Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » What are your thoughts on Jamie Olivers food revolution (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: What are your thoughts on Jamie Olivers food revolution
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stumbled across this on hulu

http://www.hulu.com/jamie-olivers-food-revolution

, it is basically a chef who 'revolutionized' Britians school food program, comes to the US to change the school food system in 'the most obese city' in the US.


I was actually a bit shocked by watching a bit of it - all of the food in the schools food program was large portion sweets (chocolate and strawberry milk), fried foods and dipping sauces. The marginally healthy stuff was all dumped in the garbage.

Also there was massive hostility to him.

Have you watched this, what are your thoughts?

Just started watching it.

LetterRip

[ April 14, 2010, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There was hostility to him in Britain too, at least at first. Thoughts? Lot of kids have horrible eating habits in the 1st world...
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He does some approaches I do don't like, trying to use disgust with the processing method to try and get people to give up food such as chicken McNuggets.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sounds like an interesting show.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also he is trying to 'fight the system' ie disagrees with USDA (I tend to agree), is trying to make a huge change at once (ie change all of the food made).

I admire his courage but he doesn't have much chance with how big a change he is trying to make at once.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He is also trying to get things like major time investments in switching to cooking from scratch.

He dropped off a bunch of recipies with a family with limited experience doing cooking.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Massachusetts recently passed a law trying to alter the food content in schools.

My district hired a new food director last fall, who told the administration she wanted to do more healthy options (whole grains, more vegetables, no fried food, try to purchase local ingredients). The cafeteria ladies didn't like the changes, and the administration didn't back her up, so she quit. I found the quality of food went down after she quit, both health content and taste.

Oh well.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sauurman
Member
Member # 6467

 - posted      Profile for Sauurman   Email Sauurman       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think schools should provide a choice of foods. It shouldn't be about forcing kids to pick one over the other. That being said there should be requirements for physical education. RESULTS based requirements in order to pass.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And if they don't meet the requirements?

I see where you're coming from, but holding a kid back a grade or denying him a high school diploma because he can't run a six mile minute seems a little harsh.

If you're going to back up giving children a "choice" in what food they can get at school (something I disagree with, there are plenty of things we don't give children a choice over) then what it should be accompanied by is food/eating education. This is already provided in health class, I think, but maybe the way its taught could be improved.

Being overweight or obese brings it's own myriad array of punishments. Messing with a kid's progression in their education seems overly harsh, though I agree doing SOMETHING is called for.

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think schools should provide a choice of foods.
Sure. There should be a variety of healthy foods offered, and there shouldn't be vending machines with soda or potato chips in the cafeteria. If parents want their children to have junk food, they can send it in with their kids.

[ April 15, 2010, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sure. There should be a variety of healthy foods offered, and there shouldn't be vending machines with soda or potato chips in the cafeteria. If parents want their children to have junk food, they can send it in with their kids.
Exactly! I fail to see any compelling reason why it would ever be reasonable or necessary to offer kids candy bars and soft drinks at school. Let them eat that crap at home if they want it and if their parents allow it.

Why would a public institution, or for that matter, even a private one, go out of its way to offer them junk, particularly when half of them are obese?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I fail to see any compelling reason why it would ever be reasonable or necessary to offer kids candy bars and soft drinks at school."

Because of...kaching!

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because of...kaching!
Bingo. Schools want the revenue, even if it means damaging the health of their students.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did they manage to keep drugs out of the schools while I wasn't looking? I mean, apart from strip-searching kids for ibuprofen?

Somebody's going to make money off the soda kids drink, it might as well be the school.

Food habits are learned in the home, and that's the place to address nutrition and obesity. Buy the kid a bike and give the PS3 to charity.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Expecting the parents to act responsibly does not absolve the schools of their responsibilities in loco parentis. Just because one parent is being abusive does not forgive the other (acting) parent's abuse.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Did they manage to keep drugs out of the schools while I wasn't looking? I mean, apart from strip-searching kids for ibuprofen?

Somebody's going to make money off the soda kids drink, it might as well be the school.

