Currently on the dining plan and so far not happy with the children's quick service

[OurDogCisco]

To me, it's the DDP that really limits you, because you have to scrounge around in the limited CS menu to find something your kids will like.

Since we pay OOP, we are free to choose from the WHOLE menu, where they actually have some decent food choices, for DS.

Nope, on the DDP plan they allowed us to order the adult version just about everywhere. We had no problems. The only problem we had was if we ordered the kids meal we couldn't always get rid of the sugar free jello. I thought it was weird. It should be interesting what happens after this week once the credits are separated between adult and child. I think that will be the key. They were very accomandating for us through out the week. My 5 year old ate mainly off the kids' menu but my 9 year old did not.

 

[Purrrrfecta]

This works if you want a burger too. I don't normally eat burgers. I don't think I ate a single burger on this trip so sharing wouldn't have been an option. Most of the time I ordered a sandwich. I did eat pizza and Fish & chicken strips. Or I skipped lunch...

I think it is the paying customer that losses on these children menu selections. They did let us get what we wanted most of the time. Table service restaurants let us subsititute anything we wanted. However, I thought the counter service selection for younger kids was just plain bad. The selection was limited and repetitive. I'd be curious what a paying customer ends up doing. I guess they have to share meals that they really didn't want to share?

The children's dining plan is VERY bad, and it is quite insulting, in my opinion.
My whole thing is why don't they just raise the cost of the children's meal so that they can have a decent meal. For lunch at the Boardwalk the only thing the kids could have was a PB and J sandwich for lunch. That is just gross to me. Even if you are not on the dining plan what is a child to eat? I guess you would have to order an adult meal and feed them a portion of that. Just totally uncool.

 

[bicker]

The children's dining plan is VERY bad, and it is quite insulting, in my opinion.

It is never a good idea to interpret any commercial interaction as "insulting". It's surely nothing personal -- it's simply business.

My whole thing is why don't they just raise the cost of the children's meal so that they can have a decent meal.

I went into this in a lot more detail, earlier today, in another thread. The gist of it is what economists call "price sensitivity." In a nutshell, despite the seemingly vast number of families that are apparently unhappy with the child meals situation, as a group they aren't putting their money where their mouth is. Their purchasing behaviors are very clearly communicating that they don't really care if child meals constitute what you labeled "a decent meal." They really care more about how inexpensive they are.

Suprising? Yes, it sure is. But that's reality for you... not always intuitive.

 

[castleri]

Two of the child meal choices that were tried on our trip this past week were the oriental station at season's food fair in the land where it seemed you could get a child's portion of their selections such as sweet and sour chicken or broccoli and beef etc. and pasta with choice or sauces and a meatball at one of the value food courts. both meals were very good and good sized as well. I think the idea of using the child CS credits for breakfast and paying OOP for a CS lunch or dinner may also be a good alternative.

 

[marcyinPA]

We just got back on the 28th the kids dessert is now no sugar added jello and most places were not allowing you to subsitute the dessert. Tusker house and a couple others refused to exchange the jello for anything.

Is the Jello sweetened with Splenda or Nutrasweet? I don't allow my kids to consume Nutrasweet, but I'll allow an ocassional Splenda (since it's derived from sugar).

 

[JamesMom]

This is why I am glad I am renting points at a DVC resort. We can go back to the room and eat what we like for lunch and dinner - even though we have to prepare it. For the most part they like grilled cheese, yogurt, corn dogs and sandwiches with fruit for lunch. Fish sticks, nuggets, cheeseburgers for dinner with veggies. Not much prep time. Cheaper than the parks and we get a break, too. Granted most don't want to 'cook' on vacation, but I think it'll work for us.

 

[dbmarie]

Is the Jello sweetened with Splenda or Nutrasweet? I don't allow my kids to consume Nutrasweet, but I'll allow an ocassional Splenda (since it's derived from sugar).

Nutrasweet that was the issue I had with the jello. We don't give our girls nutrasweet and I really don't view that as a healthy alternative.

