Some dweeb nobody knows whines about food in America

[Rolfe]

Oh sure, great information, but he asked if taxes had gone up as a direct result of the changes. I don't live in England and I think it would be community charge that would be the funding source, so I can't be certain that I'm right. But so far as I know there has been no increase in taxation as a direct result of that spending. I thought it would be useful to clarify that.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Oh sure, great information, but he asked if taxes had gone up as a direct result of the changes. I don't live in England and I think it would be community charge that would be the funding source, so I can't be certain that I'm right. But so far as I know there has been no increase in taxation as a direct result of that spending. I thought it would be useful to clarify that.

Rolfe.

No it was definitely central government that provided the additional funding, whether that is still the case I don't know and taxes across the UK have gone up since then....

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

Partly this is from necessity because the funding they get from government is pretty minimal, but it involves children in the whole process, gives them an understanding of where food comes from and how it is produced, and they get some nice tasty meals at the end of it. Win-win in my opinion.

It also has the benefit of teaching them proper, sustainable farming techniques, which is probably useful, especially in that part of the world.

Truthfully, I think planting and maintaining a garden, and harvesting and using the produce in schools would provide very useful lessons for children, but I'm not sure that many schools have available (or arable) land to devote. I would send my children to a school that offered such a curriculum in a heartbeat.

One thing my son's school did was prepare and serve a meal for the mothers on Mother's day. They made the placemats and other table decorations, learned how to set a table, baked scones and prepared fruit salad, and cleaned up afterwards. Yes, there was adult supervision, but the adults taught and supervised, not performed the work. All valuable life skills... And it was the Children's House that did this, so the children were between six and nine years old.

When the older children moved to a new campus when they were nine to 12 years old, they were expected to spend a couple hours a week maintaining the landscaping. Yes, adults were on-hand to work the heavy (dangerous) equipment, but the kids did the routine pruning and such not.

If the school had wanted to plant a garden and teach cooking, I'd have backed the notion in a heartbeat.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No it was definitely central government that provided the additional funding, whether that is still the case I don't know and taxes across the UK have gone up since then....

Funding was £235M over three years. There are approx. 31m taxpayers in the UK. I make that an average increase in taxation of about £2.50 a year. Checkmite, does that sound like decent value for money? If I thought a government was using all the tax I paid that effectively, I would never even think of voting for anyone else.

Dave

 

[Checkmite]

Funding was £235M over three years. There are approx. 31m taxpayers in the UK. I make that an average increase in taxation of about £2.50 a year. Checkmite, does that sound like decent value for money? If I thought a government was using all the tax I paid that effectively, I would never even think of voting for anyone else.

Dave

This is close to what I'm asking, but not exactly. Sure, the cost of the program divided by however many people would get you a hypothetical figure; but did tax actually increase because of the program, and by how much? And most importantly of all, what form did the tax increase take - sales? Income? Property? What?

Darat said the government money only helped. How was the balance of the program's costs covered?

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is close to what I'm asking, but not exactly. Sure, the cost of the program divided by however many people would get you a hypothetical figure; but did tax actually increase because of the program, and by how much? And most importantly of all, what form did the tax increase take - sales? Income? Property? What?

As a UK taxpayer, at no time have I ever received an itemised statement that covers which part of my taxes goes on what expenditure to a resolution of £2.50 per year. If I did receive such a statement, I would consider the cost of its production a shocking waste of money. The government has never made any announcement that a specific increase in a specific tax was linked to this specific program. Therefore, the only possible information anyone can give you is what you already have. You're getting very close to demanding an impossible level of proof here.

Darat said the government money only helped. How was the balance of the program's costs covered?

Don't know, as again I haven't received a statement of local taxation that covers that level of detail and wouldn't expect to. School meal costs haven't gone up significantly compared to inflation over the period covered; I've had children at school all that time, so I'd have noticed. And, if you read the Guardian article, it doesn't say that the government money was only used to help the scheme and that there were other costs. Overall, it appears that the whole scheme was so close to cost neutral as to have vanished in the noise.

Dave

 

[Checkmite]

So the implementation of this program pretty much cost the average person in the UK "nothing appreciable" as far as taxes go. The government either had enough money, or enough taxpayers, to make the "extra cost" virtually disappear. This is as I suspected, and pretty much why Darat's claims that this wonderful "change" that could and did happen in the UK do not convince me it's equally possible in the US. The methods and division of funding and taxation in the US are different enough that the situation can't be called analogous.

 

[rwguinn]

It also has the benefit of teaching them proper, sustainable farming techniques, which is probably useful, especially in that part of the world.

