Jamie Oliver's School Dinners Debate

[Gmart]

I've just been watching that Jamie Oliver School Dinner thing, and on it there was a parent who refused to be part of his scheme because she didn't want to encourage her child to eat a portion of carbohydrate a day, ie some pasta or rice, as was on his menu.

Later the Secretary of State suggested that the parents had the 'right' or 'freedom' to allow their children to do this, and to just leave them to eat crisps etc instead, in a free society.

What should we do about this? Have parents given up so much that they have decided that the convenience of letting their kids do what they like is more important than their responsibilities as parents? What are these responsibilities? Should we prosecute parents who fail to feed their children the recommended diet?

Good meals at school have got to be a good thing, but where does freedom end and responsibility start?

Maybe we should be fighting for localism, where power should move from Westminster to the local council?

Maybe a debate about who has what duty (the government /school or the family) and who has what rights (the children? the parents? the local school?)

I get the feeling that Jamie means well, but is coming up against the worst problems of the British system. How can we solve them? Any ideas?

 

[Haller]

Freedom ends with compulsory education. If it's a legal requirement to teach kids Maths and English, there's no reason why it shouldn't be a legal requirement to give them a proper meal.

And, as a social investment, it can hardly be beaten. The miniscule amount of money spent now will be recouped many times over in 15-50 years time with savings in the health and crime budgets. But one of 'the worst problems of the British system' is an obsession with the present at the expense of the future.

 

[smokedout]

Freedom ends with compulsory education.

thank fuck we dont have compulsory education then

how do you suggest parents on a low income pay for their kids to have a healthy diet, what would you define as a proper meal?

i have a much more coherent argyment to this point, but im too pissed and tired to make it

tomorrow

 

[Yu_Gi_Oh]

All we're suggesting is taking the money that would have gone on snacks, and giving it to the kitchens to provide a decent meal.

It only costs about 50p per meal, but everyone needs to be onboard, and parents seem to prefer to just buy snacks which the kids don't complain about.

Do you really believe that even low income parents cannot afford to feed their kids?

 

[ska invita]

how do you suggest parents on a low income pay for their kids to have a healthy diet, what would you define as a proper meal?

Get down the market by a fucking huge bag of rice and learn to eat lentils and other pulses and some vegetables. The cheapest and healthiest way to eat.

It wasnt that long ago in this country where you would eat meat once a week if you could afford it and eat vegetables caseroles and what not the rest of the week.

The big issue with the JO school Dinners thing is that kids are turning away from healthy school dinners (where they have been introduced) and going out to the chicken or kebab shop on the high street instead.

Food contractors are threatening to pull out all together from mainly urban schools where this is happening.

There is a solution to this - dont let kids of school premises until after the school day is done.

 

[Haller]

thank fuck we dont have compulsory education then

We do. There is a legal obligation to educate all children.

 

[smokedout]

Get down the market by a fucking huge bag of rice and learn to eat lentils and other pulses and some vegetables. The cheapest and healthiest way to eat.

but realistically folk aint gonna do that when its just as cheap to stick some chicken nuggets in the oven

its fucking tiring being a parent and these days many more folk than before are either doing it on their own or having to work full time

Do you really believe that even low income parents cannot afford to feed their kids?

its very difficult to feed kids well on a low income, even if you do feed them vegan slop and chick peas (im veggie by the way and a parent)

JO might be better looking into whole food co-ops etc in working class areas as well as challenging the supermarktes to (close down ) or to bring down the costs of healthy food, of course they never will and authoritarian schemes in schools will be resisted by kids because like most people they are instnictive anti-authoritarians and havent been involved in the decision making process

fact is its a facet of a mass production economy and reformists schemes like olivers will only serve to strengthen capitalisms grip

imo a lot of the unhealthy kids thing is to do with inactivity, we've always eaten shite in this country without there being so many obese kids, the other point is that people have the chance to make their own minds up about what they eat as an adult, you could bring a kid up on chips and pizza and they may end up a vegan raw foody and live to be 100 or you can feed em vegan slop and very likely the first chance they get theyll be down mcdonalds and end up with a coronary at 50

to talk of prosecuting parents for feeding their kids is bad diet is nonsense, who decides, should they have daily protien/fat rations ... and dont forget that even nutritionists often cant agree on what is and isnt a healthy diet (the vegetarian argument for example)

laws like this would undoubtably be used to target certain groups (more than one family has had shit from social services over being vegan) and the state legislates in our kids lives enough already

 

[girasol]

I think it's up to the parents, and I also think most parents would rather give their kids healthy foods once they are presented with the evidence: i.e. children so constipated they end up vomiting faecal matter (as Jamie mentioned on a visit made to a hospital). Children malnourished and not growing up properly, with underdeveloped brains and so on.

