Given that all of those links are from a different country, probably not a lot. They may be relevant (in the sense that their conclusions may be universal), or they may not.
It doesn’t, which is why I mentioned the idea of a waiver in my original post. I know of families, not just Jewish or Muslim families, who observe dietary customs related to their culture and who would not be OK with their kids eating lunch from the school cafeteria even if it were free.
I’m also well aware that there is a continuum of keeping kosher from “just doesn’t eat pork or shellfish, but cheeseburgers are OK” all the way to glatt kosher where their kitchen resembles that Vincent Van Gogh painting. Some will eat out, others won’t. By allowing a waiver system, the school would acknowledge that some families have religious or cultural customs related to food and still provide lunches for the kids whose families want them.
Children are small and weak. They can easily be force-fed.
Frankly, my brother and sister-in-law would probably not be OK with their children eating free lunches at school, because they are so big on “sustainable” practices in eating. (Which is funny because feeding the kids cafeteria-style is arguable more sustainable than lovingly packing individual lunches at home, even in reusable tupperware.) It’s not a problem, because they homeschool their kids anyway.
Does anyone believe the rule would be “nobody for any reason can ever bring a packed lunch?”
Like every other school rule, it would most likely be a quick form to make an exception. The idea is to make school lunches the norm, halting bad nutrition, senseless lunch one-upsmanship, and hours of wasted time by parents who surely have better things to do.
Can you think of a better way to shift towards a school linch culture?
If people can just opt out easily then what’s the whole point of banning lunches from home to begin with? I haven’t seen a whole lot of evidence that lunches from home are in fact bad. Nor am I convinced that one-upsmanship is really a thing when it comes to kids lunches.
If you provide a free, nutritious, and delicious lunch to students you won’t have to twist anyone’s arm to get the students to eat.
Edit: On the one-upmanship: I’ve read about some kids being embarrassed because of how lunch programs worked it made it clear who was getting the free lunch and who wasn’t. I also remember there were some kids who did seem to have better goodies than others but I don’t remember it being a significant source of friction in the lunchroom.
Do you actually listen to yourself when you say these things?
“senseless lunch one-upsmanship” WTH? If parents want to compete to see who can send the best lunch to school then that’s a good thing.
"School lunch culture? How about a culture of freedom and responsibility?
Do you think that “one-upmanship” necessarily results in the nutritionally optimal meals?
A culture of individuality and responsibility has had disastrous results for public health. As with many things in a so-called free market, when we surrender the strength of collective action, what we end up is with what benefits producers rather than us.
Everyone keeps mentioning his disastrous school lunches have been historically. It’s exactly because individual school districts are so weak in terms of expertise and economic power that we have ended up serving food that the food producers want to sell rather than the good that is good for children.
Look at what happened Jamie Oliver. He tried to prove that good nutrition could be feasible, logistically sound, and economical. What resulted was an explosion of petulant reactionary-ism.
If we’re going to be able to do something about public health, it’s going to take a generation or so of giving people food they aren’t use to eating and their parents aren’t used to eating or serving.
Food is about habit and culture but those habits and cultures can be changed. But t have any significant impact, it’s going to take some degree of making some people unhappy about some meals for some period of time.
I’ve talked about it in a few of the picky eater threads, but I’m encouraging and laid back about it. I encourage shopping with me, helping me choose what’s for mealtimes, helping me cook. I stress health and nutrition, that that one tiny carrot needs to be eaten to get big and strong, but it’s ok to leave the other carrots for now. Plus the whole “try one bite” thing. I don’t body shame or guilt-trip with food. It’s not a mental/emotional thing with the not eating, so I certainly don’t want MAKE it one.
It was a nonsense argument brought up by even sven.
clearly the definition of responsibility has changed in your world.
there is no benefit to food thrown away and this has nothing to do with the free market.
better to let parents feed their children.
from the people trying to prepare the food.
If we’re going to be able to do something about public health, it’s going to take a generation or so of giving people food they aren’t use to eating and their parents aren’t used to eating or serving.
Nothing changes habits more than forcing food people don’t like down their throats. There is no educational function in this process.
That’s a relief.
It pisses me off on general principle that people say things to underweight people that they are much less likely to say to overweight people.
Sieg Heil! 
You’re looking for the Guantanamo thread, two down from here.
I’m against “free” school lunches provided by government schools. I guess I’m in the minority here.
I am guessing you are also against “government schools.”
If you aren’t a fan of central governments, I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.
I think his point is, and I made the same point many, many posts ago, that the lunches are not free.
Exclude the middle much?
Con hambre, el niño se embrutece. With hunger, the kid becomes dumber.
I’m interested to know why are you against public (or government) schools providing lunch (and/or breakfast).
OMG really?! I thought they came like manna from the skies. That changes everything!
Or not. School lunches do a world of good- they increase learning and improve health, both of which pays of exponentially for our nation in the end. And the government has access to inexpensive food, meaning any school lunch is going to cost a fraction of what mom pays to put together a peanut butter sandwich.
The question in my mind is: are 100% “free” school lunches more expensive than evaluating each student’s need for free or reduced priced lunches? I haven’t found anyone coming right out and saying it, but the way the USDA has (fairly quietly) changed their coverage makes me think they might be cheaper.
Every year, we get a form from school that’s four pages long. We have to fill out information about our household, including income (which means finding paystubs and then sitting there and trying to figure out how to work our irregular earning into a form which assumes you’re making the same amount of money each week) and all our family members, whether we get food stamps or cash assistance (which means finding the information from that and reporting the case number) and…it’s kind of a pain in the ass. Not a terrible pain in the ass, but enough of a pain in the ass that the school has to spend three weeks begging parents to turn the forms back in.
Once they’re turned in, the school process the forms somehow, and then sends them into the district for further figuring, and then I believe into the state (but I’m not sure where the trail goes after the district.) While all this is being done, your kid can get free lunches no matter what your income level. In a few weeks, you get notified (sometimes, if the paperwork isn’t lost) whether your kid qualifies for free or reduced price lunches from that point forward.
That’s a lot of bureaucracy, and bureaucracy isn’t free. Does bureaucracy cost more than apples and canned corn? I don’t know, but someone at the USDA does. And that someone has just decided that if more than X% of the kids in your district qualified for free or reduced priced lunches last year, we’re just going to drop the forms and give all students free lunches moving forward. I’d be shocked if that decision didn’t involve a cost comparison of the old system and the feed-em-all system. Might not have been the only factor, but it was very likely a factor.