 

[frndofpooh]

Is the Jello sweetened with Splenda or Nutrasweet? I don't allow my kids to consume Nutrasweet, but I'll allow an ocassional Splenda (since it's derived from sugar).

When we went in mid December it was sweetened with Nutrasweet, so we always substituted without a problem.

I was interested in the kids counter service dessert issue before we left on our trip so I emailed Disney and received a call back. I explained my concerns about feeding my children Nutrasweet and she suggested that we explain it to the cashiers and request an adult dessert. So that is what we did if our kids desired dessert and we never had any resistence whatsoever. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case now.

 

[freshmanjs]

Is the Jello sweetened with Splenda or Nutrasweet? I don't allow my kids to consume Nutrasweet, but I'll allow an ocassional Splenda (since it's derived from sugar).

What makes you think Splenda is safer? Splenda (sucralose) is sugar (sucrose) with chlorine!! replacing some of the molecules in the sugar. This is not natural.

In fact, sucralose was discovered accidentally when it was being tested as a possible pesticide!!!

I am not saying it is or is not safe, but the idea that is safer because it is derived from sugar is just not based in any kind of reality. Just marketing hype.

 

[bicker]

Chlorine is used to purify water.

Splenda (sucralose) is apparently the safest sweetener there is. Based on current research it is becoming apparent that it is safer than even sugar, which contributes to an assortment of conditions that lead to an assortment of diseases.

I agree with you that just because it is derived from sugar -- that doesn't make it safe. What makes it safe is its own characteristics, apart from its derivation.

 

[freshmanjs]

Chlorine is used to purify water.

Splenda (sucralose) is apparently the safest sweetener there is. Based on current research it is becoming apparent that it is safer than even sugar, which contributes to an assortment of conditions that lead to an assortment of diseases.

I agree with you that just because it is derived from sugar -- that doesn't make it safe. What makes it safe is its own characteristics, apart from its derivation.

sucralose is a chlorocarbon. most chlorocarbons are highly toxic. since sucralose is not easily fat soluble, it appears to be safe.

there are also lots of studies that show that nutrasweet is safe. and none that conclusively show it is unsafe.

i have not seen any studies that show that sucralose is clearly safer than aspartame at recommended doses. i would be interested in seeing one.

as for being safer than sugar, maybe compared to extreme overdoses of sugar...

by the way, I have no problem with splenda at all. in fact, i just ate 2 dannon yogurts sweetened with splenda. I just think we should not be fooled by the claim that "it comes from sugar, so it is safe"

 

[bicker]

sucralose is a chlorocarbon. most chlorocarbons are highly toxic. since sucralose is not easily fat soluble, it appears to be safe.

Which is all that matters.

there are also lots of studies that show that nutrasweet is safe. and none that conclusively show it is unsafe. i have not seen any studies that show that sucralose is clearly safer than aspartame. i would be interested in seeing one.

That's not the way this type of research is conducted -- they don't do safety comparisons. Rather, they research what is important: Whether each individual substance is or is not safe. The research on aspartame is not as strongly positive as, say, the research on saccharine (which has long appeared to be the much safer of the two -- that's not really the same thing as saying saccharine is safer than aspartame, but it's pretty close). Sucralose lagged behind, in my mind, because there was simply less research. Period. Now, however, the research is piling up, and each bit of research is more compelling in favor of a determination of safety than corresponding research for saccharine or aspartame. Sucralose is turning out to be the big winner.

as for being safer than sugar, maybe compared to extreme overdoses of sugar...

A level of overdose evidently regularly practiced by at least 6% of the population, and perhaps closer to 35% of the population. So I don't think characterizing it as an "extreme" overdose is appropriate. It seems to be a pretty regularly-practiced level of overdose.

So in the context of this discussion, given that they're going to order a dessert at a WDW restaurant, it is very likely that many children would be better off eating something sweetened with sucralose than with sugar or aspartame. It is a shame that the best choice, a sucralose-sweetened option, is not available.

 

[freshmanjs]

Which is all that matters.