Any caring parent will make sure their child eats well. And it doesnt' cost more and it doesn't even take longer (scrambled eggs and some vegetables thrown in takes 5 mins to make, a fruit smoothie takes about 5 mins too). And even when it does take a little longer, isn't it worth the effort???

If there's one thing I make sure (and that's perhaps one of my most important jobs as a parent) is that my son has a decent breakfast and dinner, which includes fruit and vegetables. I mean, how long does it take to prepare an apple or to peel a carrot?? Luckily his school is pretty strict with food and doesn't allow fizzy drinks, sweets or junk food anyway.

I think perhaps the government should have a duty to educate the nation, but should leave it up to the parents to implement the changes. When it comes to school dinners though, the children should be encouraged to eat healthily, I strongly believe in that and I think what Jamie is doing is nothing short of heroic.

niksativa is right too, rice and lentils are extremely easy to cook and are cheap too. In Brazil, the staple diet of rice and beans (and some meat on a good day) keeps poor people healthy and strong.

 

[zoltan]

Um.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/5349392.stm

Doesnt help when the parents are pig ignorant .

 

[Idaho]

but realistically folk aint gonna do that when its just as cheap to stick some chicken nuggets in the oven

its fucking tiring being a parent and these days many more folk than before are either doing it on their own or having to work full time

its very difficult to feed kids well on a low income, even if you do feed them vegan slop and chick peas (im veggie by the way and a parent)

JO might be better looking into whole food co-ops etc in working class areas as well as challenging the supermarktes to (close down ) or to bring down the costs of healthy food, of course they never will and authoritarian schemes in schools will be resisted by kids because like most people they are instnictive anti-authoritarians and havent been involved in the decision making process

fact is its a facet of a mass production economy and reformists schemes like olivers will only serve to strengthen capitalisms grip

imo a lot of the unhealthy kids thing is to do with inactivity, we've always eaten shite in this country without there being so many obese kids, the other point is that people have the chance to make their own minds up about what they eat as an adult, you could bring a kid up on chips and pizza and they may end up a vegan raw foody and live to be 100 or you can feed em vegan slop and very likely the first chance they get theyll be down mcdonalds and end up with a coronary at 50

to talk of prosecuting parents for feeding their kids is bad diet is nonsense, who decides, should they have daily protien/fat rations ... and dont forget that even nutritionists often cant agree on what is and isnt a healthy diet (the vegetarian argument for example)

laws like this would undoubtably be used to target certain groups (more than one family has had shit from social services over being vegan) and the state legislates in our kids lives enough already

That post appears to be largely bollocks from start to finish. Dipping into claptrap, and then nuzzling back into the soft bosom of nonsense once again.

You seem to ignore the simple facts of the case. Children are getting fatter and less healthy and they are eating more junk. All decent research says this. Exercise is also highly significant, but take on battles one at a time, rather than be content to ignore all problems because we don't have a magic bullet to kill them all at once.

Calling any plan to improve childrens diets as 'reformist' and 'strengthening capitalisms grip' is fucking la la land for a myriad of reasons.

Always eaten shit? Yes poor diets, childhood dieseases and short life expectancy have been prevalent, tailing off and improving significantly in the 20thC only to turn back again recently.

 

[girasol]

I agree the 'always eaten shit' statement is ill-informed to say the least...

Junk food is a very recent thing, until very recently people ate freshly prepared, home-cooked meals.

are you trolling, smokedout?

 

[aurora green]

I also think it's got to be a two-pronged approach though, diet and excercise.
How many school playing fields have been sold off? I'm astonished that my kids have never done any cross country running in the freezing cold. I mean much as I bloody hated it at the time, it was part of school life. PE in school nowdays seems really diminshed compared to how I remember it it.
But crucially; it's the car, both being constantly ferried around in it, and the dangers of being run over and killed by it, that is doing perhaps the worst damage to kids' health. Kids should be walking to the nearest school...or safe cycling routes set up...being driven to and from school is all wrong. Our streets need to be made safer, redesigned with designated play streets in selected areas and stuff...It could be done, it would just need tremendous will..
But tackling diet alone will not be enough if our kids lifestyles continue to be sedentary.

 

[Idaho]

Definately Aurora. I remember playing all day out on the street. Every 10 minutes or so a car would trundle past and we would get out the way. Now, even on my quiet street, cars are every minute, and parked bumper to bumper so that visibility is poor. And car drivers don't expect to stop or slow down for anyone.

 

[girasol]

Yep, same here, many an afternoon were spent climbing trees, cycling, and just running around...

Although, having said that, where I live there's always kids about on their own (it's near a small park and the estate hardly has any cars driving through) so when my son is a bit older I'm going to have to let him go out and play with his friends (basically, when he asks I'll let him go).

Nothing stopping parents going out with their kids and exercising together though.

 

[poster342002]

Who the fuck elected Jamie Oliver, anyway?

