Some dweeb nobody knows whines about food in America

[Michael Redman]

Wouldn't it be lovely if 90% of the problem was tied to simply sitting for long hours each day?

That would actually be pretty depressing, considering how many of us are stuck sitting for long hours in order to earn a living.

 

[Ixion]

I watch quite a bit of Food Network, and honestly didn't know who this guy was. I suppose I never watched his show.

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.

My mother's cousin is a regional manager of a supermarket chain here in the US. Having these types of people available would drive up the costs of food, even if only slightly. Supermarkets have very low mark-up compared to other businesses. They can only mark-up foods marginally over wholesale because otherwise people won't shop there at all. People would be up-in-arms if a gallon of milk was suddenly $6 (currently I spend about $2.50). I am hyperbolizing a bit, but my cousin does spend a good amount of time trying to balance cost effective marketing strategies. If you have these kinds of experts in the store, you have to find a way to pay them. The easiest way is to mark up the goods in the store. However, when you are dealing with nickels and dimes, it takes a lot of milk sales to pay for a certified dietician/food advisor to basically be on-hand in a supermarket. I hope you can understand my point of view.

About nutrition education in the US, I grew up in a family that encouraged cooking and trying new foods. I easily knew how to cook dozens of recipes before I left high school. I still cook most of my meals at home, and don't eat as unhealthy as some Americans do. I also know I am in the minority. Most of my friends would rather buy a frozen pizza or a hamburger before cooking. I think part of it is American apathy, and part is encouragement. When my friends visit me, we usually cook, and make a party out of it. Everyone loves getting involved, and they are surprised sometimes what can be created just out of a simple kitchen (we live in an apartment). With friends, it is a bit easier to encourage trying new foods I think, because they trust you. So even if they don't share your tastes completely, they might be willing to try a new food, because you recommended it. I think that is a great way to introduce new foods to people.

I loved eating lunch in my junior high. They had two areas - the cafeteria, and the "snack bar". The cafeteria served the option for a hot or cold lunch, along with vegetables and milk. They also had a salad bar for slightly more.
The "snack bar" sold sodas, microwave burritoes, pizza, hamburgers and fries, and corn dogs. For the same cost as anything in the "snack bar", I could get the salad bar, which I often did. However, in high school, the cafeteria only had a single prepared lunch or pizza and soda. I often times skipped lunch because the only options available did not appeal to me (even though I am not a picky eater). Once I got to college, I gained weight because of the food service there. I worked at the dorm cafeteria, and it was a marvel of food. 3 prepared entrees, 4 choices of veggies, soda, juice, milk, cereal bar, salad bar, dessert, ice cream all available. The entrees were generally nutritious and tasted good. It was the choices that swayed me.

Walking into a supermarket is kind of like going into a candy store for me. I love the choices. Sadly, when we go shopping for groceries, I know I can easily find my wife in the produce section, because oftentimes she will be the only person in that section. People simply avoid fruits and vegetables. The most crowded sections are the boxed meals and the frozen food aisles. This may be a sampling bias, but I do notice it. However, I hardly ever notice anyone (myself included) reading packaging labels. I don't because, frankly, I distrust them. I think many Americans can't be bothered to though.

I think this celebrity chef has some good ideas. I am not sure they can all be implemented. It will certainly take effort and people are resistant to change.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I'm sure he can do exaclty the same in the USA. He can also try, and fail.

But help me out here: When you say he "played a part in changing the eating habits of UK kids", do you mean that he made the same recommendations in the UK as he is quoted making in the OP, and that the UK implemented those recommendations?

I think it would be fair to say that his recommendations have been implemented in part.

Because, hey, if UK food companies are now education companies that also sell food and label all their non-Oliver-approved foods as UNHEALTHY,

Many do to some extent, using traffic light labelling

One of the major supermarkets, from their website:

"Sainsbury’s traffic-light labelling on the front of food and drink tells you if it has high (red), medium (amber) or low (green) amounts of fat, saturated fat, salt, sugar and calories.

It takes into account the type of food. For example, the calories segment for a croissant with 188 calories will be red but for a ready meal with 188 calories it will be green, as a ready meal makes up a greater proportion of your diet.

Tip: Try to go for more greens and ambers, and fewer reds."

http://www2.sainsburys.co.uk/food/h...standing_labelling/wheelofhealth_Jan+2006.htm

So for example something that is high in all of the categories has a very visible (front of pack) indicator of this. I would think that meets your definition of labelling it as unhealthy?

and UK supermarkets all have "food ambassadors",

Not sure - suspect the one that uses Oliver in its advertising probably does

and every UK schoolchild is taught to prepare ten different meals before they graduate,

I suspect more are now than before he started.

and this really has had an effect on eating habits of UK kids, and it's at least partly because of Oliver's influence...

