Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jamie Oliver's School Dinners Debate

PieEye said:
I think he probably just really really likes burgers :)

Much of the time that I end up debating food issues, supermarkets and the like, a lot of people who say, 'Oh well it's alright for you, you can afford to shop elsewhere' turn out to be people who've got as much money and time as I have (and sometimes more!) but just happen to like things the way they are and don't want to make the effort to change them. It's an exercise in self-justification.
 
poster342002 said:
I'm saying it's one irritating pontification at the masses too many and thus forfeited the right to even expect me to listen.


So you don't have a clue so you'll just post outdated classwar slogans in lieu of a argument.
 
King Mob said:
So you don't have a clue so you'll just post outdated classwar slogans in lieu of a argument.
I just refuse to engage with the argument on it's own idiotic terms and false-dichotomies.
 
poster342002 said:
It's a darn sight better than "Something must be done. This is something, so we must do this". Extra points for "won't somebody think of the children!" added into the commotion, somewhere.

Even if that was coherent, it just amounts to another way of restating your previous position, which was 'I won't be told what to do!' An exercise in foot-stamping petulance IMO.

It's pretty damn simple really: if there's a problem with kids eating shit diets (are you denying that, btw?) then somehow awareness of the need to eat healthily has got to be raised, and if possible school meals need to be made healthier. It's hardly rocket science and nor, despite your attempts to paint it as such, is it much of an imposition on anyone's liberty. No-one's forcing kids to eat them.
 
poster342002 said:
It's a darn sight better than "Something must be done. This is something, so we must do this".

Extra points for "won't somebody think of the children!" added into the commotion, somewhere.

you're still being evasive but thanks for explaining that was your intention.

Are you saying that there is no problem with the nation's diet or that we should just stop interfering with people's choices?

I think that school dinners should be provided with some sort of conscience - as supposedly education is.

Edit: Roadie and I are just saying the same things to you so I'll leave it for now :D
 
Roadkill said:
Much of the time that I end up debating food issues, supermarkets and the like, a lot of people who say, 'Oh well it's alright for you, you can afford to shop elsewhere' turn out to be people who've got as much money and time as I have (and sometimes more!) but just happen to like things the way they are and don't want to make the effort to change them. It's an exercise in self-justification.

True.

Also, I know people who spend lots of time and money down the pub and complain that they don't have enough time and money to cook themselves decent meals and just have to depend on ready meals.

I'm not saying people should make time for eating, they can essentially do what the fuck they want but they shouldn't moan that they *don't* have the time/money when they clearly do.
 
poster342002 said:
I just refuse to engage with the argument on it's own idiotic terms and false-dichotomies.

So the fact that some kids are eating only crap and have been doing so for years is ok by you?
 
Much as I was about to laugh out loud at the idea of a revolutionary Bolshevik position on school dinners, that article makes some good points.
 
Wow, that's as much a state-the-obvious piece as you could find really, with a bit of 'Well Oliver's highlighted the problem, but because it fails to tackle class and the relationship of labour to capitalist production it's not as good as it would be if we were doing it' thrown in (altho I do think the idea of Jamie as 'Food Lenin' was funny, so at least some commies aren't po-faced, humourless bastards.:D
 
Hmm, I think it's fair enough to point out that social class does influence people's ability to access good food, as well as what they're likely to have provided for them in schools. I doubt that Eton serves turkey twizzlers. Meanwhile, it's broadly true to say that the 'cheap food' policy of the last half-century has hit the poorest hardest, simply because what's often passed off as 'cheap food' is basically crap. Plus, there's the whole question of patterns of food retailing and how these relate to the prosperity or otherwise of an area. It's a complex area but it's important and it's often forgotten.
 
Is poster trolling?

AFAIS he hasn't really said anything apart from "I don't agree".

What exaclty is the point of your posts? We know you don't agree! Do you have anything to add to that argument? or is it a case of trying to feed some stroppy kid broccolli?

"I DONT WANT IT!"

"have you tried it"

"NOOOO!"

"THen How do you know if you havn't tried it?"

"BECASUE I JUST DONT LIKE IT!!"


There is no talking sense into poster.
 
Roadkill said:
patterns of food retailing and how these relate to the prosperity or otherwise of an area. It's a complex area but it's important and it's often forgotten.

Dub explained to me what those loyalty cards are really for in supermarkets - it's fucking disturbing. It ends up helping them limit choice and whittle down what specific areas consume and then giving them only that.
 
PieEye said:
Dub explained to me what those loyalty cards are really for in supermarkets - it's fucking disturbing. It ends up helping them limit choice and whittle down what specific areas consume and then giving them only that.

That's certainly one aspect of it.

The other is the fact that the supermarkets aren't really interested in the poorest people because they don't spend much money, so they don't build in the poor areas. However, they do build nearby and draw some consumers from said areas, meaning that the locality ends up losing its independent shops and markets, and leaving poorer folk, especially pensioners, with no local shops. 'Food deserts,' they call these areas - although the supermarkets will deny they're anything to do with them, and free-market thinktanks claim they don't exist. At the other end of the scale, wealthier people usually have more time and money to devote to shopping and do patronise alternative outlets more.

Therefore, surivivng clusters of independent specialist shops (butchers, bakers, greengrocers etc) are largely in two types of areas: those too poor to attract a supermarket, and those too rich to want one. The latter can take care of themselves, but in the former case, the decline of the independent shop and market trader is serious because cheap, good quality food becomes increasingly hard to source, and pre-processed stuff becomes a more and more attarctive option.

So there's another facet of the relationships between class and access to good food. And the list goes on....
 