 

[Idaho]

The same person who elected the other dinner ladies, the dustmen, top civil servants, the staff of various charitable organisations, etc.

I am not sure of your point.

 

[poster342002]

The point is, why should one unelected person wield such a disproportionate influence over government policy? Who elected him "minister for food"?

A society which makes policy on the basis of what some unelected celebrity says is not going anywhere good, imo.

This saga just about sums up the epitome of what the Blair era has been about.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

but realistically folk aint gonna do that when its just as cheap to stick some chicken nuggets in the oven

its fucking tiring being a parent and these days many more folk than before are either doing it on their own or having to work full time

its very difficult to feed kids well on a low income, even if you do feed them vegan slop and chick peas (im veggie by the way and a parent)

It's not so much cheap to stick in the nuggets as it is easy. It is no way cheaper to eat frozen crap and ready meals than it is to make stuff yourself.

I know many working families and they all cook proper meals, yes it takes a little bit longer than sticking some crap in the microwave but how long does it take to cook a half decent meal? Has everyone forgotten how to cook for themselves? If so I think it's even more important to teach children about real food. I could never sit down to a ready meal or nuggets for tea and I would never ever consider feeding that crap to my children.

Raw ingredients cost far less than convenience foods full stop, how you can say otherwise is baffling.

 

[girasol]

Who the fuck elected Jamie Oliver, anyway?

He took upon himself to do something about the terrible food children were being fed at school.

What the fuck has that got to do with elections? Are you saying that only polititians should try and fix things?

It's not like polititians get anything done is it? I really dont' get your point.

 

[kyser_soze]

smokedout - the whole 'you can't eat well on a low budget' argument has been done here on several occassions and been shown to be an utter fallacy, as has the 'no time' argument.

poster - it wasn't until after the first series of School Dinners, when parents who had watched it started writing to JO and thanking him for enlightening them about the state of school meals, and they in turn wrote to their schools, MPs, Ministers etc etc that policy started to change.

So if you're saying that a qualified and fairly talented chef shouldn't have made a programme about the state of school meals which led to the public complaining to government which then changed it's policies as a result (which IIRC is what govts are supposed to do? Isn't that called democracy?), then what DO you think democracy is?

But then as I recall, you don't watch 'celebrity bullshit' or follow it in the press, so you wouldn't have been remotely aware of the ACTUAL situation instead of your assumption.

 

[poster342002]

Oh, I guess we should all feel this is beyond criticism, then. Some sort of o holy shilbboleth never to be spoken against.

When the next in-vougue celebrity starts making sagely pronouncements on what we thick proles should do, let's uncritically lap that up too.

 

[poster342002]

So if you're saying that a qualified and fairly talented chef shouldn't have made a programme about the state of school meals which led to the public complainging to government which then changed it's policies as a result (which IIRC is what govts are supposed to do? Isn't that called democracy?), then what DO you think democracy is?

Yes, lets make national policy on the basis of pop-tv shows.

 

[kyser_soze]

Ah, so now you're wiggling because your ignorance of what actually happened has been exposed? Before the age of modern communications, who do you think helped create labour movements and other forms of protest? Charismatic people who were held in esteem by their communities - people who did good stuff and gained a reputation for doing so. Celebrities in other words.

 

[girasol]

Yes, lets make national policy on the basis of pop-tv shows.

You sound like a teenager, to be honest. Criticising it just for the sake of it, rebelling against it, just because...

Something good is being done, who cares who's doing it, ffs? Celebrities reach a much wider audience than politicians, people don't trust politicians (is it a suprise that they don't?).

 

[kyser_soze]

When the next in-vougue celebrity starts making sagely pronouncements on what we thick proles should do, let's uncritically lap that up too.

*deep breath*

No, I can't be arsed. You're being an ignorant twat about this.

 

[poster342002]

..

 

[poster342002]

*deep breath*

No, I can't be arsed. You're being an ignorant twat about this.

Sorry. I realise this is one of those things considered "outside permitted dissent" - the phenomenon of the late 1990s - late 2000s.

 

[girasol]

There's no harm in having chocolate and crisps you know, everything in moderation...

The main point remains that at least someone has got off their arse and did something about it. And that things are changing because of it.

What have your done poster342...?

It's so fucking easy to sit there and nitpick every single thing, every single person or effort. It's much harder to actually do things and try and change, especially when there's people like you around.

 

[Pieface]

Sorry. I realise this is one of those things considered "outside permitted dissent" - the phenomenon of the late 1990s - late 2000s.

well criticise it then please - at the moment the fact he is famous seems to be your only gripe.

What is horribly wrong with what he's doing?

 

[magneze]

My take on this is that Jamie Oliver has used his celebrity status to actually make a difference, something that few others do successfully and for that he should be applauded. I still find him somewhat annoying but when someone makes this much of a difference I can put that aside.