Food Trucks To Be Banned From Parking at Schools in California?

Categories: Mobile Meals
food-truck-ban.jpg
Photo by Kimberley Valenzuela
Luxe loncheras looking to attract hungry schoolkids may have to wait until way after the bell rings to do so if a proposed law goes into effect.

Assemblyman Bill Monning (D-Carmel) introduced a state bill that would ban food trucks from parking within 1,500 feet of a public school between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., ABC 7 reports. Apparently, the goal of the measure is to "fight obesity." (You know, the same sort of bullshit reason why a home-packed lunch was replaced with chicken nuggets over in North Carolina.)

Supporters say that California school districts have been working hard to ban junk food and provide healthy meals on campuses, and food trucks undermine their efforts. Though anyone familiar with schools and food trucks know that: 1) Students on open campuses can easily flock to the nearby McDonald's and 7/11 to pick up a Big Mac and Slurpee, and 2) Many food trucks offer healthy options. (Rock on, Seabirds, The Lime Truck and others.)    

Today, the Southern California Mobile Food Vendor's Association tweeted, "We're going to fight this ridiculous ban."

With the proposed law, we see history repeating itself. As Gustavo reported in a piece for the Los Angeles Times, the reason there are school cafeterias in the first place is because schools in Southern California hated the tamale wagons that would park outside schools during school hours.

It's also worth nothing that the ban would affect the many evening clustertrucks at high schools around town. The ones at Villa Park High, Troy High and Costa Mesa High start at 5 or 5:30 p.m.  
 
Follow Stick a Fork In It on Twitter @ocweeklyfood or on Facebook! And don't forget to download our free Best Of App here!

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
13 comments
Tbplayer
Tbplayer

Ugh.... Hello? Lawmakers in Sacramento!  Don't we have more pressing matters right now?

militarylover
militarylover

A place to meet military singles and admirers in the world!  m i l i t a r y l o v e r.c om You can find friendship, love, romance, marriage or even more.Sign up is totally free,It's the best time to join now,have a try,you will love it.

Riley
Riley

The reason I cited Fox News is because Fox is using this story along with all the inaccuracies in its reporting to rile up its watchers into attacking lunch programs for at-risk kids. 

The truth of the matter is that the mom was upset because the school was supplementing the home lunch with vegetables and milk. If the mother thinks a lunch full of twinkies and soda is nutrionally adequate, should the parents belief about what's nutrionally adequate still trump the child's health?

And, the mom didn't want the school to give her chid vegetables and milk not because of any health concerns but because the mom couldn't afford to pay for that. So the school probably thought it was okay to give the kid milk and vegetables as long as the mom didn't have to pay for that.

Riley
Riley

Why continue to perpetuate that chicken nuggets story when its already been dis-credited?

Andrew Gruel
Andrew Gruel

This should be followed up by a commentary about the NC girl whose homemade lunch got sent "back home" by the food police and then she had to eat chicken nuggets instead!

http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

I don't trust the govt. writing my menu.

gustavoarellano
gustavoarellano

This is absolute bullshit. Alebrije's would have to move, as it's just down Cubbon from an elementary school. All right, hipsters and wabs: time to unite and fight this fucker!!!

DanGarion
DanGarion

What the hell. Really? I could eat at the McDonald's less than 1/4 mile from Rancho Alamitos High, but they can't have food from a food truck? WTF. What kids get to eat off of campus grounds shouldn't be the school's business.

I can understand not having them park on school property, since there are other issues I could see with that, although I think it could be a decent money making deal for the school, the ASB, or club if they could charge a truck to sell food once a week at the school...

