Reading the whole article, it looks like the headline has sensationalised the situation, as usual.
If parents want to put meat in their kids packed lunch, they can - it has not been banned.
The school letter said “could you please consider meat-free packed lunches” but it did not say it was mandatory.
I am a bit surprised the school is offering a fully meat-free menu but some of the parents reactions are way over the top, in my opinion.
One parent, who was not a Vegetarian, said the menu choice was very good - and I do think it’s good to encourage kids to try different foods or they become very picky.
Some of those parents are talking as if the school is trying to poison their kids!
I bet they don’t give their kids meat for every meal at home, either.
In the school holidays, my kids would often have beans on toast or egg on toast for lunch or a home-made veggie pizza.
I used to cook a balanced evening meal with meat or fish and vegetables but they often took cheese or egg sandwiches in their pack-up lunch - and on the days they had school lunches, nine times out of ten, they would choose chips or pizza.
I would have been delighted if the school menu had offered only healthy options and encouraged my kids to eat more veg!
I’ve been an ethical vegetarian for 30 years and raised my kids likewise.
This is an overstep of individual rights.
You can attract more bees with honey. If the decision makers want children to eat more plant-based meals, then instead of wasting time and money on analysis, meetings, rules, and enforcement - use those resources offer really tasty vegetarian/vegan options that will show kids how outstanding these foods can taste.
I’m torn, but this is where I come down as well. As a dietary vegan, I’m ok with the school doing vegetarian lunches, but the reasoning doesn’t work for me.
The reason given is climate change. The school would have to prove that the carbon footprint for meat is larger than if everyone ate vegetables. I haven’t seen this done successfully before.
If the reason is health, that would have to be proven as well.
Short of a persuasive reason, this is just coercion.
That wasn’t the reason given in the article. The reason given in the article was climate change. If it was a matter of cost, they would need to show that there’s not enough budget for meat. I doubt that. Getting enough protein from non-meat sources wouldn’t be less expensive than cheap meat.
Someone’s already touched upon the subject, but it might be partly down to avoiding potential confrontations regarding the type of meat and the way in which the animal was killed.
Moving to veg only would certainly sidestep that bone of contention