Doesn't that same argument imply that we should be letting the school also sell cigarettes and alcohol (and other drugs) to kids?

In an opinion poll conducted in 2003 among Greek highschool kids (http://www.in.gr/sports/article.asp?lngDtrID=244&lngEntityID=383571) , 32% were in favor of being allowed to buy cigarettes in the school cafeterias. 20% also wanted to be able to buy alcohol.

*Their* most commonly given given argument was they didn't want to have to walk all the way to a nearby kiosk. But I think that your own argument also works.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you never have, read up on Appleton, WI school district and their food program.

Better grades, happier kids, less discipline problems, happier parents, fewer cases of ADHD, healthier students, etc. All from proper nutrition.

Saw Oliver's bit on the chicken nuggets - didn't care for his strategy there either. That chicken carcass is quite good eating for many things. If all he added was an organic ground up chicken and some organic flour & spices, I'd eat them as well.

The problem are the GMO soy and corn additives, and, even if not GMO, the heavy addition of corn by-products, specifically HFCS and other sweeteners, as well as food-type products that are so processed they have zero nutritional value.

Now, when you start talking about eliminating the nutritionally-void fillers, then you start talking big money, big lobbies, and our farm bill and soy/corn subsidies. The school lunch program are the bottom of the drain for keeping big Ag subsidized and running. You can’t change the national school lunch programs without taking on big Ag and the farm bill and farm subsidies.

Who would have thought giving little Johnny an apple a day instead of a bag of corn chips a day would be so political?

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Somebody's going to make money off the soda kids drink, it might as well be the school.
Clearly somebody will make money off the kids, and clearly banning bad foods from school grounds won't preclude all consumption of bad foods. However, as a matter of common sense, if you ban these products from the building where a kid spend most of his waking hours, that's going to cut consumption substantially. Yes, he can get it after school or at home. But at least he won't have it for lunch or for breakfast, or in for snack. No kid is going to go home after school and go out of his way to consume additional candy bars and sodas to make up for what he couldn't consume during the school day.

Why again should a school profit from a child's bad eating habits by contributing substantially to those bad habits?

quote:
The problem are the GMO soy and corn additives
Keep the anti-GMO nonsense out of your argument. As you pointed out, it's not necessary to make your point about harmful additives.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
asmalls4
Member
Member # 6504

 - posted      Profile for asmalls4   Email asmalls4       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's a good idea to offer healthy alternatives for those kids who don't want to eat the deep fried, smothered in sauce, foods that are offered. At my high school,well, one of them, we had a salad bar,some sandwich options, and whatever hot meal they made that day. I think that is a better way to go than trying to over haul the entire lunch system. School lunches are meant to be cheap, and a lot of the healthy food options can be kind of expensive. I like what he is trying to do though. To try and get our kids to eat healthier.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I applaud his efforts here. I only saw part of one show so I can't really comment on specific arguments or techniques, but I like the general idea of improving the quality of what we feed our children in school lunch programs and teaching the importance of good nutrition to those students. He's not the only one out there trying to get changes made, but I think that his efforts are currently the highest profile nationally and therefore the most likely to make the average citizen actually think about it for more than a moment or two.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jason what's "nonsense" to you is a gathering storm for health food advocates. For example, recent studies show liver and kidney damage from GMO foods: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244824/Fears-grow-study-shows-genetically-modified-crops-cause-liver-kidney-damage.html
Strangely, these are just some of the warnings scientists voiced way back when - go figure.

The book "Seeds of Deception" is a good read on all the technical details, if anyone's interested.

That coupled with already unhealthily additives makes it that much more important. The cheapest crops are GMO, and the cheapest crops/food-like substances are what is predominantly dumped into these programs.

It's quite relevant.

-------------

Offering healthy alternatives is all fine and good, until you understand that some of these additives are excitotoxins, and work quite similar to hard-core drugs in the brain: http://newsletter.vitalchoice.com/e_article001718787.cfm?x=bgLW4qL,b6VpMS38,w

Plain and simple, you need to remove the junk food and food-like substances. You can offer choices so long as they are real food.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jason what's "nonsense" to you is a gathering storm for health food advocates. For example, recent studies show liver and kidney damage from GMO foods: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244824/Fears-grow-study-shows-genetically-modified-crops-cause-liver-kidney-damage.html
Strangely, these are just some of the warnings scientists voiced way back when - go figure.

