• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Some dweeb nobody knows whines about food in America

*sigh*

It is my opinion that Americans eat way too much food that in excess is unhealthy.

It is my opinion that the reasons behind this have nothing in any way whatsoever to do with 1) a lack of education about what is healthy and what isn't, or 2) being too stupid to interpret nutrition labels, or 3) having never tasted a large variety of healthy foods before.

Therefore, I think Oliver's ambitions are misguided and will be ineffectual when it comes to America's so-called "obesity epidemic".
 
Somewhat undermined by the pizza I bought from school, at cheaper prices than the salads were sold at.
And this is a bigger problem. Healthy foods are generally more expensive than unhealthy food. Probably why poor people are more likely to be obese than wealthier people.
 
Last edited:
It is my opinion that Americans eat way too much food that in excess is unhealthy.

It is my opinion that the reasons behind this have nothing in any way whatsoever to do with 1) a lack of education about what is healthy and what isn't, or 2) being too stupid to interpret nutrition labels, or 3) having never tasted a large variety of healthy foods before.

Do you have any rational or evidential basis for your "opinion"?

Because otherwise it will be my opinion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Therefore, I think Oliver's ambitions are misguided and will be ineffectual when it comes to America's so-called "obesity epidemic".

Then what's your explanation for why Oliver's program worked in the UK?

The weight of the evidence is that this was a successful program on the east side of the Atlantic. I can't think of any relevant differences on the west side that would make this program unsuccessful. Especially since (as Darat pointed out) the objections you are raising are almost exactly the same ones that were raised against Oliver's program -- and those objections have been shown to be entirely unfounded and without merit.
 
I think some of you up in arms about his approach to school dinners think he is some kind of "health freak" - he isn't - he wants kids to have good food, not food that is the cheapest possible to make it palatable. When they have chicken he wants the kids to have chicken meat - not any flesh from a chicken rendered into a mush and then pressed out into "drumstick" shapes and labelled "chicken dippers". He is not about making them eat chickpeas with tofu! (ETA) Although he may add chickpeas to a recipe or offer a tofu based dish in the menu occasionally.
 
Last edited:
That is a pretense; in school, children would not be exposed at all to foods that people like Oliver disapprove of. I suppose that's okay, though, because those foods are "bad for you".

Anyone want to compare life expectancies between today and the time before all that horrible processed and fast food?
Also, while they're at it, can they show the life expectancy change between now and a time when all those hand grenades and nuclear weapons were available? Just two more life extenders that have gotten a bad rap.

Do you know the name of the logical fallacy you just pulled?
 
What makes you think the same schools which couldn't teach these people 3rd-grade math can teach them about proper nutrition?

Right, if I have an 18.6 ounce bottle with 90 calories per 8 ounce serving, and I have an 14.6 ounce bottle with 130 calories per 12 ounce serving, what is the ratio between the two in terms of calories?

If this takes you more than 5 seconds, you're not doing it while buying food. You can lie all you like, but it took you more than that.
 
Although it never really blossomed as he intended, I really liked Jamie Oliver's 'Pass It On' movement. He directly targeted those people who through choice, did not cook very much - if at all. In general, they were cynical about the time required, the taste difference, and the overall experience. The results were quite remarkable, and while it took a lot of effort from Mr Oliver to keep it working, it directly influenced the eating habits of those people. I'm not qualified to comment on the nutritional and health benefits, but the personal and social benefits were clear to see.
 
Right, if I have an 18.6 ounce bottle with 90 calories per 8 ounce serving, and I have an 14.6 ounce bottle with 130 calories per 12 ounce serving, what is the ratio between the two in terms of calories?
Too close to make a difference, though the 14.6 oz bottle has slightly fewer per oz. Pick whatever is cheaper/tastes better.

If this takes you more than 5 seconds, you're not doing it while buying food. You can lie all you like, but it took you more than that.
Actually, it didn't. But in the construction biz we do numbers in our heads a lot.

I'll note that bottles seldom come in such odd sizes.
 
That is not my position, no. That I don't think hamburgers or pizza slices should be banned from school lunches is not at all the same as thinking they should be "eaten every day as a staple".

... and if the kids in school choose hamburgers or pizza slices every day because that's what they're used to having, do they not become a staple..?
 
I have decided to address the news article directly.

Long Beach, California (CNN) -- Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver on Wednesday called for an overhaul of America's food system, saying the country's poor decisions about what to eat are shortening life spans and increasing health care costs.
I agree with this assessment. Our system encourages poor food choice by making poorer foods appear cheaper, if not outright resulting in a higher cost for a healthier diet.

