This is just step one in our new "nanny state" requirements for public schools. What will happen when the students don't eat what the government-run schools think is healthy? Will they have detention or will the parents be reported to social services? IN my opinion, this is just one more reason to put our children in private schools. I used to be a public school teacher, but could never function these days as one.

I think it's pathetic for 'some' parents to agree along with our anal compulsive local government to dictate what our kids eat for snack time!!! What happened to parental authority in these matters. Next you'll be deciding what brand of toilet paper we can use or what kind of car we should drive....oh yes, that's already begun. Let's be a society that informs rather than imposes. I think you'll get more bang for your buck!!

While I strongly support the school nutrition services improving the food service choices by serving food closer to a natural state, decreasing processed food, and eliminating substances that are known or suspected to be unhealthy for little bodies (high fructose corn syrup, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, hormone containing meat and dairy, etc.), I feel that the above is an overstep of the schools educational mission and usurpation of parental and student rights and privacy.

What constitutes healthy food is very subjective from one parent to another. The school should not be in the position of judging parental food selection and provision. The school should not function as a group counselor and judge of what is an inherent parental right to select and quantify the nutritive value of the foods they feed their children. The medical literature is clear untested "health messages" have the potential to harm children. For example, one school provides students the opportunity to trade a sugary birthday treat for free time in gym.

I think introducing such a discussion about food only serves to perpetuate the cultural dysfunction that I think is particularly harmful to girls.

Our childen ask special, unique, and beautiful and their bodies are but one part of their whole being. Food is a gift to nourish our bodies and our souls. I find this discussion by the schools disturbing to their emotional and spiritual growth.

I think it's a move in the right direction-- with some tweaks. After seeing kids in my sons class bring pixie sticks and jolly ranchers for snack, some guidelines will be helpful. You are going to get parents who don't want to have anything suggested to them, parents who argue that the school is too controlling, and parents who will generally applaud the potential change. Maybe a list of suggested healthy snacks and a "not encouraged" list such as candy, cookies and chips. The kids who will benefit from this the most do not have the parents who are getting fired up about what snacks they put into their backpack. Are we really going to spend a boatload of time and energy fighting this with the school board when the ultimate goal is getting our kids to eat healthier? There are other areas we can spend our time and energy on. Like maybe getting rid of the Bosco stick? Relax people, send a healthy snack and it's all good.

In Canton I gave my daughter a small bag of goldfish purchased through the school and she was sent to the office to eat it because it wasn't a fruit or vegetable. Also in Canton, if you packed carrots-you could not pack ranch or peanut butter to dip. With young ones, mom can only perform so many tricks.
With the new policies does this mean that when I send my kids with yogurts or yogurt covered fruit they will be policed? A 63k grant, but, food will be available to purchase? Ironically, they need to revamp the food in their lunchrooms, my daughter comes home with diarrhea and stomach aches whenever she would buy. We now only buy on Classic Pizza day because it is not food provided by the school. My oldest never bought at Mill Creek because she would find mold on bagels/cheese and bugs in the salad/cottage cheese. How about we use the money to clean the kitchens and come up with a dietician for our school system-who comes up with the menu's anyway?

I am THRILLED with this policy and simply cannot understand those who are opposed to it.
I have witnessed some absolutely shocking examples of snacks in my kids classrooms...a candy bar, a bag of chips and a large bright red Gatorade is not what little growing bodies need to fuel them. And the argument that what constitutes healthy food is subjective to different families is absolutely ridiculous. Unless you've been hiding under a rock for goodness knows how long then you know what constitutes healthy eating and how it directly effects your children's health.
Enough psychobabble excuses...this is very simple. Let's get back to a time when a treat was a treat and not a daily occurrence or a reward for just about everything...when it was unusual for kids to suffer from diabetes, be obese or have cavities. Kids need to be educated about where food comes from, what nutrients it provides for them and how that effects their bodies. Let's teach kids early the value of moderation and making healthy choices that will last them a lifetime. A great way to do this is to send in a healthy snack!
Parents, this policy is not about you and your rights. It's about the health and well being of your kids! Why would you be against that? Desperate times call for desperate measures...if the govt has to impose this policy for the benefit of our children because some parents don't have the will or desire to do it themselves then so be it.
And don't even get me started on the Bosco stick...

