No, this isn’t about peanut allergies. It’s ultimately about parents being trusted (or in this case, not) to be able to make sound choices for their own children.

The Chicago Tribune reports:

At …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.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke.

Yes, some parents might be careless about what their children eat on a daily basis, but does it make sense to base policy on the lowest common denominator? Why punish the parents who know very well how to feed their own children properly? If I were a parent with a child at this school, I would want to be able to supply lunches from home, including (as an occasional treat) things like candy bars.

Some parents see a negative financial impact with such policies.

If their children do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals, such a policy would require them to pay $2.25 a day for food they don't necessarily like.

Of course, not everyone loses under this system. In fact, friends of government may experience a net gain.

*Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

Ironically, under this policy, children are still going hungry.

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.

However, some parents see such policies in a positive light, approving the school’s custodial role during school hours:

At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain.

"The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children.

It’s not just ironic, but an inversion of values for schools to confiscate candy bars because they are so “unhealthy,” but they’ll hand out condoms and sexual advice, even to young children. Schools refer children to the nurse for contraceptives, STD treatment, or even abortion counselling without parental knowledge or consent. (Perhaps children could keep their candy bars if they brought a note from home stating that the bars were not meant for eating, but for practicing how to put on a condom.)

The Tribune article declares:

Such discussions over school lunches and healthy eating echo a larger national debate about the role government should play in individual food choices.

What role should the government play in “individual food choices”? Beyond education, absolutely none. They may educate, inform, even inspire all they like, but they have no mandate to dictate to families or individuals what to put in their shopping carts, or their mouths. I start getting hives any time Big Brother claims to be “protecting me” from my own choices. It calls into question broader notions of self-control, moderation, personal and parental responsibility. To what extent are people willing to let the nanny state take responsibility for the details of everyday life?