If you read between the lines in your article, you'll see that there's not much substance here. Even someone without a science background can see this. Organ damage due to what? How does the genetic modification cause this? What type of modification is at issue? Does the organ damage result from all modifications? Is there any evidence that this occurs in humans?

There's not a shred of evidence to support the contention that GM foods are harmful to humans. There is not one reported case anywhere of anyone becoming ill or dying due to eating a genetically modified food product. Indeed, the notion itself is absurd since virtually all of our food supply has been genetically modified over thousands of years through human agricultural practices.

I've spoken with people who have actual backgrounds in organic chemistry who have indicated to me that the campaign against GM is not based in any kind of scientific fact. What we have is fear-mongering and pseudo-science peddled by people capitalizing on the ignorance of the public, coupled with the increased drive towards so-called "organic" foods.

For a good discussion of the anti-GM hysteria, I'd recommend reading the Skeptic's Dictionary entry on this subject:

Organic Foods

The burden is on the anti-GM crowd to prove that GM foods are dangerous. Their arguments thus far have amounted to little more than scare-mongering. They shriek about "Frankenfoods" and gullible people believe them with no real proof.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
School lunches are meant to be cheap, and a lot of the healthy food options can be kind of expensive.
I'm not so sure I believe this. I think that deep fried food is relatively easy to streamline and prepare, to be sure. But personal experience at the supermarket again and again has made me question the myth that healthy food is inherently expensive and unhealthy food is inherently cheap.

I think that kids have been indoctrinated by McDonalds et al. to have a taste for certain types of foods that rely on the deep fryer primarily. I think that school cafeterias have, for whatever reason, followed the fast food model of food preparation. I'm not convinced that this is an immutable or inevitable situation, or that somehow only french fries and burgers are affordable to produce.

But suppose it is a little more expensive? If there's one area where we can justify asking just a little more money from people, shouldn't it be here? Kids are obese and suffering from diabetes in record numbers and we're quibbling over pocket change?

We may not be able to stop kids from shovelling garbage into their mouths when they're at home or out with friends, but why should a school aid and abett (let alone profit from) this destructive behaviour?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can only lead the horse to the water; nevertheless, as I said, it's quite valid regardless of your insistence otherwise. There's plenty of information if you care to read it. For example, you can look into the sh!t storm from the UK several years back that caused them to ban GM foods. Much of that had to do with a Dr. Pusztai's research into GM potatoes - that turned up issues with GI lesions, liver damage, suppressed immune systems, and even that the potatoes were 20% less nutritious than their standard counterparts (from a study with rats). Of course, there is also plenty of info that claims the opposite. It stands to reason an industry that has billions, possibly trillions, of dollars at stake would promote itself heavily and deny any and all malfeasance.

Jason, you can choose to support the industry side - that's your prerogative and quite fine with me. But to claim there isn't a "shred of evidence" is just being an obtuse ideologue.

GM/non-GM aside,
Healthy food can be perfectly inexpensive. A couple handfuls of veggies, a cup of rice, and some seasoning and you have a veggie stir fry for a couple of dollars.

[ April 15, 2010, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By your arguments, jason, you might well ask why schools sell candy for fundraisers and why girl scouts sell cookies. Because that's what's in demand!

Personally, I think the fixation on food is a bit much. I had school lunch made of chickwiches, pigs in blankets, spaghetti, and other near-fast-food items. I was at my target weight, and so were the majority of my classmates. The differences as I see it are

1. Kids no longer walk to school, they are chauffeured by their parents to the front door.

2. Sedentary entertainment has replaced sports and outdoor activities that burn calories and raise metabolisms.

Am I truly against having healthy food alternatives? That's fine, as long as you're not asking me to pay for it. It costs $1.92 to provide a school lunch.