See figures provided in relation to increased consumption of vegetables.

 

[Joe Random]

Not having heard of him prior to this thread I did some quick poking about on the web. If I’m mistaken please correct me, but from the bits I’d read on the web and in this thread, it appears that his focus is primarily on school children. Not to say that isn’t a laudable approach, but wouldn’t it be better to focus on adults and soon-to-be adults? It seems to me (warning : assumption alert!) that no matter how much better off the school environment is healthy-food wise, and no matter how much more open to good eating Junior is as a result, if Mom and Dad still only bring home crap packaged dinners from the store because they don’t know how to do anything else, won’t that end up being what sticks the most?

I’d read about Oliver’s campaign to get Americans to stop relying on fast food as an answer, and I’d think that’d be the type of education to better address the overall problem – a top-down teaching, rather than limiting dietary options to school kids so they’re almost ‘forced’ to realize spinach doesn’t suck. It seems, however, that his main (not saying only) target has been on kids.

This is just a layman’s observation about something being done in another country, not a statement that it's wrong and can't work here, is misguided, etc. It's also formed from what I've read briefly on the web and in this thread WRT what Oliver's main target appears to be. Since I have no special qualifications or knowledge in this area, if someone jumps in and says “here’s why you’re totally wrong :”, hey I’m open to being corrected, even though I am American

 

[drkitten]

Not having heard of him prior to this thread I did some quick poking about on the web. If I’m mistaken please correct me, but from the bits I’d read on the web and in this thread, it appears that his focus is primarily on school children. Not to say that isn’t a laudable approach, but wouldn’t it be better to focus on adults and soon-to-be adults?

Not really. There are already organizations focusing on Mom and Dad, and they've demonstrably not been as successful as Oliver's.

The advantages of Oliver's approach precisely that the kids at school are a captive audience and that the school authorities are insulated from the whiney kids who want pizza every day for lunch. The school authorities are also in a place -- they have time, money, and the needed expertise -- to make changes, in a way that Mom and Dad might not be.

The problem with education is that it often doesn't take. If you try to teach Mom and Dad to teach the kids to eat better, that's a two-stage teaching process, since Mom and Dad themselves are likely to blow you off. Mom and Dad may not be able to teach kids how to cook well for themselves; Mom and Day may not even know how to cook well. The school authorities can simply hire a cook who knows how to do something with fresh local seasonal veggies that doesn't suck,... no training involved.

So you're more likely to have uptake that gets all the way down to the kids through Oliver's approach.

There's nothing wrong, of course, with trying both methods at once. That's what Michelle Obama has been talking about, for instance, trying to persuade parents to take an interest in their children's diet. But Michelle O. is different than Jamie O. and there's no reason they shouldn't have different campaign styles to the same overall end....

 

[Minadin]

A sausage like food made from congealed blood and fat.

You Brits are officially disallowed from criticising any aspect of US cuisine whatsoever.


P.S. I've never heard of this Jamie Oliver guy, either.

 

[Fiona]

You Brits are officially disallowed from criticising any aspect of US cuisine whatsoever.

Don't knock it till you've tried it

 

[IchabodPlain]

In home economics, I learned how to make low mein from scratch, and I've never done it again since.

Didn't by chance ever learned to spell lo mein?

 

[IchabodPlain]

I'm a foreigner, and I know that only 43 men have been president

That is correct, but we count Obama as the 44th.

Incorrect, Obama is the 43rd man to be President. (There was only one Grover Cleveland)

 

[Foolmewunz]

Incorrect, Obama is the 43rd man to be President. (There was only one Grover Cleveland)

But the list of presidents generally goes by terms, and he's shown on those lists as the 44th. (And it doesn't matter a bit so let's forget I ever even mentioned it.)

 

[WildCat]

Don't knock it till you've tried it

Says someone whose national dish is haggis... a "food" which was banned in the US 20 years ago and no one even noticed.

 

[Fiona]

They are both good: your loss

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

That ban might be lifting now that the WHO has recommended sheep lung to be safe to eat. Haggis was banned for fear that sheep lung might spread "mad cow" disease. If it is lifted I am looking forward to trying it.

 

[shandyjan]

Theres much more to Jamie Oliver than you think. His visiting schools to educate, his coming up with recipes that kids enjoyed using the good stuff, I cant see what the problem is? Awareness is a good thing.
He does make hamburgers!He does wonderful roast dinners. He isnt advocating all rabbit food! Just trying to get the trend away from microwave meals and takeaways! He is just big on taste and less for the additives, salt and sugar.