Are the schools going to far in requiring that children eat a healthy snack? People expect schools to solve many of the social ills in our society and hold schools and teachers accountable when children fail academically, even when reseach demonstrates time and again that family has the greatest influence on a child's growth, development and achievement.

In that breath, if families aren't teaching proper nutrition at home, than yes, the job falls on the school and it is the schools job to teach healthy habits, to both the child and his or her family. If a family truly doesn't know that a bag of Dorito's is not a healthy snack, than it is the schools job to educate them.

We also need to work on getting the processed food out of the cafeteria's. Yes, improvements have been made in the school lunch program, but there needs to be less processed food.

Questions/concerns/suggestions for Dexter Community School's Food & Nutrition program please contact Sara Simmerman, simmerms@dexterschools.org or 734-424-4186. Thank-you!
Boscos Sticks are made in Michigan using Michigan products. Because the dough is made fresh daily, Bosco Sticks contain a very short list of ingredients because little "processing" is involved. A serving of Bosco Sticks (2) provides 40% of the RDA for Calcium, and 20% of the RDA for Iron. The calorie percentages: 49% carb, 21% protein and 30% fat.
Bosco Sticks are made in a peanut-free facility.

I am outraged that the school would tell me what a healthy snack is, but then offer my child a danish or sugary cereal and chocolate milk for breakfast. If they want to set the good example about healthy choices, they need to start with their programs and the choices they offer, not by judging me for what I offer. The choices I give her are not unhealthy..whole grains and yogurt. But, they are not on the list of "approved" foods.
ourtheir children, but not my choices. I do not feel it is a good situation to put children or teachers into. It is not the fault of a child who has an "authorized" snack in her lunch, nor is it the responsibility of the teacher to call the child out in class, or discuss the issue with the parent. Administrators report that teachers are not likely to enforce the rule because they do not want to police their classrooms. So, what is the point? A policy that is poorly thought out and inconsistently or not at all enforced, yet makes all parties uncomfortable?

What is the grant money really being used for? I would rather have the money be utilized to make real change in the school district's food programming....like promoting and utilizing local food--from Dexter--or healthier options in the cafeteria, or fun/free family exercise days.

With all the budget issues we face, and all the yo-yo-ing about full day or half day kindergarten, which presumably would impact one's day to day life more than cutting up a piece of fruit in the morning, this is what we're going to be up-in-arms about? Really? How dare our schools try to educate ours students about mindful, healthful eating!? Schools operate in loco parentis. Given that role, it's entirely appropriate to institute a healthy snack policy. There are so many healthy options to choose from that it's laughable to argue that schools are trying to dictate what we pack. How can anyone reasonably say that schools are overstepping by suggesting parents make choices that are, gasp, good for our kids?

However, I also agree that Dexter needs to back this policy with action in the lunchroom. I don't really know how cheetos (an item included in my daughter's school lunch today) count as healthy.

My response is directed to Shelly. First of all, applesauce and raisins WOULD be included as a healthy snack because they are fruits. (Although the 2nd ingredient in Motts Applesauce is High Fructose Corn Syrup...) Goldfish crackers.... what are so healthy about those? They are a processed food that doesn't deliver much nutrition-- basically empty carbs. And about whole grains-- yes, sounds good in theory, but did you know a product can list itself as whole grain even if it uses very very little whole grains? So parents can send in the "whole grain" version of sugary cereals and that is a-okay? And about yogurt, I would assume that would be considered a protein although most kids' yogurts have so much added sugar they're hardly healthy at all.

To everyone-- I think we can all agree that the healthiest foods are the ones closest to their original form, and that is what is recommended on the snack list. It doesnt sound like teachers or the school is going to send a kid home for bringing a twinkie for snack anyway, so what does it matter? Pack what YOU think is healthy and if that's Doritos then fine-- it's your child and your issue to deal with when he's pre-diabetic before he's graduated college.

This type of "groupthink" that is not based on facts and evidence.

International Journal of Epidemiology (February 2006) 35 (1): 55-60. The epidemiology of overweight and obesity: public health crisis or moral panic?