Truthfully, I think planting and maintaining a garden, and harvesting and using the produce in schools would provide very useful lessons for children, but I'm not sure that many schools have available (or arable) land to devote. I would send my children to a school that offered such a curriculum in a heartbeat.

One thing my son's school did was prepare and serve a meal for the mothers on Mother's day. They made the placemats and other table decorations, learned how to set a table, baked scones and prepared fruit salad, and cleaned up afterwards. Yes, there was adult supervision, but the adults taught and supervised, not performed the work. All valuable life skills... And it was the Children's House that did this, so the children were between six and nine years old.

When the older children moved to a new campus when they were nine to 12 years old, they were expected to spend a couple hours a week maintaining the landscaping. Yes, adults were on-hand to work the heavy (dangerous) equipment, but the kids did the routine pruning and such not.

If the school had wanted to plant a garden and teach cooking, I'd have backed the notion in a heartbeat.

Considering that, except for leafy vegetables and the carrot/radish families, the growing season un the US extends over Summer (and in some Northern States, doesn't even start till June--We always planted/transplanted in late May in Denver, and had to re-plant about 60% of the time when we got a freeze), who is going to take care of the garden over the Summer months?
Or are you now advocating year-round schooling?

 

[Pikachu]

My nephew's school (in Leeds) has just been given a lottery grant to create basically a market garden on the school site. The idea is that the school will produce all their own vegetables and soft fruit with the pupils (4-11 years) doing most of the work. I understand that its a next stage on from Jamie's school dinners.

 

[alysten]

Truthfully, I think planting and maintaining a garden, and harvesting and using the produce in schools would provide very useful lessons for children, but I'm not sure that many schools have available (or arable) land to devote. I would send my children to a school that offered such a curriculum in a heartbeat.

I grew up 10 miles out of San Francisco during the 70's after they passed prop 13. So urban school, no state/government funding, 35 kids to a class. We had a couple of planter boxes in a small part of the school, that were donated by a local nursery. It wasn't all that big, but we could grow some crops, and we did learn a load of useful lessons.

 

[alysten]

This is as I suspected, and pretty much why Darat's claims that this wonderful "change" that could and did happen in the UK do not convince me it's equally possible in the US.

But it is happening in the US already. The Chez Panisse Foundation and The Edible Schoolyard started by US Chef Alice Waters are examples of projects that have been started and are flourishing in urban areas of the US.

 

[Checkmite]

But it is happening in the US already. The Chez Panisse Foundation and The Edible Schoolyard started by US Chef Alice Waters are examples of projects that have been started and are flourishing in urban areas of the US.

Are we now counting anything even coincidentally involving "fresh vegetables" as proof of Oliver's "success" in the US? Starting a community-style garden doesn't seem to me to be anything like what Oliver did in the UK; unless somebody's been withholding information on me. No schoolyard garden could feed a 1,500-student school lunch every day for an entire school year.

 

[Worm]

I don't think those examples were cited as being demonstrative of Jamie Oliver's impact, but of the general point of 'grow-your'own'

 

[Dave Rogers]

So the implementation of this program pretty much cost the average person in the UK "nothing appreciable" as far as taxes go. The government either had enough money, or enough taxpayers, to make the "extra cost" virtually disappear. This is as I suspected, and pretty much why Darat's claims that this wonderful "change" that could and did happen in the UK do not convince me it's equally possible in the US. The methods and division of funding and taxation in the US are different enough that the situation can't be called analogous.

The available evidence suggests that, in a country with a reasonably well-funded government and a sufficiently large taxpayer base, the cost was found to be negligible. I'm not sure what exactly is so radically different about the USA that makes it self-evident that such a program cannot succeed along similar lines, which I think was your original point. Is your government unfunded, or is a similar amount normalised to population a significant fraction of annual government expenditure? Is your taxpayer base so small that the amounts would be an excessive burden? If so, everything I have ever learned about the USA would appear to be wrong, and you are actually a desperately poor country.

You may be right that it will not succeed, but at present the one available data point suggests that it could. On the basis of the very limited evidence available, it seems to me that a rational skeptic would at the very least suspend a negative judgement.

Dave

 

[Cuddles]

It's not an information problem. People know full well what foods are horrible for them.

I think it is an information problem. People know what foods are bad for them, but they seem to know a lot less about what foods are good for them, and even less about how to make those foods into enjoyable meals. Everyone knows that they shouldn't eat burger and chips all the time, but far too many people are unable to come up with an alternative. It's seen as a choice between burger and chips or tofu and rabbit food. What's needed is less focus on telling people what not to do and more on showing them what they can do.