 

[applecorped]

Do you get out much? Oliver a dweeb? Right now, he's likely the most recognized chef in the world.

I thought it would be Gordon Ramsey?

 

[Fengirl]

I seem to recall from the TV programme about Jamie's school dinners campaign that, in addition to the overall health benefits of better nutrition, there was quite a marked effect in terms of children's concentration and behaviour in class. There is quite an interesting paper here which discusses these other benefits of the programme.

 

[applecorped]

Where's the Surgeon General in all this?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=8129947&page=1

"But the full-figured African-American nominee is also under fire for being overweight in a nation where 34 percent of all Americans aged 20 and over are obese.
Critics and supporters across the blogsphere have commented on photos of Benjamin's round cheeks, saying she sends the wrong message as the public face of America's health initiatives.
But others support the 52-year-old founder and CEO of Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic, citing new research that shows you cannot always judge a book by its cover when it comes to obesity.


"I think it is an issue, but then the president is said to still smoke cigarettes," said Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine who is now a senior lecturer at Harvard University Medical School. "It tends to undermine her credibility."

 

[Number Six]

Count me as one who doesn't understand why eating locally is cheaper. I can see that shipping costs would be less and also canning and freezing costs that might be involved for foods coming from farther away. But other than that what is there? Aren't there other costs to consider? Producing the food cheaply, wherever it is produced, seems to be a pretty big factor. And on top of that, if you automatically buy local then you're systematically elminating 90%...or whatever...of the potential food vendors. Doesn't that give an incentive to your local food producer to charge more? After all, if people are going to buy the food from the local vendor regardless, why not raise the price?

As far as schools go, I think schools should not sell soda and candy in vending machines but the problem is that some schools have grown dependent on that income and now they can't give it up. That's one more reason for taxing entities to tax directly instead of resorting to tricks to raise money. But I don't think schools should have soda and candy machines and I also think they should serve the kids nutritious lunches. If parents want to let kids eat poorly at home or let them take bad from home to lunch then that's their business, but since kids have to go to school and are in the public care while their I think the school should take good care of them.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Largely, you have to eat the type of foods that can be grown locally at a regular expense. Eating oranges grown in Oregon would likely be more expensive than eating oranges grown in California even if you live in Oregon.


Admittedly food markets can be confusing and counter intuitive. California strawberries are cheaper at Oregon supermarkets than Oregon strawberries. California strawberies are more expensive at California markets than Oregon supermarkets. California strawberries are more expensive at California farmers markets than Oregon strawberries at Oregon farmers markets. Oregon strawberries are cheaper in the supermarkets of some other states than California strawberries. The cheapest option in Oregon is to buy Oregon grown from a farmers market (or even directly).

 

[Number Six]

Largely, you have to eat the type of foods that can be grown locally at a regular expense. Eating oranges grown in Oregon would likely be more expensive than eating oranges grown in California even if you live in Oregon.


Admittedly food markets can be confusing and counter intuitive. California strawberries are cheaper at Oregon supermarkets than Oregon strawberries. California strawberies are more expensive at California markets than Oregon supermarkets. California strawberries are more expensive at California farmers markets than Oregon strawberries at Oregon farmers markets. Oregon strawberries are cheaper in the supermarkets of some other states than California strawberries. The cheapest option in Oregon is to buy Oregon grown from a farmers market (or even directly).

Wouldn't other factors enter into it? For example, the opportunity cost of the land. The most ridiculous and yet as far as I can tell accurate example I can think of is the World Trade Center site. Since that land is now free to do anything we want with and since growing food locally is good then shouldn't we grow food on that land so all those people in NYC can eat locally? Well, no, because that land is worth a jillion dollars per acre so you'd get more value from it by putting a giant new building there and growing food for the workers on some land elsewhere that isn't in high demand. That example is extreme but the same principle goes for food grown anywhere. If whoever owns the land is foregoing doing something else on that land in order to grow food there then they'll want to recoup that money.

Another cost factor is how efficiently you grow the food. The more efficiently you do it the less you spend and therefore the less you charge the consumer. And the cost of picking the food comes into it too although maybe that comes under efficiency.

From a food growers perspective, everything else being equal, why would a Cal farmer want to sell in Oregon and an Oregon farmer sell in Cal? Why wouldn't the Cal farmer just say "Instead of shipping this stuff all the way to Oregon, I'll save the cost and just sell it here in Cal?" I don't know that answer to that question but it would probably tell us something about something.