FishWithoutBicycle
FishWithoutBicycle

"The truth of the matter is that the mom was upset because the school was supplementing the home lunch with vegetables and milk. If the mother thinks a lunch full of twinkies and soda is nutrionally adequate, should the parents belief about what's nutrionally adequate still trump the child's health"

Forgive me, but I don't necessarily put faith in school employees to know what's better for a child than their own parent. Let's face it, a lunch full of twinkies and soda is an extreme example. What about my friend who sent her son to school with healthy snacks, a lunch, and strict instructions to not give him sugar because he had shown time and again a negative reaction to it in high amounts. So what did the teacher do? She gave him sugar-laden breakfast cereals in the morning and chocolate milk at other times (foods my friend wouldn't even give him at home)...basically doing the exact opposite of what his own mother had expressly requested. Then they couldn't understand why the child acted up and expected my friend to come pick him up before school was out because they couldn't deal with him. Fun times.

FishWithoutBicycle
FishWithoutBicycle

Does it really matter if the lunch was taken away outright or "supplemented" (snort) with chicken nuggets? Shouldn't the parents have the final say over what their child eats?

Newportblue65
Newportblue65

I'm with you on this one.....BS for sure!......

Riley
Riley

 I think plenty of parents don't necessairly know what's nutritious for their children. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many obese children. For example, how many parents know something like Lunchables is a terrible choice?

Is the twinkie and soda an extreme example? Yes, but then again, so is this chicken nuggets story as its been reported with all these inaccuracies. Would this story have gained as much traction or attention if it had reported what had actually happened- the mom is upset about the school giving her kid milk and vegetables because she doesn't have the money for it even though it turns out she was never charged for them.

Should the school have given the kid supplemental vegetables and milk for lunch? Maybe not, but I can also understand why the school did that- they thought it was okay as long as they did not charge the mother since that's why she was complaining about.

And, I would point out this program with its nutritional requirements was a opt-in program which this mother to chose to participate in and take advantage of state subsidized programs. Its like when the goverment gives out its federal money with strings attached to the states. If the state doesn't like those conditions that the federal government places on that money, then the state doesn't and shouldn't accept that money. If the mom doesn't agree with those nutrional guidelines set forth by the school, then she didn't have to send her kid to this program and could have sent her kid to another school.

Riley
Riley

The mother didn't even have an issue with the chicken nuggets. Instead, the mom was complaining about the school for supplementing her daughter's lunches with milk and vegetables because she was too poor to pay for that cost, even though she was never charged for that.

I don't know if you got your information from here or Fox News, but here's some of the facts they wouldn't tell you:

1) the kid's home-packed lunch was never taken away; it was supplemented with the school's lunch.

2) the kid's home-packed was not replaced with just chicken nuggets; the kid was given a full lunch tray that contained chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit, and a vegetable. But, the kid only ate the chicken nuggets and threw everything else away.

3) there was no state inspector there to police school lunches; there was a researcher at the school assessing pre-schools on a comprehensive evaulation called the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised. But, that researcher had no authority or agency to order the child to get a healthier lunch.

4) the mom was never charged for that lunch.

The North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education investigated this matter, and released a statement stating it, "“determined that no employee of DHHS, nor the Division of Child Development and Early Education (DCDEE) or its contractors, instructed any child to replace or remove any meal items. Furthermore, it is not DHHS’ policy to inspect, go through or question any child about food items brought from home. The facts we have gathered confirm that no DHHS employee or contractor did this.”

FishWithoutBicycle
FishWithoutBicycle

"2) the kid's home-packed was not replaced with just chicken nuggets; the kid was given a full lunch tray that contained chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit, and a vegetable. But, the kid only ate the chicken nuggets and threw everything else away."

Didn't I just say it didn't matter if the home-made lunch was taken or "supplemented"? It's the fact that the mother sent her child to school with a lunch containing items SHE deemed nutritionally adequate and they gave the child another entire meal with greasy chicken nuggets which the child ate instead of the lunch packed the mother. So you're defending offering a child a more unhealthy option (chicken nuggets) than a lunch packed by their own parent which contained much healthier fare? Don't you think the parent might have a little more insight into the child's needs than the school? To me, it's a matter of principle. And I don't watch FAUX News.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...