Aren't healthy school lunches reliant on parents as much as schools?

Who's responsible for our children's health - the government, or us, their parents?

Today we hear that "healthier" school lunches are in danger because of rising costs and falling demand. Not enough parents, it seems, are signing their children up for the modern, healthier options. Why not?

Over the past few years, it's become clear that changing children's eating habits is far more complicated that it might once have seemed. Jamie Oliver showed those of us who didn't already know that too many school dinners were, to be blunt, full of rubbish. That should have changed circumstances for the better. Thanks to the parents, it hasn't.

Once Jamie drew attention to all this, the government suddenly took notice. More money (not enough to make a real difference, but enough for a meaningful gesture) was put into the school dinner pot and well-meaning references to tackling child obesity abounded. And you know what, those references are true. We need the next children of children to be healthy, not to become obese, have diabetes or heart problems, and certainly not to die too young. But it's unclear who we think is going to stop this happening. Do too many parents think it won't happen to them?

Because the government - and Jamie - didn't count on the parents. It all seemed far too obvious for that. Surely, they must have thought, all parents want their children to be healthy, and that means all will support feeding them food that is good for them. Wrong. Far too many parents don't appear to think this at all.

Now fewer and fewer children have school lunches, although they are healthier. The packed lunch alternatives, left, of course, to the parents, are often full of a less salubrious selection, whilst too many children disappear to the local chippy at lunchtimes as well. In fact, it was reported yesterday that children's minister Kevin Brennan has called for secondary school pupils under the age of 16 to be locked in schools at lunchtime to prevent them buying unhealthy alternatives.

There have also been suggestions that policing packed lunches are the answer, but you have to ask how far this can all go. Last week Ed Balls said that schools should help cut obesity rates, that it was a "moral obligation" for children's "wellbeing" to be promoted. It's a wise sentiment, but it too doesn't take account of the parents. They don't like being told what to do.

Down at my school gate, nothing exercises the parents more than discussing food. When school dinners were introduced this year, parents made so many demands I'm surprised the poor caterers didn't up and leave. But perhaps our school isn't normal. Sometimes it seems as if parents don't want to take any responsibility for their children, but when it comes to their health, it's vital they do. School lunches are only the beginning, but if they don't work, it makes you worry about so much else.

(picture by dancing_chopsticks on Flickr.com)