who need it. And the kids who need it were the ones who benefited most from this.
The position on what is provided for kids at schools and what is brought in is essentially arbitrary. Most people would assume that books were provided in schools, but on the face of it, there is no real reason why books (essential for learning) are provided, when food (essential for learning) isn't. There's no reason parents who can afford to shouldn't pay for their kid's reading books. Basically there isn't a real moral reason for parents to pay for some things and not for others, it is just how society happens to have evolved.
So personally I think we should just treat this as the same as any other spending on educational or health interventions; rather than take some kind of moral stance on the rights and wrongs of giving people food, we should look at the improvement in outcomes from it versus the cost, and judge it on that. Looking at the study, it at least rules out the obvious 'make the safety net a little bit bigger' approach to free school meals, leaving you with two choices, keep the current approach, or free meals for all, depending on whether you think the learning improvements in the pilot studies suggest that it is worthwhile to spend that amount of money.
Easy allow parents to opt-out, at the start of each year or term.
What a child does or does not do at some point in the future does not obviate a parents responsibilities.
So we should punish children because their parents don't make them a healthy lunch, or feed them properly at home?
The tax break for married couples is **** ridiculous though.+1
even though im married I think its wrong
What tax break? I'm married but my taxes have remained the same as before.
The position on what is provided for kids at schools and what is brought in is essentially arbitrary.
It isn't, schools are for learning therefore they provide learning materials. Schools were never designed to replace responsible parenting, yet this is what they are ever increasing turning into.
Looking at the study, it at least rules out the obvious 'make the safety net a little bit bigger' approach to free school meals, leaving you with two choices, keep the current approach, or free meals for all, depending on whether you think the learning improvements in the pilot studies suggest that it is worthwhile to spend that amount of money.
There is a third option of making the meals compulsory with the costs borne by the parents, excepting those who qualify for free meals. You get the same benefit in terms if educational achievement without the tax payer having to pick up the tab. What else do parents want? For the taxpayer to pick up the tab for breakfast too? What about evening meals, weekends, holidays? A line has to be drawn somewhere.
Im just trying to figure out what kind of person begurdges their taxes being spent on feeding children
Tories. They begrudge 'their' taxes being spent on anything other than them.
There's no such thing as society remember
Im just trying to figure out what kind of person begurdges their taxes being spent on feeding children
It's far harder to accept that some people don't think they should be responsible for feeding their own children.
This scheme was originally trialled in every school in Co Durham. My sons school being one of the schools. Now he has had a school dinner every lunchtime regardless. The take up for the poorer children was almost 100% when they were free, meaning that the crap they were fed in their packed lunches was down to cost. Surely we owe it to the kids to provide them with at least one nutritional meal a day. This is one of those schemes that could actually save money in the long run.
