Rebuttal Rewrite – ShaquilleOatmeal

Homemade Lunchers Proved Wrong

An argument persuading people to think higher of school lunches and lower of homemade lunches sounds absurd. Surely, there will be reasons behind parents and students thinking homemade lunches are more nutritionally beneficial than school lunches, but that can actually be refuted. The argument is here for a new possibility, which is, trusting that these school lunch programs can properly feed one or one’s kids in a nutritious way. Leaning students, teachers and parents off their opinions can be difficult, but supplying rebuttals like the following will win them over and give them a new look at nutrition. 

Saying all homemade lunches are unhealthy is obnoxious since you don’t know what everyone is eating every meal of every single day. Some might get misdirected to where the idea is coming into play here. These school lunches provide the best overall opportunity for students’ health and education. It’s uncountable to how many varieties that can be made up for lunch from home and that’s known as well, but students today aren’t taking advantage of that variety given at home and bring in lunches like poptarts, cookies, chips, candy, etc. There’s no way to know exactly what every kid is eating and to say all kids are eating poorly, but the studies below show that homemade lunches overall are relatively on the unhealthy side rather than the healthy side. In the article, on ProQuest, called “Home-made packed lunches slip through nutrition net” it’s stated, “Of the 1,294 packed lunches, 14 (1.1 per cent) met all the food based standards for school meals set in England.” These studies being done with over 1,000 real packed lunches provides an ideal image of what other students lunches look like. Only 1.1 percent of all randomly tested homemade lunches could achieve the standards of a school lunch.  Homemade lunches can’t match against school lunches given that school lunches carry much higher standards. Another article, on Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, called, “Nutritional Comparison of Packed and School Lunches in Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten Children Following the Implementation of the 2012–2013 National School Lunch Program Standards” says, “Of the 1,314 observations collected; 42.8% were packed lunches (n = 562) and 57.2% were school lunches (n = 752). Energy, fat, saturated fat, sugar, vitamin C, and iron were significantly higher whereas protein, sodium, fiber, vitamin A, and calcium were significantly lower for packed lunches than school lunches.” Once again a study was done with over 1,000 random students and results came to a conclusion that school lunches hold higher standards which means more healthier foods, while homemade lunches had lower standards which resulted in more unhealthy nutrients being consumed like saturated fat and sugar. This refutes the idea that homemade lunches are healthier by the statistics provided and shows school lunches could provide a student with much better nutrition.

Another counter argument could be the idea that not every student and family could afford cafeteria lunches. The NSLP is the solution to those in need. They provide students with free or reduced lunch daily if qualified. Every student receives paperwork early on in the school year to determine whether they qualify or not. The NSLP supports millions and millions each year with their food needs. The article, “The National School Lunch Program” by the USDA says, “About 7.1 million children participated in the NSLP in its first year. Since then, the Program has reached millions of children nationwide: 1970: 22.4 million children; 1980: 26.6 million children; 1990: 21.1 million children; 2000: 27.3 million children; 2010: 31.8 million children; and 2016: 30.4 million children.” One can very much understand the success the NSLP has had by the statistics of children supported. The NSLP strives for the best for all students including those who can’t afford anything. This shows that school lunch programs are there for any students who cannot afford the school lunches. The NSLP isn’t run to earn greater profits from students, but rather to support students who have financial issues outside of school.

Everyone is different when it comes to their taste buds and what they enjoy and not. So many factors play a role in a person’s taste buds like religion, where they’re from, their family, etc. and it might mean someone might not enjoy the food, for example, if someone doesn’t eat red meat because of their religious beliefs than they might pack a lunch more often. These school lunches can control issues like these by providing multiple different selections each day so students can supply their needs appropriately. There will always be the main course option which is switched up daily, but there are also the foods the programs provide daily like meat and cheese sandwiches, burgers, salads, etc. This is the variety aspect of school lunches that defeats the argument that one might not enjoy the meal on the menu for the day causing them to want to bring lunch. Another possible issue against school lunches would be allergies. Allergies are very serious for lots of kids/students and the NSLP takes that into consideration. It’s impossible to accommodate for each student’s allergies as there could be hundreds of students with different allergies, some being more serious than others. Yes, students with intense allergies may tend to bring food more than buying because they can find what fits them best, but that doesn’t defeat the refute that the NSLP, with it’s huge variety, gives additional options that avoid certain allergies. For example if a student is allergic to peanuts, which is one of the most common allergies, they could buy a salad and still have the fruits and veggies. There will always be accommodation options for these students. Students usually understand their allergies and will just need to avoid the options they are vulnerable to and they can still acquire the nutritious balance of food from the school lunches.

Overall, the idea of persuading more to choose school lunches over homemade is vulnerable to many arguments, but those have been given alternatives or solutions to, above. If one wants to make their own meals that’s completely their choice, but the reliable and consistent school lunches are always there for great possibility. Now that the issue of money is mainly out of the equation given the opportunity for free/reduced lunch and the possibilities of allergies have been addressed, the last refute was mainly decision by personal aspects that could all be accommodated by. School lunches are great for future success of students and it’s highly suggested to all students and staff.

References

Home-made packed lunches slip through nutrition net. (2010). Nursing Standard (through 2013), 24(25), 16.

USDA. (2017, November). The National School Lunch Program.

Farris, A. R. (n.d.). Nutritional Comparison of Packed and School Lunches in Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten Children Following the Implementation of the 2012–2013 National School Lunch Program Standards.

This entry was posted in Portfolio ShaquilleOatmeal, Rebuttal Rewrite, ShaquilleOatmeal. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s