OT-Jamie Oliver Food Revolution

Jeffersonian

I see healthy, I see unhealthy. Mostly, I see people eating what they want to eat. What I don't see is that it's any of my, or Jamie Oliver's, business.

Boilermaker Ben

Where in the article does it say that they paid for food they didn't want. The only reference I can see regarding payment (or in this case, non-payment) is on the third page, where it refers to "an Oliver-inspired free school meal."

While we're in the midst of this...I'd like to say that I appreciate that we have been able to have this discussion in a non-personal manner. It's nice to have two people present opposite views without personal attacks, for a change. Good discussion...of course the fact that I think I'm winning might skew my judgement.

Boilermaker Ben

again, slippery slope, and completely unsupported by the article or by Oliver's efforts (education and school lunch reform).

Boilermaker Ben

I'm off to watch the Purdue/Duke game. I'll be back later to respond, if you'd care to continue the discussion.

Little Steven

Ben,

This has been a great thread. I think Brad may have tipped a few
Eggcellent rhetoric.

Steve

Morro Bay Rich

Isn't it amazing how putting some bloke on the Food Channel can make them an authority? :ermm:

Jeffersonian

I second that, Ben.

As for the payment, the lunches are heavily subsidized by taxation...eveyone pays. And, in this case, they are paying for food they do not want.

Jeffersonian

Not yet, but I'm planning on it :woohoo:

Jeffersonian

Hope your team wins, but I hope your team ain't Duke :P

If it's a slippery slope argument, then what is the rationale behind such things as banning trans-fats and salt? Or even requiring helmets and seatbelts?

It's not some wild-eyed theory, Ben. It's here, and it's now.

Carolina Q

Jeffersonian wrote:

I see healthy, I see unhealthy. Mostly, I see people eating what they want to eat. What I don't see is that it's any of my, or Jamie Oliver's, business.

What you SEE is a nation out of control. What you SEE is a nation that has no idea what a healthy diet IS. Eating what they WANT to eat? That's priceless. If Jamie Oliver, or anyone else for that matter, can in some small way, show people how to improve their diets, their health, show them that what they WANT to eat IS KILLING THEM, more power to him.

I am not advocating forced anything. All I'm saying is that, as a country, our diet sucks. If educating people regarding diet and nutrition can help in some small way, it's a start.

Jeffersonian

Jesus, they're kids. It doesn't matter what they want. We're also forcing them to learn stuff they don't want to learn. Should we cater lesson plans to 12 year olds? I don't think so.

It wasn't 400,000 kids that pulled themselves from the school lunch program when Oliver's plan went into effect. Or are we supposed to ignore the parents, too?

Jeffersonian

Good for you!

But I got a fin here that says it ain't stopping at moral suasion.

Jeffersonian

It in the post at 20:48:44

Hoss

That response was NOT directed to you,just to this whole thread in general.If I only got one meal a day,I would not care WHAT it was,I would eat whatever they gave me and be GLAD to get it!!! Fortunately,I never qualified for FREE LUNCH.....YET!!! :ohmy:

Little Steven

Brad,

If ye don't eat yer meat ya canna have any puddin', how can ye have any puddin if ye don't eat yer meat?
Sorry
Steve

Jeffersonian

:laugh: Today's top Pink Floyd reference!

Boilermaker Ben

And the win goes to the latecomer to the discussion! Bravo, sir.

Boilermaker Ben

Ah, but as soon as we start saying that "everyone" is paying for what the kids eat, then we need to start looking at how training kids into poor diets will cause "everyone" to pay in the future, as insurance premiums climb due to the increasing rate of obesity. That the taxpayers as a whole are paying for these meals only supports the idea that they should benefit the nation as a whole.

Boilermaker Ben

Jeffersonian wrote:

Hope your team wins, but I hope your team ain't Duke :P

If it's a slippery slope argument, then what is the rationale behind such things as banning trans-fats and salt? Or even requiring helmets and seatbelts?

It's not some wild-eyed theory, Ben. It's here, and it's now.

Seatbelts, helmets, transfats and salt don't make Jamie Oliver a "health nazi" which was, I believe, your inital point. The article doesn't say anything about instituting new regulations. It's about education and school meal reforms.

Boilermaker Ben

Fun chatting with you. I'm off to bed.

hornhonk

The Egghead forum is turning into the Sean Hannity forum :(

Hoss

N/M I'm TOO UPSET to reply!!!! :unsure:

hornhonk

Loney was good enough for me. My Mom would give me a baloney sandwich with MIRACLE WHIP every day. Yuck. Wrapped in wax paper.

Mr. & Mrs Potatohead

Authority or not, TV spin or not, ratings for the network?? Or what ever!!
Unfortunately...I’m pretty sure (based on what I see here in our schools) there is a lot of VERY unhealthy choices served in most schools these days.
From what I see in the school I work at, it is pretty hard to eat Healthy even if some of the menu goes there, it isn’t much on a daily basis.
So in my eyes…NO, it isn’t a healthy diet at all and really makes me sad and angry too.