I dislike Jamie Oliver personally (tis the smug facade) but found the programme interesting. Have worked in schools and nurseries for last ten years and do think class does come into it on a packed lunch level-in nursery in poor area of London, kids lunches were often processed packaged crap-I suspect due to time and wanting to appease kids as maybe feeling guilty for working lots of hours-don't really know and here in Bath, think it goes too much the other way sometimes, two year olds with alfafla sprouts, heavy wholemeal butterless homemade bread and water and not even a little treat such as a small tupperware tub containing a couple of crisps or sweets for when they've finished. The London nursery however had an impressive Nigerian cook who made curries hotter than hell and the kids adored them
I thought the snack van a great idea. Tis always been uncool to eat in a canteen but a van in the playground where kids can smell and see the food when they are playing and don't waste their lunchtime queuing a superb thing to do.
But it must be said, feeding kids good food when they're young does not mean they're going to stick to it forever. I was never allowed a whole Mars bar or chips more than once a week but the second I left home was so thrilled about being able to eat what I wanted, I put on two stone:o Being deprived of something often makes it seem desirable but do like oliver's choice of vaguely cool food such as paninis and fruit slush
 
I am all in favour of making school dinners healthier. But I don't like this "and then don't let the kids out at lunchtime" thing at all.

Its like saying "you are going to do it our way or no way at all" and that isn't right.

At my secondary school we were allowed out: some went home, or to friends, some went to the chipshop, etc. Why should kids be forced to eat the school dinners if they don't want them?

Giles..
 
jamie olider makes a lot of his money from advertising sainsburys

other than turkey twizzlers how often have you heard him actually criticise the manufacturers and retailers this food he helps to promote

wonder whether he got paid more for the sainsburys ads or the school dinners series.
 
smokedout said:
jamie olider makes a lot of his money from advertising sainsburys

other than turkey twizzlers how often have you heard him actually criticise the manufacturers and retailers this food he helps to promote

wonder whether he got paid more for the sainsburys ads or the school dinners series.
This has crossed my mind too-to be fair if you can afford it, can get lovely healthy food from Sainsburys but at a cost to the farmers, diversity and the pocket
 
smokedout said:
jamie olider makes a lot of his money from advertising sainsburys

other than turkey twizzlers how often have you heard him actually criticise the manufacturers and retailers this food he helps to promote

wonder whether he got paid more for the sainsburys ads or the school dinners series.
That is my major criticism of Oliver (other than his grating mockneyness). The supermarkets really are killing the nation's food supply.
 
he's not perfect and thats true.
I shop at a supermarket mostly buy fresh food tins of toms frozen meat etc hardly ever buy ready meals .
theres been several other people including dinner ladies and chiefs involved in making school meals better before jamie came along but he got a TV channel involved and made it personal.
there a whole genaration bringing kids up who know little or anything about cooking and nutition there mothers did'nt cook they don't cook.
a bit of junk food won't hurt but crisps and coke for brekkie followed by chips for lunch and sweets on the way home will make you fat lazy and hyperactive.
OF course children want to eat junk humans are designed to crave fat and sugar if your a hunter gather there the hardest food types to get hold of.
But being adults we have to say NO you can't we do actually know whats good for you:).
some parents do need help feeding a 2 yr old coke in a bottle is wrong :(
 
What I think is mad is that certain subjects taught in schools that used to be practical, have turned themselves into over-complex and useless wastes of time.

We used to do "cookery" at school, although even then it got called "Home Economics".

More recently, its called "Food Technology" and the kids don't seem to get taught the basics of actually cooking a meal from scratch.

They learn lots of stuff about how foods are made, which goes way over the heads of those people who most need to be taught to actually cook.

And then we wonder why "stupid" parents don't cook anything and "can't afford" to eat healthily, and instead give their kids sweets and crisps for lunch every day. D'oh!

They should have seen this one coming a LONG time before Jamie and turkey twizzlers hit the headlines.

Giles..
 
likesfish said:
some parents do need help feeding a 2 yr old coke in a bottle is wrong :(

It is really sad when I see little kids drinking stuff like that. Often though completely inappropriate drinks are directly marketed at kids. Ribena is the worst example. There is 14 teaspoons of sugar in one carton.
 
At a mother and toddler group I used to go, the health visitor that ran it, gently told off a mum for giving a toddler irn bru - and then went on to tell us that one hot summers day she did a home visit to a young mum and found her giving irn bru in a bottle to a six week old baby. She hid the fact that she was horrified and asked why she was giving her irn bru to drink, and the mum replied that the baby was thirsty but wouldnt take milk. The health visitor asked her why she didnt give the baby water, and she replied that that would be cruel. The health visitor put her straight.

I think there is a bit of an element of that with some parents - until quite recently in Scotland it was considered child abuse not to constantly give children sweeties.

Processed food frequently appears in BOGOFs, creating the illusion of saving money; they are attractively packaged and endorsed by all kinds of little "healthy eating", "especially for kids" badges. On the face of it it seems like a sensible purchase - its endorsed by a major supermarket who says that it is ideal to serve to children; it "saves money", children want it.

As a parent its really, really difficult to try to balance things in the face of the marketing constantly pushed at you - remember the sugar laden Sunny Delight, being pushed as a healthy drink for children? For ages I bought these little packaged rolls of what I then thought was condensed fruit (cant remember its name now, comes in a blue packet), before I realised that it was basically a well packaged sweetie.
 
Idaho said:
It is really sad when I see little kids drinking stuff like that. Often though completely inappropriate drinks are directly marketed at kids. Ribena is the worst example. There is 14 teaspoons of sugar in one carton.
Christ on a bike... are you serious? FOURTEEN?!?!?!? :eek:

I thought there were only 8 in a can of coke, then again maybe its 18
 
He's simply saying uk mcdonalds is improving and is better than us mcdonalds.

which is true.

I've not got the hate for jamie really.
 
Back
Top Bottom