So you can forget about shopping at whole foods for free range chickens. You can also forget about the average lunch lady being able to blanch vegetables for 1000 students. It's not exactly Rachel Rey back there.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't have to buy whole range chickens, but you shouldn't be deep frying the chickens, either.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been resisting the urge to be my usual snarky, misanthropic-cranky self while reading this thread. I'll stick to one primary point here and try to avoid being condescending.

Deep frying your food is not inherently bad...

Depends on the oil you are using.

The cheapest oil is GMO-Big Agriculture-produced, Federally subsidized vegetable oils - Soy, Corn and Canola.

These oils are mass produced using high heat, high pressure, and solvents like Hexane to extract the oil from the vegetable matter.

The high heat and pressure destroys all Omega fatty acids EXCEPT for Omega 6 fatty acids.

This is one of the primary reasons why you always here about how we need to eat more Omega 3 fatty acids.

For optimal human health, you should have a ratio of 1:1 between Omega 3 and Omega 6 fatty acids. Too much of one or the other has negative healthy consequences on the human body, on a cellular level.

Prior to the mid 1980's, all deep fried foods were fried in either lard, tallow, suet, or other animal based fats. These fats, after being unfairly demonized by a wide variety of sources for a variety of reasons, were all discontinued and so began the rise of deep fried fare using cheap vegetable oils....which has lead to an epidemic of people who's Omega Fatty acid ratios way out of whack - perhaps 30:1 Omega 6 to Omega 3.

Furthermore, because of the high heat and solvent extraction process, vegetable oils are oxidized and rancid before they're even bottled and shipped to your grocery stores.

So the vegetable oil manufacturers have deodorize and filter the oil to hide it's rancidity and oxidized state.

Than they typically pack it into clear bottles, exposing the oils to light while it sits on your store shelves, leading to further oxidization.

Eating this oil introduces a whole host of free radicals into your body, and the unbalanced Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio also promotes inflammation on a cellular level.

Saturated fats, on the other hand, are stable and resist damage from light and heat, which also preserves the fragile Omega 3 fatty acids...unlike vegetable oils in which the extraction and deodorization process destroys the Omega 3's

Finally, most restaurants that serve fare fried in vegetable oil, typically use and reuse the vegetable oils over and over again...sometimes for months, before changing it. The constant re-heating further oxidizes and promotes rancidity in these oils...that were already rancid to begin with.

If you stop eating foods fried in cheap vegetable oils for a long period of time, and you only eat foods fried in healthy fats like lard, tallow, suet, and the tropical oils such as coconut and palm oil (all highly saturated to protect that protect the oil from oxidization), and than you happen to eat some fried foods from a restaurant, you can actually taste just how rancid the oil really is.

As for this guy and his show - good luck, buddy. While I agree that his emphasis on fresh whole foods is in the right direction, his demonization of "Fat" is one of the reasons why this country is so sickly.

Yeah, everyone needs to eat more veggies...but grains (even whole grains) are not veggies, and starchy vegetables like corn and potatoes are not that healthy either.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, jason, as for the entire GMO argument...

...yes, it's true that human beings over the centuries have certainly modified food plants through a variety of means, but the big difference here is the primary purpose for GMO today is to engineer crops to accept RoundUp.

In this way, Big Ag can literally drench their crops in RoundUp, which kills everything in the field except for the GMO crops.

You think such a liberal use of a chemical pesticide might have some residuals in the food...and that those residual pesticides, which literally kills all life forms not GM'd to accept it, would have no effect on your body over time...

...well, whatever. Sometimes you don't need "scientific evidence" to connect the dots.

