Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution

[Paelos]

Score one for the show.

[Mrbloodworth]

Feed Them Healthy Food With 77 Cents

[Mrbloodworth]

Score one for the show.

Score two. They rolled out the new lunches last year. It cost half of what they were previously spending.

[Miasma]

The students weren't eating the lunches, the program was a failure.

[Khaldun]

Well, let's just say I predicted that.

Notice that one of the big problems here is not even that the students prefer junk food. It's that healthy meals cooked by a talented chef for a reality show program are nothing like what's going to come out in  real-life conditions in cafeterias that have to serve hundreds or thousands of customers daily and can't afford to hire workers with any skill in food preparation. Chez Panisse doesn't scale. If you gotta eat something that's made in a shitty way by low-wage workers, odds are that quinoa salad is going to fucking suck about a thousand times worse than a chicken nugget. And since you're going to be outside of most food distribution systems, you're going to have badly packaged and poorly stored food, which explains the mold and rot on food that students have complained about--you're going to be relying on a hundred different suppliers who will know they've got you over a barrel because you can't just switch to Sysco or what have you.

Don't fucking mess with a system unless you're in it for the long haul and you understand what a gigantic task it is to reinvent EVERYTHING about how an institution works. This whole fucking thing is going to end up costing a vulnerable school district that has far bigger problems just executing its basic mission a lot of money and hassle and it's probably *lost* more people for the cause of healthy eating than it gained.

[Mrbloodworth]

The students weren't eating the lunches, the program was a failure.

No shit. They are kids, and had their entire school lunch life undercut by processed food and burgers. The fact the entire kitchen staff also needs to be retrained is also a factor. But from what i read, this program is also coming in at about half the cost.

They need to refine the menu, but not toss it out completely. That would be a mistake.

[Khaldun]

The mistake would be in not paying attention to what was discovered about what doesn't work rather than just saying, "Oh, they're addicted to burgers, keep at it and we'll turn them into little locavore vegan diet-for-a-small-planet sustainability healthy eaters eventually". That's the same stupid thing that other evangelizing do-gooders do around drugs, or teenage sex, or whatever the current obsession of well-meaning social reformers happens to be at the moment. When you create and impose an entire campaign to make people behave that comes "from above", from people who don't have to live the lives that will be affected, that doesn't address the real cultural and social world that the to-be-reeducated live in, you end up making whatever problem it is that you're trying to tackle much worse. There's no surer way to make sex and drugs more alluring than to make the most clueless, socially autistic administrator in a school go out in front of an assembly and recite some well-meant script that a social psychologist wrote from the comfort of his/her office four hundred miles away. Same here: if you want to change diets, you gotta do it from below, and not just say, "here's your moldy, poorly prepared black bean cake, kids! it's good for you and cheaper than meat anyway". You have to involve the people who will eat the stuff, and that doesn't mean just doing a couple of focus groups and ignoring what they say.

And on the cheaper, you have to think larger than a per meal basis. Think of all the ancillary costs: the consultations, the salaries for middle management that's needed to track down alternative suppliers, the man-hours that go into even limited training to cooking staff, the food that goes completely to waste, and the inevitable costs of "refinement". You don't get to make all that shit an externality and just say "Hey, it's cheaper to do" because the only comparison you're making is a per meal comparison of the cost of ingredients.

Not that it isn't amusing in a dark way to watch someone like Oliver bumble right into this. Maybe they can make next season about Jamie Oliver trying to teach Ethiopians how to eat healthier, since he's running out ofschool  districts of compliant subjects to experiment on.

[HaemishM]

Part of the mistake probably came from the vast divergence in type of food. I saw the shit they were giving kids: pre-packaged meals that were likely being microwaved, or at the very least required little actual preparation by the kitchen staff. Going from that to actually having to prepare FRESH ingredients is a huge step up in skills required, and if you don't train the people cooking it, you'll get what actually happened. The food tastes like shit and the kids don't want to eat it. Khaldun has the right of it. There's a lot more involved in making this kind of transition than halving the per meal costs. A lot of the meals weren't even prepared on the campus, they were pre-made at a central location and trucked there. Can you imagine a black bean burger cooked by a retard used to nuking a freezer meal, then trucked halfway across the city to sit under a heat lamp for 2 hours?

Ew.

[Miasma]

The students weren't eating the lunches, the program was a failure.

No shit. They are kids, and had their entire school lunch life undercut by processed food and burgers. The fact the entire kitchen staff also needs to be retrained is also a factor. But from what i read, this program is also coming in at about half the cost.

They need to refine the menu, but not toss it out completely. That would be a mistake.

Where did you read about the cost?

I could cut the cost of any school lunch program in half too, all I have to do is make food so terrible that the kids won't eat it.  Then I don't have to bother making as much and save some money.

[Ratman_tf]

The students weren't eating the lunches, the program was a failure.

#1. Here's the picture from the article.



Those kids look relativley healthy to me. Where are the lard-o diabetes kids? Granted, it's just one picture, but that's the impression I got from it.

Secondly.

Instead, district chefs concocted such healthful alternatives as vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles.

  Didn't we already go over this shit in the Chicken McNuggets thread? Hay man, eat healty, have some noodles and tofu! 