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/1/55.full

These expert authors conclude ....... Moral Panic

"So what if the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’ is largely an illusion? What if higher than average weight turns out to have neither much medical nor moral significance? The answer to these questions, all of which we believe are strongly suggested by the epidemiological literature, go far beyond the issues of body mass and health. The current scientific evidence should prompt health professionals and policy makers to consider whether it makes sense to treat body weight as a barometer of public health. It should also make us pause to consider how propagating the idea of an ‘obesity epidemic’ furthers the political and economic interests of certain groups, while doing immense damage to those whom it blames and stigmatizes. "

What do we have to worry about if this policy passes? It is this:
It is critical that readers understand that this is:
1. A Children's Rights Issue
2. A Parental Rights Issue
3. A Healthcare Privacy Issue
4. A Social Justice Issue (Potenital Stigmatization of Obesity)
5. May Have the Potential to Increase Bullying and IS Bullying

My children won't be healthier. They already eat healthy food and have good examples at home. They are fit and athletic and make wise choices. They do eat vegetables, but they also need their fats and calories because they are so active--and good fats are critical for development.

The parents who send in red gatorade and pixie sticks (or allow them to be taken in) are just going to send it in anyway. For lunch. What's next? No lunches from home? Dogs that sniff out corn syrup? (of course I'm exaggerating!)

@Kylie: It is critical that YOU understand this:
Parents are the parents. The school is the school.

And schools can't fix what's wrong in families anyway. Nutrition trickles down: from parents to children. Not up from children to parents. Having a nutrition lesson or serving healthy alternatives (for free) would be fine. Sending a child to eat somewhere else because they bring in a go-gurt or bag of granola or even a gatorade is crossing the line.

Sounds like Dexter may not follow the Canton lead and shame kids for "bad" snacks. Good, I hope they stick with that.

And P.S. I think juice is crap. The kids should be drinking water, not swilling down large amounts of sugar when they are really just thirsty.

And politely to the parents who disagree--exactly!!--nutrition is subjective and parents get to make that choice. I know people love juice as a way to get vitamins into their children. That's legitimate. At our house? We don't buy it. That's fine, too.

Some parents worship the almighty milk cow. Other people think cow milk is harmful. Some only buy organic, others think that's a scam. It's really too complicated to say the school nutrition people actually know best.

Wouldn't this have been a lot easier if the Dexter schools had just said: "For allergy reasons, students in the district will be served whole grain goldfish, carrot sticks and water for snack. They can eat them or not. Thank you and have a nice day." 63K should cover that. Regulating what we send in is a tar baby. And futile.

And I think Bosco sticks are crap. Gummy and disgusting. What exactly is the nutritional value of pepperoni anyway? And the junky breakfasts--don't even get me started on that.

I agree that if we're going to start regulating foods, let's go ahead and take a good look at the whole thing. Pot (school) calling the kettle (parents) black here. You may not agree with us, but frankly, we don't always agree with you either. "Offering" healthy alternatives is not the same as getting them eaten. Let's weigh the amount you get them to put on their plates against the amount they throw in the trash.

Or, we can leave you alone about your junky foods and you can stay out of snack time (or serve a reasonable standard snack to all the students free of charge and not embarrass any individual children). Even if the teachers aren't saying, "Johnny, that's a bad snack," you KNOW the kids will be shaming each other. That's what kids do: "Johnny, why did you bring in a trix yogurt? That's not a healthy snack. Doesn't your mom know better?"

If you want to get involved in something that matters, and you plan to send your kids to the Dexter High School, you might want to see this blog. Some critical policies are being decided by the school board (the same board that put our kids on the bus and at the hub with the high school students). Your kids may be little now, but before you know it, they'll be at the high school.

The last media policy lasted 10+ years and this new one is about to turn complete control of the content over to the students. The students and advisor have organized a push for complete freedom for the students to run the newspaper however they see fit (and judging by the last few years when there WAS oversight, they can get a little off track at times).

http://cleanupdhs.blogspot.com/

There are other things on the blog like students coming to schooll high and videos of the principal singing a drinking song at prom, but the real issue is the new media policy--to be decided by the school board soon.

Food matters, too! But I really hope you'll take the time to read the blog and the AA news articles and send the school board a note sometime soon.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/dexter/policy-for-student-publications-and-productions-creates-challenges-in-dexter/

Bless our food and nutrition people. You try making a healthy lunch for hundreds of kids that they will like and eat. Okay, try just doing it for one or two kids! lol

And bless our wonderful parents who care enough to get involved in this dialogue. One way or the other, our kids are going to do fine with so many people caring about them. We just need to work out the details!!!