[ April 15, 2010, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm a native of Huntington, the supposed fattest city in America and the place where this show was based. I am certain that anything a nutritionist did to my old cafeteria menu would have been an improvement. But it really is a reflection of the city as a whole. I believe we have more hotdog and donut chains than any other place on the planet. Personally I think it's all the more reason to alter the diet at school, but it will be a tough sell to both students and parents. I would have hated it as a student and would probably be a healthier adult for it now. I have eating habits from childhood that I am still struggling to break, so I hope he will have at least some level of success. Or at least I hope the school board will get some proceeds from the show and improve the teachers if they can't improve the diet!
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They could find some compromises on some foods and the hot dogs would be a great example because you could use whole grain buns and lower fat or even fat free turkey franks. There is also good organic milk now with DHA, and there are a lot of other examples of healthful alternatives to the food people still like to eat and drink. Of course, the price does go up. What's the price we're willing to put on the health of our children?
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
whole grain buns and lower fat or even fat free turkey franks.

[DOH]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Stumbled across this on hulu

http://www.hulu.com/jamie-olivers-food-revolution

, it is basically a chef who 'revolutionized' Britians school food program, comes to the US to change the school food system in 'the most obese city' in the US.


I was actually a bit shocked by watching a bit of it - all of the food in the schools food program was large portion sweets (chocolate and strawberry milk), fried foods and dipping sauces. The marginally healthy stuff was all dumped in the garbage.

Also there was massive hostility to him.

Have you watched this, what are your thoughts

He. One, that the pea pod costume looks just like what I wore for Halloweeen (my wife was the princess).

Two, that any American that opposes teaching kids to eat more veggies and less fried foods and sweet dipping sauces, is lower on the moral food chain than Al Qaeda.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They taste good enough to me. Chicago style fit frank all the way from James Coney Island? I'd eat that even as a kid.

Or did you mean that they aren't as healthy as they're supposed to be?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or did you mean that they aren't as healthy as they're supposed to be?

Yes..."fat-free" and "fat-lite" are all disinfo designed to make you THINK they're healthier than "whole fat" food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?sec=health

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?ex=1349668800&en=67642ef2330f51af&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-moyer_04edi.State.Edition1.1a678b2.html

[ April 15, 2010, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Food is healthier than things that are not food. Less processing, more cooking. Less artificial substitutes for things that are best in moderation when eaten at all. A little balance.

(I never quit using lard or butter and I put bacon grease on everything that could possibly benefit from it and my cholesterol is 160. Go figure.)

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
everything that could possibly benefit from it and my cholesterol is 160. Go figure.

PRECISELY MY POINT! [Eek!]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The GMO thing is interesting. So far as I know there is not any compelling evidence so far showing that GMOs cause harm in mammals when ingested. Though it's far from ridiculous to think that they might. I will try to look into it and see what things look like now; I'm not really up-to-date on that argument.

The more immediate concerns to me are, first, the one Daruma mentioned - the pesticide-tolerant crop leading to excess use of pesticide and the environmental effects thereof. Not to mention the health effects on people living and working nearby. I don't know if the increase in pesticide would change the levels in the final food product.

On the other hand - some of the GMOs are in fact modified to produce their own pesticide, or to require fewer inputs, or to provide more complete nutrition. And these have a definite net health and environmental benefit, at least in the short term.

But I still worry, because planting huge swathes of open-pollinated genetically-modified crops when you (as a society) don't entirely understand all the mechanisms behind genetic control of phenotype seems a leetle risky.

[ April 15, 2010, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: OpsanusTau ]

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But surely turkey is more healthful than what goes into a lot of hotdogs?
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]

That depends - organic, free range, grass fed beef or buffalo hot dogs would be a hell of a lot more "healthful" than "fat free" or "lean", factory- farmed turkey hot dogs...

Understand, cherry, that the only reason "turkey dogs" gained any kind of market traction was due to the mistaken notion that saturated fat is "bad" for you, and turkey is 'leaner' than beef or pork.

Consider this...let's just say you don't give a crap if one is "bad" for you, and one is "good" for you. Going on taste alone, would you prefer a "fat free" turkey dog, or a Chicago Style beef frank?

See what I mean when I say there is a variety of interests in the idea that saturated fat is bad for you? Without that idea being inculcated into mainstream consciousness, turkey dogs wouldn't even exist! [LOL]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, if my posts are really confusing you...read this thread and you'll understand where I'm coming from: http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=19;t=000031;p=0&r=nfx
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1