[Azazel]

There's also theory and practice - or why the Burgers in the pictures at McKFC look so much nicer than the actual product:

Andre Jahchan, a 16-year-old sophomore at Esteban Torres High School, said the food was "super good" at the summer tasting at L.A. Unified's central kitchen. But on campus, he said, the chicken pozole was watery, the vegetable tamale was burned and hard, and noodles were soggy.

Taste test stuff prepared to a high standard versus the day-to-day drudgery put together by people who may not care since they're producing industrial catering.

[Xanthippe]

NC preschooler’s “unhealthy” lunch replaced with cafeteria nuggets


Not only was the kid given misinformation but it was from our federal government, AND her mother was charged for the lunch the kid didn't eat.

[Ironwood]

Oh man, that's funny.  That's so funny I might start to cry.

You're all so fucked.  We're all fucked.   

[MuffinMan]

Clicked the link thinking it was an Onion article.

[Khaldun]

It all traces back to one news story that has anonymous sourcing, and single sourcing at that. E.g., there's an unnamed mom saying this happened to their kid. The principal when asked at the end of the original story  is like WTF, I have not heard of this. There's no "state agent" named or quoted who supposedly did this. Call me suspicious--this is the kind of thing Fox News lives to pass on without looking into it more. If it's at all true, though, it really is  even if there was some actual issue with the kid's lunch. (Say, that she was throwing it all away and eating potato chips, or that the turkey was rancid or something like that).

[Ironwood]

You make a good point;  for my own part, it's worrying that this story is even remotely plausable and doesn't get dismissed out of hand in my own head.

There are so many stories coming out right now that are just off the whoa scale.

[Khaldun]

Looking into it a bit more--the original source is a local libertarian online news organization that is funded by a conservative free-market foundation. I also have a hard time believing that any state in the current budgetary moment has the funds for a roving band of inspectors who sternly look over the lunches of 4-year olds.

[Merusk]

Sowing the seeds of abolishing public food assistance and public schooling in one story.   They only continue to get more cunning.

As proof: This is now making the Facebook rounds. Good luck debunking it.

[Ironwood]

Surely Snopes will get on the case.  I love snopes.

[MahrinSkel]

There's a followup story that clarifies things a little:

It was a clusterfuck relating to an inspection by the state department of education and a teacher who was "stage managing" the lunchroom so they didn't get dinged for a USDA violation.

--Dave

[Trippy]

Surely Snopes will get on the case.  I love snopes.

Not Snopes but it is a detailed analysis of what transpired:

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/15/a-north-carolina-non-troversy/

[Ironwood]

Oh Dear God.

By and large, what this story boils down to is that a low-income child whose tuition is fully subsidized by the state under a program her mother opted into was offered some additional food to supplement the boxed lunch she brought from home.  This option was provided not because of some overarching, generally applicable law or regulation, but because the program in which her mother and school voluntarily participate requires such an option be available. The mother apparently objects to this option being provided to her daughter, not because of any health concerns or the like, but because she incorrectly believes that she will be charged additional money for her child being provided this option.  Since she won’t in fact be charged for this and there is no evidence she was ever going to be charged for it, there is absolutely no harm actually being done to her or her child.

So that's that.  Tempest enjoyed in Teacup.

[Cyrrex]

Oh well as long as your not going to CHARGE me for it...then fine, forcefeed my toddler Hostess Cupcakes all day long.  I mean, as long as I don't have to pay for it.  Phew.

I would like to think that any mother who is packing her child such a (relatively) healthy lunch actually gives more of a shit about WHAT they gave her kid...not that it was going to cost her a buck twenty-five.

[Ironwood]

I would read the comments on the linked story.  It covers your point, which is a little silly.

If someone plonked down courgettes in front of Elena and I thought I was going to be charged, I'd be annoyed too.  It's wasted money, since she won't eat them.  She just won't.  The woman didn't realise she wasn't being charged, nor that this is simply the procedure.

I don't think she's against healthy eating, as such, and we certainly shouldn't judge it thus since we're not sure of the motivation.

[HaemishM]

The program is for low-income, at-risk children. The mother likely was concerned about being charged for a lunch because she's fucking poor. I'd be a bit upset too if I thought I was going to be charged for something my kid didn't need.

[Xanthippe]

Surely Snopes will get on the case.  I love snopes.

Not Snopes but it is a detailed analysis of what transpired:

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/15/a-north-carolina-non-troversy/

Except that's wrong. an incomplete and sometimes incorrect assessment of the situation.

It was not an isolated incident. In fact, the school sent out a memo, which is why the mother was concerned about being charged for the school-issued lunch.

Here's more.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exclusive-2nd-n-c-mother-says-daughters-school-lunch-replaced-for-not-being-healthy-enough/

[Cyrrex]

The program is for low-income, at-risk children. The mother likely was concerned about being charged for a lunch because she's fucking poor. I'd be a bit upset too if I thought I was going to be charged for something my kid didn't need.

Something here isn't adding up, though...if she was poor, her child would have already been on the program, yes?  Then why was she bringing a lunch from home?

Oh well.  Odds are that people on both sides are crazy.

[HaemishM]

No, no, the actual SCHOOL the child was going to was for at-risk children. It's a special setup outside the normal school system. You have to volunteer and qualify for the program. The school lunch program wasn't a mandatory part of the program. The kid would still have to pay for lunch if she wanted the cafeteria lunch.