Spicy Roasted Chickpeas
Picnic Recipes Galore
Corner-Store Party Food on the Fly
9 Chili Recipes, Bison to Vegan
How to Choose the Best Strawberries
Sausage Recipes of the Month
With the debut of his new program Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, the British chef has dramatically raised his profile stateside. And if you're one of the millions who believes that Oliver is on a noble crusade to save the world's schoolchildren from fattening, poorly made, industrialized school lunch, you might want to pop over to that libertarian bastion, Reason, for a look at the other side of the argument.
In an unremittingly hostile piece, writer Baylen Linnekin skewers Oliver as proponent of crazy liberal government spending for government spending's sake:
"Oliver launched the Feed Me Better campaign, which he designed with the admirable goal of getting British school kids to eat healthier food. But while he could have argued in favor of parents or kids packing the cheap, easy, and tried-and-true alternative to school food--brown bag lunches--Oliver opted instead to urge more government control and increased spending on big-ticket items."
What this point (which is made in various "big spender!" iterations that seem calculated to win mega-dittos and Diggs from the Tea Party Nation) seems to miss is the following: Many of the children who are most in need of a nutritious, well-balanced lunch are from the families who are least able to provide them in brown bag form. What Oliver is demanding--relatively healthy school meals made with more whole food ingredients--is, in fact, sometimes more expensive than simply defrosting bags of Tyson chicken nuggets. The real argument should be whether the health and day-to-day ability to learn of schoolchildren is worth increased government spending.
Linnekin doesn't want to discuss the fact that school lunch is the only option that some children get; instead, he's busy lighting off pyrotechnics. Particularly enjoyable is when the writer manages to tie Oliver to the World War II-era German bombing raids on London:
"(Oliver’s better-eating-and-living-through-wartime-rationing cant doesn’t hold up to common sense or hard wartime truths, which in addition to food rationing included the quite unhealthy consequences of more than one-half-million British war dead and lengthy periods of nightly Nazi bombing raids on London and other British cities.)"
So, yeah. Somehow, we go from Oliver making the relatively sane point that wartime austerity and victory gardens had a healthy impact on British diets to Oliver deliberately ignoring "hard wartime truths" like Nazi bombs. Which are related to school lunch. Somehow.
Only slightly more relevant is when Linnekin points out that Oliver was, at one point, fat. And that he has used the word "manifesto." And that he made a claim to Sudanese ancestry at one point. Upshot: this isn't a well-argued dissection of Oliver's program, it's a drive-by shotgun attack.
This is a shame. Amid all the hysteria, Linnekin scores some completely valid points that would be fascinating to explore in depth and with ample supporting evidence. For example: Kids have rejected Oliver's meals because of their taste. Not all of his meals have hit their nutritional goals. There is data suggesting that kids eating Oliver's Feed Me Better program food actually performed worse than (or at the same rate) as before the program was implemented. (The authors of the paper that might suggest this--according to Linnekin, who I'm a little reluctant to trust amid all his other mud-slinging--also suggest that absences related to illness dropped notably in the schools using Oliver's dietary program.)
A more thoughtful editor might have gotten this screed, looked it over, and said: "Look, let's dump the Fibber McGee's closet of attack stuff and drill down and explore the data from the paper that suggests Oliver's food doesn't actually help children perform better. Why? What's going on here? And is there an economically feasible way to improve school food for kids who can't brown bag it effectively?"
Instead: A 10-gauge blast of right-wing keywords. Ladies and gentlemen, the usually excellent and thought-provoking journal Reason presents Jamie Oliver: Big government-loving, overspending, socialist jerk.