Little Chef

THANK YOU Randy! My Mom worked 3 jobs when I was a kid, and in elementary school......school lunch was a biggie for me nutrition wise!! And when I got served pizza AND french fries.... even as a KID I was confused. I think this is quickly becoming a political event....
Jamie is just trying to enlighten folks! I respect his cause frankly.

Spring Chicken

I read this entire thread and felt compelled to add my 2¢.

First of all, I watched the show, including his visit to the Oprah Winfrey show. I agree with what he is saying and his efforts to educate us about what we are feeding our children, and ourselves for that matter.

That being said, I think there are other issues involved that will make his job very difficult. For example:

He has a good message but has a very poor way of presenting it to people in general, but especially to those who find bliss, comfort and convenience in packaged food.

He has a good message but it may not be as much about nutrition as it is about budgets and profits. Junk food produces the highest calorie per dollar ratio while minimizing preparation expense at mealtime.

He has a good message but it isn't the schools that fund the food program, it's the politicians who decide the menu because of constant pressure from manufacturers that show they can save money by serving their products. Local farmers do not have the clout nor know how to push their products.

He has a good message but kids and their parents are bombarded with advertisements designed to stimulate both the palate and the brain into thinking it is both tasty and fun to eat, not to mention convenient to serve.

He has a good message but we as a nation don't have a clue as to what we are putting into our bodies, only that it somehow falls into the 'food' category, tastes great, doesn’t' require any effort to serve and can be consumed in front of a TV or game console. In fact, it is so easy to eat that kids as young as 1 year old can serve themselves.

He has a good message but the same parents who feed junk food to their kids (and themselves) often spend more time and money selecting the proper food for their pets than themselves. Many don't hesitate to take their pets to the Vet for minor ailments and check-ups while denying themselves and their kids the same cautionary visits to a doctor, much less follow the doctor's healthy lifestyle advice.

He has a good message but he is trying to break the eating habits of at least one generation of people who simply do not want to change, no matter that what they eat is reducing their quality of life, reducing their ability to function, increasing their risks for life-threatening health issues and costing more money in the long run.

He has a good message but in order to convert the thinking of a nation, he must do it one person at a time. We'll all be too fat to care by then.

Spring "Calorie Storage Container" Chicken
Spring Texas USA

ASTegaCay

Te problem is they have to keep the cost down on the prep and the food in order to keep the cost per child to around a $1.00 to $1.20. The lunches in our school cost $1.60 for those that are paying. Here in SC about 50% of the kids are on free and reduced lunch program, and some kids their only meal of the day is the school lunch,other than junk that the parents feed them at home. That being said the lunches here at our school average right at 1800 to 2000 calories, and about 40% of those calories are from fat. My wife will not let my kids eat the school lunch because of this problem. But with the budget they have and time limits on the lunch staff it does not look as if there will be change anytime soon from the easy processed foods.

bitslammer

I've seen his TED talk and I agree with his point 100%. Not sure if I think his methods will be effective or should all be implemented.

I do think there's a problem when schools count ketchup & tortilla chips as "vegetables." They need to make sure they offer some healthy foods for kids so those that want a better choice have it available.

As for "forcing" people to be healthy I think that's an individual choice, but I say there needs to be some financial incentive to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

It make me mad to see the people at work shoveling crap into their gullet who are morbidly obese knowing they are on the same health plan as me. They do have and will have much higher costs to the plan due to their lifestyle choices.

I don't think it's fair for me to hae to pay for their poor choices, and note it is a choice to eat McD's, Burger King and Wendy's 7 days a week.

There should be a scale for monthly premiums and the more you choose to be at risk via poor lifestyle choices the more you should pay. simple as that.

BENTE

I's just a HELL OF A MESS,and ain't gettin better ANYTIME soon,NO MATTER WHAT!

that is the truest statment i have seen out of all of you

DO NOT use the forum as your "Cyber Soapbox".
This is not the place to air your views on matters unrelated to the purpose of the forum or to vent your anger or dissatisfaction with anyone on, or off, the forum

the second one was not pointed at you hoss but after reading your statment i realized once again i was reading a bunch of bs.. and so sad to see this place like this...

Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker

as a family of four with decent eating habits, who sends their kids to school every day with a bag lunch, carrots and beets in the fridge, home made dinner every night etc. etc. blah blah blah,i think they ought to serve the cheapest, fattiest, saltiest stuff possible so that as little of my taxes goes to funding school lunches as possible. i honestly don't care if the other kids all grow up fat and die young. it will help social security at least. not that i support the idea of socialist security, mind you, i think if you can't earn a living or haven't saved enough to retire, then you deserve to work until you drop dead. but i've paid enough into social security that i just want to get what i paid in back, at least. so thinning the rolls will help. besides, statistically the most obese and unhealthy kids and families are in states other than mine (ahem), so as long as i don't have to deal with it why should i care? quite literally, let them eat cake. maybe there's no such thing as evolution, but if a certain portion of a species eats itself to death before it can procreate, i think eventually we'll all be healthier in the long run.

"also sprach zarathustra."

either that, or maybe just "hyperbole must be met with hyperbole"

n.b. there is a difference between sarcasm and irony. sarcasm is the angry step-brother to irony. i haven't yet figured out which of these this is intended to fall under.