That's not the way this type of research is conducted -- they don't do safety comparisons. Rather, they research what is important: Whether each individual substance is or is not safe. The research on aspartame is not as strongly positive as, say, the research on saccharine (which has long appeared to be the much safer of the two -- that's not really the same thing as saying saccharine is safer than aspartame, but it's pretty close). Sucralose lagged behind, in my mind, because there was simply less research. Period. Now, however, the research is piling up, and each bit of research is more compelling in favor of a determination of safety than corresponding research for saccharine or aspartame. Sucralose is turning out to be the big winner.

A level of overdose evidently regularly practiced by at least 6% of the population, and perhaps closer to 35% of the population. So I don't think characterizing it as an "extreme" overdose is appropriate. It seems to be a pretty regularly-practiced level of overdose.

I think we agree. Back to the topic of the children's menus -- I strongly believe Disney should offer at least 1 kid's dessert option that does not contain artificial sweeteners. This should be a parent's decision.

 

[bicker]

I think we agree. Back to the topic of the children's menus -- I strongly believe Disney should offer at least 1 kid's dessert option that does not contain artificial sweeteners. This should be a parent's decision.

Well, as I pointed out above, arguably the artificial sweetener is better than the natural sweetener, so this reduces down to that Disney should offer at least one child's dessert option that doesn't contain added sweeteners. Indeed, they do: unsweetened applesauce. That's the healthiest choice. It is impractical to expect they'll provide an option for every single level of parental tolerance for sweeteners. They offer two options, including an option that address the health concerns of any parent concerned about sweeteners, artificial or otherwise.

 

[freshmanjs]

Well, as I pointed out above, arguably the artificial sweetener is better than the natural sweetener, so this reduces down to that Disney should offer at least one child's dessert option that doesn't contain added sweeteners. Indeed, they do: unsweetened applesauce. That's the healthiest choice.

I was under the impression that at many CS locations, they were not allowing ANY substitution for the SF Jello (e.g., Flame Tree). Is this wrong?

 

[TinkerbellMama]

Is the Jello sweetened with Splenda or Nutrasweet? I don't allow my kids to consume Nutrasweet, but I'll allow an ocassional Splenda (since it's derived from sugar).

Just FYI, Splenda is NOT a natural product. Do an internet search and you will get all the facts without my personal spin!

 

[bicker]

I was under the impression that at many CS locations, they were not allowing ANY substitution for the SF Jello (e.g., Flame Tree). Is this wrong?

That may be the case, at a few restaurants. Given how few they are, it clearly isn't Disney policy to limit things in that manner, but rather the choice of the restaurant. It's just like a few restaurants putting too much salt in the soup. It would be nice if all the restaurants offered an unsweetened option, to address health concerns, but perhaps the reality is that some restaurants simply don't see enough parents making a purchasing decision based on the lack of the applesauce offering.

 

[freshmanjs]

Just FYI, Splenda is NOT a natural product. Do an internet search and you will get all the facts without my personal spin!

I am not sure why natural or not natural is a very important distinction. Ricin occurs naturally in the castor bean, but I would not want to eat that.

 

[marcyinPA]

Just FYI, Splenda is NOT a natural product. Do an internet search and you will get all the facts without my personal spin!

Thanks! I know it's not natural. I will let my kids have an occassional Splenda product, as I stated before. However, I don't like Nutrasweet at all. It gives me headaches, whereas Splenda does not. Generally speaking, my kids just eat normal, non-dietetic products (although I do buy low-fat products, which is sure to start another debate! LOL My best friend always has to remind me that the margarine I buy is one molecule away from being plastic.....I remind her that she'll die from a heart attack from all of the butter she consumes. Just friendly banter! )

 

[bicker]

I remind her that she'll die from a heart attack from all of the butter she consumes. Just friendly banter! )

Hehe, though under the humor, this is really a good point. "Natural" doesn't mean "healthy" just like "artificial" doesn't mean "unhealthy". There really is no relationship between these concepts -- foods can be either natural or artificial, and that has no bearing on whether or not they're healthy.