The school lunchbox is dead in Italy.

The Italian Supreme Court has ruled against parents who want to send lunch to school with their children. Their logic? Not eating the school-provided lunch is "a possible violation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination based on economic circumstances."

Even the United States isn't that crazy—yet—despite pushes in that direction by busybodies experts who worry that food from home might not be "good enough," and school-lunch providers who have a deep financial stake in forcing parents to buy their product.

Parents, naturally, are not happy.

Lorenza, who has two children at a Turin school, told a local TV station she spent more than €2,000 (£1,823) on school meals, more than her monthly salary. "My older daughter was not happy because the quality of the food didn't justify the cost, and also because of the hygiene issues with the canteen. "She would often complain that the cutlery was dirty, that the glasses were not particularly clean, or that there would be hairs on the plates," she said.

As with many news reports, this paragraph does not give enough information for us to know just how outraged we should be. Over what time period did this mother spend $2200 dollars? One month, as implied by the comment that the cost was "more than her monthly salary"? Annually per child? Over the entire school experience of all of her (possibly, though not likely, many) children?

Never mind. It doesn't matter. Even if the meals were totally free (where by "free" we mean paid for by other people, of course), it would still be an outrage.

School lunches may be a necessity for some children, who would otherwise not eat—though I've never been able to answer satisfactorily a friend's question, "Isn't that what SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) and WIC programs are all about? Why do we also need free school lunches?"

School lunches are certainly a convenience for busy parents—though there is no reason why a child of school age shouldn't be able to pack his own lunch.

But there was never any doubt in my mind that my own packed lunch was vastly superior to what was offered in the school cafeteria, and apparently our children thought so, too. Even if they often traded their carrot sticks to other children for cookies—at least some child was eating healthful food. I'm reminded of one family I know who qualified for free meals for their children. The children gave it a try, determined that the food at home was better tasting, more nutritious, and even more plentiful—and wisely opted out. At least here they had that option.

More to the point: whatever the Italian Supreme Court may say, being able to feed our children as we think best is a basic, human, family right—right up there with being able to birth, educate, and otherwise rear our children as we think best. As all totalitarian governments know, once you come between parents and their children, most other freedoms become meaningless.

For those families who cannot or will not handle these responsibilities on their own, we rightly make assistance available. That's called charity. But forcing that "assistance" on those who do not want it? That's called tyranny.

And the "principles of equality" the court found so important? Should we make everyone feed their babies formula because some mothers can't or won't breastfeed? Dumb down the school curriculum to the lowest common denominator? Put every child in daycare because some families need that service? Force every child into public school because some parents can't or won't provide private or home education? Make every woman give birth in a hospital because some babies need a doctor's care? Ban unpasteurized milk, orange juice, and cider because not everyone has access to safe sources of these delicious drinks? Forbid handmade clothing because not every mother can sew? Put handicapping weights on the feet of the best dancers to eliminate their advantage over the klutzes?

Oh, wait. Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.

Posted by sursumcorda on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 5:23 am | Edit
Permalink | Read 399 times
Category Education: [first] [previous] [next] [newest] Politics: [first] [previous] [next] [newest] Children & Family Issues: [first] [previous] [next] [newest]
Comments

Closer than they appear, and also here... There are calls for banning unpasteurized milk (and home births) to protect the "uneducated".

And the dumbing down of curriculum to keep people from feeling bad was an argument that was winning when I was in school, though that seems to fluctuate from time to time.



Posted by Jon Daley on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 7:54 am

It continues to drive me batty about the WIC/school lunch/hunger situation in the US. The US classifies "hunger" as anything less than 3 meals per day. But the various food stamp programs are only supposed to cover a single meal. So even after people have been supplied food via the stamp program, they still qualify as "hungry." It's deceptive, and I perceive that it is meant to confuse the public and inflate numbers.

In the US, a study was done about school lunches. The standard for food stamps is $1 per person per meal. The study found that the school was given $1.14 per student per meal for the "free lunches." But when they examined the food and the companies involved, 2 or 3 different people were skimming. The children received less than $0.87 per student per meal.

Now, I can go to Aldi's any day of the week with $20 and get eggs, milk, cheese, chicken, potatoes, pasta, bananas, carrots, onions, apples OR oranges, and still have enough for a box of granola bars. That will cover more than a week, all my meals. What need have I for the school to prepare a nutritionally-defunct meal for me, when I can do that quicker and simpler?



Posted by Brenda on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 8:54 am
Add comment

(Comments may be delayed by moderation.)