I'd be raising hell, for sure. I decide what my kid eats, not the school and not the government. Just because the kid doesn't get vegetables packed in their lunch doesn't mean there are zero vegetables in their diet. What's next? Federal inspectors in your house, monitoring what your kids eat?

Who is on the hook if those idiots at the school give your kid something that they're allergic to?

Fuck that.

That was my thinking reading Paul's post.

It mentioned milk a few times as something the school decided the child needed.

If a school decided it needs to feed my child milk, they would have a very big lawsuit on their hands.

Some significant and important differences from the Fox article.

Still retarded.

I will say that bananas and apple juices are shitty choices for fruit. Bananas contain little of merit except potassium, and they promote tooth decay due to their sticky consistency. As for apple juice, it's the cheapest type of juice, and spikes insulin levels faster than other types of juices.

If we can tell welfare recipients where they can spend their checks why cant we tell parents what to pack in their kids' lunches so we're not wasting money educating future fat kids. Theyre accepting government money so the goverement owns them, right?

Rhetorical nonsense and you know it. There is a difference between dictating every minor behavior of a person who utilizes a government program and dictating the acceptable uses of government money. No one cries about Pell Grants being only applicable to university fees. But support restrictions on welfare money and all of a sudden I'm trying to own poor people? Sell that crap somewhere else.

That being said, I have less of a problem with the story if the school simply provides a lunch. Providing a whole other meal to a student who already has a meal is just a waste of money, not a violation of rights. Forcing the students to eat one thing or another is a different matter, and not apparently what happened in this case.

However, if they actually try to force the parents to pay for an arbitrarily-provided extra lunch when the parents have already provided a lunch, that crosses the line.

I'm still looking for more details but so far it just looks like an auditor saw the girl was missing a veggie and said "Here ya go sweetie"..gave her the school lunch. Kid saw chicken nuggets and like any child went straight for that, filled up on the nuggets and ignored the turkey sandwich. Expected behavior for any 4 year old.

Mom sounds like she took it personally, as if the school is saying she is an unfit mother. Flips out and starts raising hell.

Why is there an auditor looking through children's lunches?

Did the auditor's actions achieve the intended results?

Doh..meant to say assessor.
Its stated in the article I posted...the inspector was assessing the program.

That's fine if the inspector wants to assess the school lunches.

Why was she digging through a 4 year old's home-packed lunch?