Our kids brown-bag it four of the five school days each week. Half a sandwich (usually almond butter/jelly), an apple or orange, maybe some cheese or yogurt and some sort of snack. The approximate tab for each lunch is about $2. We allow them to have $1.25 school lunches on fridays as they get a kick out of these. Considering what our kids tell us what they eat at school lunch and how it's...+READ
Our kids brown-bag it four of the five school days each week. Half a sandwich (usually almond butter/jelly), an apple or orange, maybe some cheese or yogurt and some sort of snack. The approximate tab for each lunch is about $2. We allow them to have $1.25 school lunches on fridays as they get a kick out of these. Considering what our kids tell us what they eat at school lunch and how it's prepared, I can see this subject being an easy target. And considering about 65-70% of the kids at our school are on public assistance, this becomes a hot issue with hardcore Libertarians, conservative Repubs, etc. I can see their logic - if you can't afford a one to two-dollar lunch for your kids, what business do you have having kids and why should you impose their welfare on the rest of society on a permanent basis? It's an issue that will definitely divide "heartless" conservatives and "bleeding heart" liberals.
I have yet to watch this show, and I know that there have been other chefs who have made similar attempts at realigning kids' food choices. But like daver37 mentions, the ultimate responsibility falls on the parents to care for their kids' needs, and teach their kids on food, relations, character, etc.
Our society in general has become so reliant on the govt to do this for us, to fix that for us, etc. This is evidenced by the entitlement mentality of so many who work for or are reliant on what the govt hands out to them. This mentality displaces values like hard work, community and self-responsibility. It's no wonder that wacko groups like the Tea Party have no problem recruiting the minds of so many who are frustrated with the current system.-COLLAPSE
daver37—that's just it, though; there are many children whose parents are struggling enough (as has been pointed out) that school lunch (and in some cases breakfast) is their best chance for nutrition each day.
It's extremely short-sighted to criticize increased government spending on good-quality food for children. The UK has a public healthcare system. It doesn't make sense to save a couple of pence per meal per child if it means you raise a population of obese diabetics. The government pays one way or the other, and broccoli is cheaper than CABGs and stroke rehab.
What the hell , little Jamie is just a marketing tool who pushed the price of basic foodstuffs through the roof , as he endeavoured to show "his working class credentials " to his target audience. He is not what I would call a "chef" , but rather a person chosen by a producer to fill a market niche for those for whom that appeals.
What I think no one is mentioning is the amount of responsibility the parents have on educating their children. It is all too common to just assume the government will raise them for us. I would like to see more parents involved in websites like this.
I think you're just ridiculously misreading this story and taking some rather cheap shots, James. Reason is anything but a place for "right-wing keywords," and unlike other comments here suggest, it certainly has little "tea bagger" appeal. It's a small-l libertarian publication with a long and august history of skepticism of government involvement in individuals' choices. It's hardly a Randroid...+READ
I think you're just ridiculously misreading this story and taking some rather cheap shots, James. Reason is anything but a place for "right-wing keywords," and unlike other comments here suggest, it certainly has little "tea bagger" appeal. It's a small-l libertarian publication with a long and august history of skepticism of government involvement in individuals' choices. It's hardly a Randroid bastion either:
http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/10/will-everyone-please-stop-frea
Jamie Oliver is a celebrity first, a cook second, and a nutritionist dead last. As the article points out, he does things like putting out children's lunch menus containing 1,183 calories, while hectoring people obviously chosen for maximum TV-hick appeal about how lousy their food is. It's a shtick,and one that's offensive to many people.
Our school lunch systems need a massive overhaul. Forgive me if I, like the author of this story, remain extremely skeptical of a Ryan Seacrest production bringing a largely-failed British import's ideas over here.-COLLAPSE
Well, one criticism that isn't valid is the "more government control" argument right up at the top. Public school lunches are provided by a governmental agency. They already had absolute control. I don't see how them changing what they serve changes the degree to which they are in control (except, perhaps, that they are less influenced by pushers of industrialized food products).
The criticisms are valid, if over the top. But then again, the same thing could be said about Jamie Oliver's criticism of the food situation. This show is nothing more than "Extreme Home Makeovers-Food Edition" except that Jamie isn't anywhere near as obnoxious as Ty Pennington (at least not yet).
Those WV kids did not know basic vegetables! I'm not even talking eggplant, which not everyone eats. But tomatoes? What is wrong with this picture?
What do you expect from a tea bagger? Common sense? In touch with reality ?
Libertarians are often crazy. Their spiritual leader, Ayn Rand, was a lunatic who was a big admirer of a serial killer in her time, praising his lack of concern for other people.