"My wish is for you to have a strong, sustainable movement to educate every child about food, to inspire families to cook again and to empower people everywhere to fight obesity," he said in a speech at the TED Conference in Long Beach, California.
[sarcasm]The pretension of this man, how dare he wish that such a movement be strong and sustainable. The audacity to put his support and experience behind a movement in the US.[/sarcasm] Notice he is not claiming to start such a movement. He wants a strong sustainable movement and he is offering, unsolicited, his advice and experience in such movements.

Oliver, who is best known for the TV series, "The Naked Chef," will star in an upcoming ABC series where he promotes local, healthy food as a way to fight obesity in Huntington, West Virginia, which he called the most unhealthy community in the United States.
Promoting healthy eating and cooking habits through television progamming. I feel he may have some understanding of US culture.

"This is a global problem. It is a catastrophe. It is sweeping the world. England is right behind you [America], as usual," he said. "We need a revolution."
Emotional pleading. I choose to ignore this and move on to something substational.

Oliver was awarded the TED Prize, which is given to speakers each year at the nonprofit group's conference. Prize winners are invited to make one "wish" that will change the world. The organization gives the winner $100,000 and helps honorees raise money to make their wishes come true.
This sounds promising. Money is important in supporting an educational campaign.

Members of the audience stood up to pledge Oliver their support after his short talk.
Hopefully they do something more directly active.

Oliver, who grew up working in his father's pub and restaurant in Essex, England, outlined a number of specific steps to help America get back to local and fresh foods and to combat obesity. Among them, he said:
Here comes the meat!

• Every child in the U.S. should learn to cook 10 meals before leaving high school.
I agree with this. This is a sorely under educated part of our lifestyles now. In the past cooking was often regulated to home cooking, or focussed on a specific gender in the US. The change in the US lifestyle and culture has restricted the practical effect of how my generation learns food preperation. A friend of mine has taken up a culinary education and is surprised by the ease of cooking. Teaching the basics of cooking would have practical use.

• Supermarkets should appoint "food ambassadors" to explain to customers how they can prepare local, fresh and seasonal foods.
I both support and worry about this suggestion. Is this someone with actual knowledge and certification? Will they be butting into my actual shopping or would this be something I need to seek out at my supermarket? I do welcome the idea of a professional advisor available at supermarkets, the reasons I gave in a previous post.

• Food companies should make education a central part of their business.
I care less about this. I would prefer to keep my marketing and educational organizations separate.

• Food labeling should be improved to accurately warn people about unhealthy food. He called America's current food-labeling system a "farce."
I agree with this to a degree. It would help if there was more standardization in food labelling.
 
Jamie Oliver isn't any different than a good portion of high profile American chefs. Alice Waters, was probably the premier chef to advocate, grow local, eat healthy, and promote this in schools. Iron Chef America just ran a 2 hour special, where Michelle Obama implored the chefs to make food with ingredients from the White House garden. This in an effort to eat local, make wise food choices and make Americans more healthy.

The problem isn't nutrition. Kids know what nutrition is. It is crammed down everyone's throat. The fundamental problem is what to do with the nutrition. People aren't being taught how to cook food anymore. High Schools have dropped classes like Home Ec for more academics. Families are spending less time in the kitchen and more time with prepared foods. Even if you are "cooking a meal", often times it is out of a bag, jar, or freezer.

In culinary school, you would be amazed at how many people didn't know the basics of how to cook food. And these are people who want to be chefs. In the restaurant, you would be surprised at how many times I had to train people in the basics including how many quarts in a gallon and how to read a recipe (and I am talking about the American workers).

There is a need to educate the people who are cooking food for our kids on how to get them to eat "good" foods. While spinach is cheep and easy food to cook (or ruin), there is a reason most kids think its icky, it's a bitter green. Kid's pallets don't do well with bitters. There is a reason that people "grow into" certain veggies. If the people cooking food for the kids understand how to put a meal together, then getting kids to eat healthier foods becomes easier and not a chore.

In the end, it comes back around to cooking. We know what is healthy and what is not. Many people simply don't know what to do with the healthy stuff.
 
No, I wouldn't. Kids still have to eat.

Yes, they do.

Not everything I eat I eat because I am hungry, though.

If there is food I like and enjoy, I'd rather eat sooner than later. If I am not too hungry, though, I'd skip a meal or have it later if that increases my chances of getting something I enjoy eating.

So, if the school changed their offers to food that was thought of as less enjoyable, people would eat less of it.
 
One of the things which was important in Oliver's success in the UK was his exposure of how little money schools spent on providing meals. It came as a surprise to a lot of people and there was quite a bit of pressure to make a bit more money available for food. I have no idea how this works in the US, though.
 
What the hell does "local" food have to do with healthy food?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom