>>>>A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.
>>>>
>>>>The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.
>>>>
>>>>Can you guess why this lunch was rejected?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/homemade-lunch-replaced-with-cafeteria-nuggets.html
>>>>
>>>>If you answered because the State knows better than you how to feed your children, you are correct.
>>>
>>>If you read the whole article, you see that the state official they talked to said the school went overboard (and that this particular bag lunch sounded good). The regulation seems to be that if a kid comes in with a meal that doesn't meet the USDA guidelines, they're to offer the missing pieces, not take the lunch away. That seems like a reasonable approach.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>and by "offer" they mean to make the parents pay for those "missing" pieces. Forced commerce is becoming quite a trend these days. How did children ever survive without the heavy hand of the state making sure they had a vegetable (that's what was "wrong" with this particular lunch) serving with one of their daily meals?
>>
>>A reasonable appraoch would be for the do-gooder elitist nanny state to mind their own business.
>
>Let's leave the payment piece aside since the article was rather confused on that point.

Update : The payment piece is important. Perhaps not for this specific story but how about the banning of home lunch in Chicago last year?
At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-11/news/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school

Also, please note this At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.

>Let's reframe the question a little.
>
>Suppose a kid comes to school day after day with a lunch consisting of, say, donuts and candy. Should the school intervene? If so, how?

No. Providing unhealthy food is not the same as not providing food. In the example from the article the mother says the child does not like vegetables so she only serves them when she can make sure their eaten. Your example could be a similar circumstance. Perhaps the child wont eat anything except candy and donuts when not watched by their parents. The parents have made the decision that it's better for the child to eat something rather than nothing. Either way, it's not the state's (ie busybody elitist nannies) business.

>Suppose a kid comes to school day after day with no lunch and no lunch money? Should the school intervene? If so, how?

I'm not positive but I believe that by law the school would be required to report that to CPS.

2nd Update:
How about if the child takes the mandated lunch at Little Village Academy and throws it in the trash, thus going hungry every day? What if there are dozens?

My favorite : But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

Classic busybody, nannystater. Other parents are too stupid to know what's best for their children (ie what Medina believes is best) thus we need the State to step in and force control over their kids food.

>Tamar