For the record.... I think whole grain goldfish are crap, and carrots are fine, but not really a "good" and calorie dense snack to fill little tummies. See, ..........subjective. I think 100% juice of USA orginic is "good".

1. For the record, I am not a fan of the group snack.

2. "Bless our food an nutrition people." Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (very impressed with Sara Simmerman's "be the change" comment yesterday.

Exactly, Mami. The schools need some sort of neutral policy, because one person's junk food is another person's food. Getting all the parents to agree to what's "healthy" is a futile exercise, and actually TELLING us what's "healthy" is beyond the jurisdiction of the school.

I love Wendy M's comment. Smart and sensible. But then we get back to . . . what's a healthy snack?

I wouldn't mind some rules against the worst offenders: no energy drinks, no candy, no soda. There may be parents who think these are fine snacks, but generally, I think we could agree they are not.

Interesting, too, is the rule that if there IS a treat allowed, it will be "the snack" and you can't also have a snack. Really? So cupcakes are bad, but if you do serve cupcakes, you can't serve them with fruit or vegetables or protein. I'll have to think about that one.

I'm all for fewer treats and more fruits and vegetables. At issue here is (1) defining "healthy" and (2) this "educational program" which was designed by whom? The wellness center? A couple of doctors and nurses? The superintendent? They'd better be very right or very careful.

Childhood obesity and inadequate nutrition have stumped national experts. Misguided "education" can exacerbate the problem. My understanding is that this snack policy is just the beginning and there will be nutritional counseling given to students as well. You've got to be careful with that stuff. Tread lightly, Dexter.

Eating disorders, exercise disorders, self-esteem issues, discrimination, bullying, creating a culture of thinness = all possible with this type of program and policy. Guilt. Shame. Hopelessness.

It is disturbing the number of young children - male and female- that ALREADY have eating disorders.

Heartbreaking.

Untested "health messages" are potenitally harmful.

Let's be BETTER!!!!!!!

It is just not as simple as some would like to think. LOTS of LEGAL and ethical issues here.

Our children are vulnerable. This is a DANGEROUS area. First Do No Harm.

I am very pleased to see the schools taking steps to encourage healthy eating habits and physical activity. Schools have a responsibilty to support the health and well-being of kids and to maintain an environment that is conducive to learning. Sugary snacks and junk food simply do not set children up for optimal learning and in fact may interfere with attention span, energy levels and overall ability to take in information. I think some guidelines are totally appropriate.

I agree that parents should provide healthy snacks for children. However, I think that only allowing fresh fruits, vegetables, and proteins is a very restricted list. There are so many healthy options available that are not a fruit, vegetable, or cheese. What I am more disturbed about is that this is a very elitist policy. It assumes that everyone can afford to pay the high cost of fresh fruit and vegetables; and in the middle of winter, when they come from so far away that I personally wouldn't consider them at all healthy.

I am also very aware of not labeling any foods as good or bad with children, and with a policy like this, children will shame each other if they bring "inappropriate" foods in, thus placing a judgment on their choice. There should be no judgment attached to food. It does not promote a healthy lifestyle, instead it sets up a harmful relationship with food that lasts a lifetime. Especially when a parent may be doing the best that they can, with what they have. I would encourage the policy writers to seriously consider greatly broadening the list of what they consider to be healthy.

This is an endless discussion. People feel about food like they feel about religion.

For parents, food IS love. When you judge what they feed their children, you judge their love for their children. This is the community Health Department of Chelsea community Hospital telling parents that they know how to take care of children better than parents. Maybe the PTG's of the quad schools involved can partner to develop an opt-out form. "Uh, no thanks, got this one covered myself."

Let's watch out for one-two punches to child and parental rights that may have the potential to knock out our childrens' self esteem.

Hey Chelsea Hospital, why don't you take that $63,000 and stick it...in the accounts receivable department Inbox where there are outstanding bills that patients can no longer pay?

Funny how "Do No Harm" doesn't extend past the patients' bodies to their livelihood.

Stop arguing, and follow the money.