Everyday Systems

Have you seen Jaimie's Oliver's Food Revolution? The tv show focused on getting Jamie to overhaul a US school lunch program and he was having a dickens of a time this year getting into the Los Angeles system. Jaimie had a very sensible approach to food that was compatible with NoS, especially No Sweets. He was beating the No Sugary Milk in School drum pretty hard and in fact you can sign up for the campaign here: http://www.jamieoliver.com/us/foundatio ... ugary-milk

So, I enjoyed the first two episodes of Jaimie Oliver's Food Revolution on Tuesday nights ABC and was eagerly awaiting the third which mysteriously did not air last night. It was some Dancing with the Stars thing. Come to find out, ABC has decided to postpone JOFR until June after the May Sweeps and will then move it to the Friday night time slot.

I shouldn't be surprised. Advertisers will out, I guess. The first two episodes had Arby's, Ore-Ida and Special K commericals, for crying out loud. Still I'm going down swinging. If you would like to swing with me, please let ABC hear about it. http://abc.go.com/site/contact-us

I was looking at the caloric amount of the school lunches where I work. Sweet Geez-uz 1020 for one sitting. I'll occassionally eat one and usually am hoping I can get home before my lower intestinal track embarrassses me. The school lunch program is loaded with calories because (and this is true in many cases) many federal officials believe that many of the kids get one proper meal a day, their school lunch.

Over43 wrote:The school lunch program is loaded with calories because (and this is true in many cases) many federal officials believe that many of the kids get one proper meal a day, their school lunch.

And because it's easier to prepare a bad meal than a good meal? Load it with calories, but "worthwhile" calories.

I think this week was the second week it wasn't televised. At least it was the second week that DWTS had a recap of the previous night's show before its regularly scheduled show. According to the Belfast Telegraph it was due to lack of ratings -- which very well could be true.

I watched every episode last year and while I still support the cause, I didn't watch either of the two episodes televised this year. So maybe the advertisers aren't the ones to blame. The American Public, including me, are the ones to blame.

I read that it was ratings too. And I'm sure that's part of it. But I don't think it's ALL of it. I mean, after only two episodes, how bad can the ratings be? It won an Emmy last year which is probably why ABC lined it up for May sweeps month. And now they move it to Friday nights in June which is apparently where TV shows go to die.

I always thought FR was a good bridge between the somewhat elitist cachet of Michael Pollan(1) and Mr. & Mrs. McLa-Z-Boy.

Feh. I must need to cut back on the caffeine or something. I'm irked with the mass media and pop culture.

(1) I don't think Michael Pollan is an elitist but since his bona fides is college professor at UC Berkeley, that is not exactly a ringing endorsement for a lot people.

Blithe Morning wrote:(1) I don't think Michael Pollan is an elitist but since his bona fides is college professor at UC Berkeley, that is not exactly a ringing endorsement for a lot people.

I don't doubt you're right, but I have to say it saddens me deeply that education is so distrusted in our culture.

NPR has done some in-depth pieces on Jamie Oliver and the LAUSD. It's not as simple as valiant noble food crusader against eeevil bureaucracy that wants to force-feed children crap -- they have a budget of something like 17 cents per lunch, for one thing. And Jamie seems not that interested in actually improving school food unless he can do it on-camera ...

Blithe Morning wrote:I read that it was ratings too. And I'm sure that's part of it. But I don't think it's ALL of it. I mean, after only two episodes, how bad can the ratings be? It won an Emmy last year which is probably why ABC lined it up for May sweeps month. And now they move it to Friday nights in June which is apparently where TV shows go to die.

I always thought FR was a good bridge between the somewhat elitist cachet of Michael Pollan(1) and Mr. & Mrs. McLa-Z-Boy.

Feh. I must need to cut back on the caffeine or something. I'm irked with the mass media and pop culture.

(1) I don't think Michael Pollan is an elitist but since his bona fides is college professor at UC Berkeley, that is not exactly a ringing endorsement for a lot people.

I like Jamie Olive and I like Michael Pollan. I'm probably closer to Mrs. Mc La-Z Boy, but I think JR is equally as elitist as MP. It's not his message -- it's his food. I think the trick to changing someone's diet isn't to present them with new, healthy food, but to show them how to take the things they already eat and like and make it better. They like chicken nuggets? Well, show them that chicken nuggets made from scratch aren't difficult and are equally as tasty. Same for pizza and whatever else they like to eat.

wosnes wrote:They like chicken nuggets? Well, show them that chicken nuggets made from scratch aren't difficult and are equally as tasty.

You cut some boneless, skinless chicken breast into whatever shapes and sizes you want (fingers and nuggets are pretty easy). You put some bread crumbs and seasoning in a plastic bag, put the cut-up chicken in the bag, and shake it around (some kids think this is fun). You put some foil and cooking spray on a cookie sheet, and bake the nuggets, pretty much the same way you would do with frozen ones. This is not difficult.

Nicest of the Damned wrote:

wosnes wrote:They like chicken nuggets? Well, show them that chicken nuggets made from scratch aren't difficult and are equally as tasty.

You cut some boneless, skinless chicken breast into whatever shapes and sizes you want (fingers and nuggets are pretty easy). You put some bread crumbs and seasoning in a plastic bag, put the cut-up chicken in the bag, and shake it around (some kids think this is fun). You put some foil and cooking spray on a cookie sheet, and bake the nuggets, pretty much the same way you would do with frozen ones. This is not difficult.

I know this...but a lot of people either don't know it or think it takes a lot more effort than it does. So they buy them at a fast food place or frozen in the grocery.

I did some investigative reporting on the subject of milk, earlier today, in the form of picking up some milk cartons while I was waiting for my paad thai in the cafeteria. Results, for Sealtest 250 mL cartons (that's, um, 2.4 cubic chains, or something, in Imperial -- sorry, I just don't know):

White milk: 130 calories
Chocolate milk: 150 calories

Hardly a huge difference!

The trick, of course, is that the white milk is 2%, while the chocolate milk is 1%. So there's more fat in the white milk, and less sugar, but less fat and more sugar (substantially more, I admit) in the chocolate milk. If you're not specifically panicking over sugar, then just on a number-of-calories basis, there's not much to worry about, there.

As usual, it's not the substance in itself that's the problem, it's the moderation (or lack thereof) that surrounds it. I don't think a single carton of chocolate milk each day, with lunch, is going to cause an epidemic of child obesity. Crusading specifically against chocolate milk seems mis-aimed.

Strawberry milk, on the other hand, comes directly from the Devil's Cow, and should be banned immediately, everywhere. (Or maybe I just don't care for it. On the other hand, I don't like chocolate milk, either.)

I'm closer to the McLa-Z-Boy family than the Stickley's myself.

They like chicken nuggets? Well, show them that chicken nuggets made from scratch aren't difficult and are equally as tasty.

On the Food Revolution Community Facebook page, there are a number of people who specifically mentioned the frozen chicken nuggets as being the tipping factor in changing the way they eat. I get the sense from at least some of them that they now make their own. I know on the FR website that they offer recipes and ways to make dishes better. This week's challenge is homemade caesar salad dressing made with greek yogurt and olive oil.

As usual, it's not the substance in itself that's the problem, it's the moderation (or lack thereof) that surrounds it. I don't think a single carton of chocolate milk each day, with lunch, is going to cause an epidemic of child obesity. Crusading specifically against chocolate milk seems mis-aimed.

I think that it's the idea of chocolate or strawberry milk as an everyday experience is why I'm not thrilled with it. The recommendation from the No Sugary Milk campaign is that those milks be saved for occasional treats which is right in line with the No S philosophy.

I think that it's the idea of chocolate or strawberry milk as an everyday experience is why I'm not thrilled with it. The recommendation from the No Sugary Milk campaign is that those milks be saved for occasional treats which is right in line with the No S philosophy.

I don't know... I tend to think that *if* its important for young growing bodies to have milk, then chocolate or strawberry milk is better than no milk at all. From a calorie or sugar perspective, chocolate milk might be as bad as soda, but at least its got some other important nutrients in there as well. I won't drink plain milk. It is just unpalatable to me. As an adult, I don't drink chocolate milk much either, its okay I guess, but I prefer water. But I remember in grade school the options were pretty much: 1% milk, 2% milk or chocolate milk. Once I got to middle school there were also juice, water and flavored water options.

As a mom who served on a local "wellness committee" (and then watched most of the recommendations be ignored or gradually watered down), I don't object to the LUNCHES as much as the pervasive use of "treats" as motivation.

One piece of candy is not that big a deal. But it's rare that my son doesn't come home with a couple of wrappers in his pocket.

I recall how shocked I was when we started public school. Example...
-- On the way in, (1) I pass a mom with cupcakes with mile-high icing for her son's class, because it's his birthday and (2) I pass a sign saying that there's a fundraiser at recess, and they're selling ice cream and candy.
-- Breakfast is a "fortified donut" (my child didn't eat breakfast, but used to beg to. I don't care how many vitamin pills you sprinkle over it, it's a donut. And it is NOT a healthy breakfast, or one I want modeled as such to my kid.)
-- Lunch is what I call "kid party food." Hamburgers or hot dogs or pizza - all stuff that I don't mind him having occasionally. The trouble is that it's pretty much the kind of thing served every day.
-- There are morning snacks. There are afternoon snacks. There are snacks in after-care.
-- And then the main teacher hands out candy as a reward, and so does the "specials" teacher, and so does...

You get the picture. It's the aggregate of all these little bad choices.

Okay, this is something that frustrates me, as you can tell. /Rant

Great opinion piece, Wosnes. Really, cooking from scratch with plain ingredients is about as far from elitist as you can get even though the re-discovery of this practice is entering the culture through the university and old guard media. One of the reasons I was so hopeful about a Food Revolution TV show on ABC, faults and foibles notwithstanding, was because a Disney network is so mainstream.

(sigh). I dunno. Maybe Friday nights is where Food Revolution belongs when young parents who are wanting a break from the week but don't have the resources to go out can watch it. Perhaps with DVR capability people record and watch it so time slot doesn't really matter.

Here's another one: Food Sovereignty

Jaimie's chicken fingers. I like the part about bashing the chicken with a pan. http://www.jamieoliver.com/us/foundatio ... IC_CHICKEN