Which is exactly what Jamie Oliver advocates. Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned, his TV persona of an irritating smug twat probably doesn't help matters. But if you can blank him out and just listen to the message, I think he actually makes some good points.

The available evidence suggests that, in a country with a reasonably well-funded government and a sufficiently large taxpayer base, the cost was found to be negligible. I'm not sure what exactly is so radically different about the USA that makes it self-evident that such a program cannot succeed along similar lines, which I think was your original point. Is your government unfunded, or is a similar amount normalised to population a significant fraction of annual government expenditure? Is your taxpayer base so small that the amounts would be an excessive burden? If so, everything I have ever learned about the USA would appear to be wrong, and you are actually a desperately poor country.

Indeed. Checkmite's argument seems a rather odd one. He asks about the costs involved in the changes made. He is given evidence that the costs were negligible. Therefore this couldn't possibly work in the US. I really don't get it.

Certainly this doesn't prove that it will definitely work in the US, but I just don't see how the low cost in the UK can be taken as evidence that it can't work. At the very least it tells us nothing one way or the other. Looked at more sensibly, it shows that cost is not necessarily the major issue in implementing it.

 

[zooterkin]

Indeed. Checkmite's argument seems a rather odd one. He asks about the costs involved in the changes made. He is given evidence that the costs were negligible. Therefore this couldn't possibly work in the US. I really don't get it.

Certainly this doesn't prove that it will definitely work in the US, but I just don't see how the low cost in the UK can be taken as evidence that it can't work. At the very least it tells us nothing one way or the other. Looked at more sensibly, it shows that cost is not necessarily the major issue in implementing it.

There is also the point that in the long term, improved diet should lead to lower costs for other things, such as health care, or sick days, though I haven't seen costings for those.

 

[Checkmite]

The available evidence suggests that, in a country with a reasonably well-funded government and a sufficiently large taxpayer base, the cost was found to be negligible. I'm not sure what exactly is so radically different about the USA that makes it self-evident that such a program cannot succeed along similar lines, which I think was your original point. Is your government unfunded, or is a similar amount normalised to population a significant fraction of annual government expenditure? Is your taxpayer base so small that the amounts would be an excessive burden? If so, everything I have ever learned about the USA would appear to be wrong, and you are actually a desperately poor country.

Oh true, the USA is a huge country with millions of people. But while federal and state governments do set cirriculum standards and provide general educational subsidies, specific school programs such as buses and lunches are not funded at the federal or state government level; they're funded at the local town/city level. And yes, some of those towns are very small and halfway poor. The school system in the town I lived in while going to high school was operating two million in the red each year. The poor showing of our students' academic performance compared to other countries is a reflection of how de-prioritized education and education-related spending is in this country. The most energetic people ever get about education here is when the word "evolution" is spoken.

Perhaps we should make a trade-off - stop the teaching of evolution in exchange for support in this "fresh/local foods" initiative; it might stand a good chance of happening then.

Question for you - forget this particular program. What percentage of your income in total goes to the government each year as tax in the UK?

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's seen as a choice between burger and chips or tofu and rabbit food. What's needed is less focus on telling people what not to do and more on showing them what they can do.

Which is exactly what Jamie Oliver advocates. Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned, his TV persona of an irritating smug twat probably doesn't help matters. But if you can blank him out and just listen to the message, I think he actually makes some good points.

He also, I should point out, makes some very good recipes. We have a cookbook of his that follows a similar theme; it's a basic repertoire of simple recipes for the average family, using easily available ingredients, that produces healthy and enjoyable meals with no particular skill required from the cook. This includes things like a lamb stew with tomatoes and garlic that can be reheated as a pasta sauce. It's designed, not to preach or moralise, and not to limit the range of foods available, but to make it easier to cook good food. We use it a lot, and benefit from it a lot. And again, since it doesn't demand exotic ingredients, but rather just encourages better use of the ones we already have, it ends up pretty well cost neutral.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps we should make a trade-off - stop the teaching of evolution in exchange for support in this "fresh/local foods" initiative; it might stand a good chance of happening then.

That's possibly the stupidest suggestion I've seen outside the 9/11 CT forum. And if you have areas so poor that they can't afford a program that costs less than a cent per person per day and would lead to greater savings in healthcare costs, then the USA should be applying for membership of the Third World. Mind you, abandoning science teaching should help in that direction.

Question for you - forget this particular program. What percentage of your income in total goes to the government each year as tax?

Probably about a third to a half, if you count indirect taxation in all forms. If it were a hundredth, £2.50 a year would still be a negligible increase.

Dave

 

[Ixion]

Just saw a commercial for this last night:
Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution