Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution

[mum4jenn]

That was always the way serving was done at my school when I was growing up: whatever was on the menu was served, on every single tray. If you didn't want it you either gave it away or tossed it, but the lunch ladies didn't have time to be asking each child whether or not they wanted something; they just handed you the tray. The average large school kitchen that served the foods that Oliver advocates would probably have no choice but to pre-plate and use warmers, so yes, you would have to cook enough potatoes to serve every child.

I can absolutely see why some food service personnel would be resentful of Jamie Oliver's style. He can be very patronising, and he has a really ridiculous tendency to think that the specialty equipment needed to produce in quantity the kind of food he advocates is just normal school kitchen stuff, when it isn't normal and is quite expensive; even the average hotel kitchen would most likely only have half of it. Most school kitchens that I have used (in a volunteer capacity) over the past 10 years only had one piece of specialty equipment other than a 6-burner stove and a large-capacity sink; an industrial mixer for baking. A lot of older schools don't even have walk-ins.

How do 3 people peel 1400 potatoes in 90 minutes while also prepping the rest of the meal? There is only one way: use a commercial potato rumbler. They cost around $1000, are about the size of a home dishwasher and can handle a bit less than 30 lbs. of potatoes per cycle. 1400 potatoes is going to be probably 600 lbs.; you do the math. Also, rumblers don't tend to handle white potatoes well; they do best with red, which really are not that good for mashing.

I know that around here, the total amount of money that most of the schools can spend on meal production is $2.80 per child. Most budget-conscious folks would find it easy to spend that much and serve fresh food at home, and think it should be easily doable when buying in bulk. So it would be, if the money only had to go to buy food. It doesn't though: it also has to pay for the workers' salaries and health insurance, FICA contributions, workers comp. insurance, software and office supplies, equipment costs and maintenance, paper supplies, and sometimes even the utilities for the kitchen. It takes years of practice to correctly and consistently hit the FDA requirements for school lunch values with fresh foods; the rules are written in a way that discourages their use because they are difficult to quantify. Also, remember that in a lot of districts 2 meals per day are being served, not just one.

I'm not saying that Oliver has a bad idea, just that restaurant techniques are generally out of reach for the average public school system as funding now stands. Most of the time they are going to need more staff and a lot more equipment to pull it off, and that leaves less money to purchase all of that fresh food. With most schools currently dealing with cuts in curriculum due to tax shortfalls, this is not likely to be an area where big ideas are going to find fertile ground.

WOW!!! Finally someone who actually understands!!!

In Ga there is a program where every student receives a snack of fresh fruit or vegetable each day...however...the requirements are that the school has to be above 50% free/reduced.None of our schools are at that amount yet. If the economy keeps going like it is we just might be by the 2012 school year. I attended a class on the program last month and I love it but the money is not provided for schools with lower free/ reduced.

I will say though that we do provide forks/spoons when needed and when we have something like turkey roast or hamburger steak they also get a plastic. Yes ...the cutlery is plactic but it is too expensive to keep replacing silverware that is thrown in the trash. I feel like if the child does not know what a knife is or how to use it then that is the parents fault...not the school lunchroom.

I do not get ABC on Dish but I do see that I can watch the program on my computer so I will try to do this soon.

 

[PixieDust32]

Our lunch is terrible too

 

[LisaR]

WOW!!! Finally someone who actually understands!!!

Honestly, you seem to have a similar attitude as the food service workers featured on the show. Unless I am misunderstanding you, and I apologize if I am, but you seem to be saying it is too hard, too expensive and too time consuming so let's just keep doing what we are doing now. Again, maybe I am misunderstanding.

I never claimed that a baked potato was the end all, be all to the school lunch problem. But there is a problem. A large problem. I don't care if corn dogs and nuggets are cheap, quick and easy. They shouldn't be served for lunch 5 days a week. I do not claim to have the answers. I also truly understand that it isn't easy due to all of the budget cuts. I really do. However, everything is harder now due to the economy. Everything. It truly stinks but just because money is tight now, we can't give up or stick with the old ways because it is convenient.

The Berkley Public Schools are working with sustainable farms and seem to have had made tremendous progress with their school food. Of course, they are met with skepticism and criticism. I am not saying their program is perfect or possible for everyone but at least they are bucking the system and insisting on trying some other options.

 

[buckler]

Even if you can't go with a baked potato (too bad...the skin is good for you), those potato pearls they were using are not the answer.

I googled them and I'm guessing these are the ones they used on the show
Potato Pearls School Pak with Vitamin C

The ingredients read
Potatoes, maltodextrin, shortening powder (partially hydrogenated soybean oil, lactose, sodium caseinate, dipotassium phosphate), partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (cottonseed, soybean), mono and diglycerides, artificial flavor, artificial color, vitamin C (ascorbic acid). Freshness preserved with sodium bisulfite & BHT

All you have to add is boiling water. Bleh!

 

[allison443]

OK...Are the tax payers going to want to buy more expensive equipment just to bake up to 1400 potatoes because the ladies only have a maximum of 3 hours to get everything cooked. There are other foods to cook besides a baked potato...(vegetables, meat, bread )

It is easy for the folks NOT in school food service to judge and think they have all the answers. Yes I agree that there are MANY school systems that need much improvement...especially the ones that get the food in cellophane covered containers and just re-heat...but unless you actually have to work under the time constraints and budget constraints and even labor constraints it is a whole lot easier to judge from the other side of the fence.

I feel good about most all the food we have to cook and serve. We still have improvements to make but there have been tons of improvements made since I was in school.

Please don't be defensive. I don't think people were criticizing the cafeteria workers for what was served. I think the show made it pretty clear that the decisions on what to serve, how much, etc. come from the "higher ups". The women that worked in the cafeteria did seem like they were doing their best. They made it clear they had constraints. But that food did not look good, I'm sure yours and other cafterias serve better, but some probably serve worse too.

I think you can give an interesting perspective, but please don't take things personally.

 

[allison443]

HAve you ever tried to cook and mash enough potatoes to feed 600-1400 kids and have it done in less than 3 hours????

No, I haven't. But since it's obviously impossible, do you agree that mashed potatoes shouldn't be on the menu?

 

[mum4jenn]

No, I haven't. But since it's obviously impossible, do you agree that mashed potatoes shouldn't be on the menu?

No I do not agree. We do use instant (and its not the pearls) . The kids love them and it is one of the few items that does not end up in the garbage. Is it perfect?? NO but instant potatoes are not why kids are fat.Instant potatoes were served dozens of years ago in school lunchrooms.
I am tired of the schools getting all of the blame when kids eat bad foods at home and at restaurants.
Maybe the real problems began when Moms were forced to go out and get jobs to help support the families and therefore no more or very rarely are able to have the time to prepare a totally from scratch meal every night.
I think ABC should show the schools that ARE doing things right or at least better than the ones focused on the show. From all the threads started because of this program there are many people who actually believe that this is the way ALL school lunches are. That is far from true. Kids here get vegetables every single day. Sometimes two vegetables...sometimes a fruit and a vegetable. They get fresh fruits at least twice a week.
It is great though that the parents on the Dis never have taken their child to a fast food restaurant, or ever fed them french fries (we only serve fries (baked)3-4 times a month) or a hot dog (once a month)or mac and cheese (maybe 6 times in a year).

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

No I do not agree. We do use instant (and its not the pearls) . The kids love them and it is one of the few items that does not end up in the garbage. Is it perfect?? NO but instant potatoes are not why kids are fat.Instant potatoes were served dozens of years ago in school lunchrooms.
I am tired of the schools getting all of the blame when kids eat bad foods at home and at restaurants.
Maybe the real problems began when Moms were forced to go out and get jobs to help support the families and therefore no more or very rarely are able to have the time to prepare a totally from scratch meal every night.
I think ABC should show the schools that ARE doing things right or at least better than the ones focused on the show. From all the threads started because of this program there are many people who actually believe that this is the way ALL school lunches are. That is far from true. Kids here get vegetables every single day. Sometimes two vegetables...sometimes a fruit and a vegetable. They get fresh fruits at least twice a week.
It is great though that the parents on the Dis never have taken their child to a fast food restaurant, or ever fed them french fries (we only serve fries (baked)3-4 times a month) or a hot dog (once a month)or mac and cheese (maybe 6 times in a year).

What would be the interest in that? TV isn't about showing the mundane. If your menus are perfect, I don't see any reason for you to be so defensive. IN that system the meals were terrible and for many kids it was 2 out of 3 meals of their day. If they come out on the other end of this with a better understaning, and more willingness to try new things, their lives will be better.

And the lunch ladies are ridiculous. If you have agreed to do something, don't be a witch about it. Give it your best shot.

 

[eliza61]

That was always the way serving was done at my school when I was growing up: whatever was on the menu was served, on every single tray. If you didn't want it you either gave it away or tossed it, but the lunch ladies didn't have time to be asking each child whether or not they wanted something; they just handed you the tray. The average large school kitchen that served the foods that Oliver advocates would probably have no choice but to pre-plate and use warmers, so yes, you would have to cook enough potatoes to serve every child.



How do 3 people peel 1400 potatoes in 90 minutes while also prepping the rest of the meal? There is only one way: use a commercial potato rumbler. They cost around $1000, are about the size of a home dishwasher and can handle a bit less than 30 lbs. of potatoes per cycle. 1400 potatoes is going to be probably 600 lbs.; you do the math. Also, rumblers don't tend to handle white potatoes well; they do best with red, which really are not that good for mashing.

I know that around here, the total amount of money that most of the schools can spend on meal production is $2.80 per child. Most budget-conscious folks would find it easy to spend that much and serve fresh food at home, and think it should be easily doable when buying in bulk. So it would be, if the money only had to go to buy food. It doesn't though: it also has to pay for the workers' salaries and health insurance, FICA contributions, workers comp. insurance, software and office supplies, equipment costs and maintenance, paper supplies, and sometimes even the utilities for the kitchen. It takes years of practice to correctly and consistently hit the FDA requirements for school lunch values with fresh foods; the rules are written in a way that discourages their use because they are difficult to quantify. Also, remember that in a lot of districts 2 meals per day are being served, not just one.

I'm not saying that Oliver has a bad idea, just that restaurant techniques are generally out of reach for the average public school system as funding now stands. Most of the time they are going to need more staff and a lot more equipment to pull it off, and that leaves less money to purchase all of that fresh food. With most schools currently dealing with cuts in curriculum due to tax shortfalls, this is not likely to be an area where big ideas are going to find fertile ground.

So basically your saying because it's inconvienent and more expensive we keep shoveling crap into our kids?

If your doctor told you you were killing your kid with a certain behaviour would you then say sorry doc, it's just to expensive and to hard to change the behaviour?

Sorry, that's the entire attitude we need to throw out. The bottom line is these kids are obese (no not every one). NO it is not easy but instead of automatically saying it can't be done, it's time to say we have no choice but to change.

What I find so ironic is that if we were to feed laboratory rabbits the way we feed the nations school kids we would have PETA protesting and throwing paint.
Studies have shown that our kids are OBESE. They are having health problems directly associated from the garbage we shovel in them. IT IS killing them. Bone and joint problems, diabetes, high blood pressure are now routinely being seen in 13yo.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

So basically your saying because it's inconvienent and more expensive we keep shoveling crap into our kids?

If your doctor told you you were killing your kid with a certain behaviour would you then say sorry doc, it's just to expensive and to hard to change the behaviour?

Sorry, that's the entire attitude we need to throw out. The bottom line is these kids are obese (no not every one). NO it is not easy but instead of automatically saying it can't be done, it's time to say we have no choice but to change.

What I find so ironic is that if we were to feed laboratory rabbits the way we feed the nations school kids we would have PETA protesting and throwing paint.
Studies have shown that our kids are OBESE. They are having health problems directly associated from the garbage we shovel in them. IT IS killing them. Bone and joint problems, diabetes, high blood pressure are now routinely being seen in 13yo.

Well said!

Besides, one doesn't HAVE to serve potatoes. Or, mashed potatoes can be made with peel.

 

[RitaE]

Yeah, it's all the fault of working Moms. Sorry - I know many women who work and still cook a solid dinner most nights. I haven't seen anybody here claim to be perfect or claim that their children eat perfectly all the time or that they never visit McDonalds.

There was a reason that particular town and that particular school district were chosen. If and when you do watch the show be sure to notice that the time constraints, budget constraints, home life of the children, and USDA regulations are featured prominently - right as the kitchen staff were brought out in front of the school and thanked for the time and effort they had spent during the week preparing the meals.

Maybe instead of just blasting everybody here Mum4Jenn - you could actually watch the show first?

 

[allison443]

Yeah, it's all the fault of working Moms. Sorry - I know many women who work and still cook a solid dinner most nights. I haven't seen anybody here claim to be perfect or claim that their children eat perfectly all the time or that they never visit McDonalds.

There was a reason that particular town and that particular school district were chosen. If and when you do watch the show be sure to notice that the time constraints, budget constraints, home life of the children, and USDA regulations are featured prominently - right as the kitchen staff were brought out in front of the school and thanked for the time and effort they had spent during the week preparing the meals.

Maybe instead of just blasting everybody here Mum4Jenn - you could actually watch the show first?

I completely agree with your post.

 

[sallybrealey]

So how did Jamie manage it in the UK then? We have schools with 1500 kids too but our schools have managed to make some changes. They arent perfect but they are making changes, they have took away snack machines etc and are just trying to cook wholesome food. He also wants kids to understand what they are eating, make it interesting and get them to try new things.

 

[1stluvispooh]

Ok here is my thought on the underlining problem and I have heard Jamie say this before so I am assuming (Yes I know I know) that it will come up on the show before it is over with. This generation of kids is going to be the 3rd generation that has not learned how to cook! So this means that instead of cooking from raw ingredient they go for highly processed convenience foods. You know heat and eat. I know several friends that that is how they feed their families. I find it very strange that people don't know how to cook. I personally find it rather intuitive and have to remind myself that all people are not wired like myself. So the who point of Jamie's Kitchen is that people come down and learn some easy recipes, cooking basics and take them home with them and start eating from whole foods more. I personally think that it is a great idea and would love it if I could work in a place like that! If anyone is interested in that I would suggest you get Jamie's Food Revelation cookbook out of the library. It has easy basic recipes and tells you how to take something simple and add to it so your not always making the same salad for example.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I have never heard of, "potato pearls", before reading this. I did catch a little of the show. It was good to see the staff encourage the kids to eat and help them with the utensils. It was a little odd that they needed help, to me.

I have read, Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution cookbook a few months ago. It had some good recipes in it. I think he's doing a real service with his book and show.

 

[Nik's Mom]

So basically your saying because it's inconvienent and more expensive we keep shoveling crap into our kids?

If your doctor told you you were killing your kid with a certain behaviour would you then say sorry doc, it's just to expensive and to hard to change the behaviour?

Sorry, that's the entire attitude we need to throw out. The bottom line is these kids are obese (no not every one). NO it is not easy but instead of automatically saying it can't be done, it's time to say we have no choice but to change.

What I find so ironic is that if we were to feed laboratory rabbits the way we feed the nations school kids we would have PETA protesting and throwing paint.
Studies have shown that our kids are OBESE. They are having health problems directly associated from the garbage we shovel in them. IT IS killing them. Bone and joint problems, diabetes, high blood pressure are now routinely being seen in 13yo.

I agree with you! Something needs to be done. The statistics are so shocking when I hear the % of our children that are obese in this country. It breaks my heart.

Have any of you tried Jamie Oliver's recipes? They are pretty easy to follow, and many of them are quick to prepare too. Here is his recipe website. http://www.jamieoliver.com/recipes I love his Food Revolution book!

It's not enough to want healthy food at school. We need to change our eating habits at home too.

 

[NotUrsula]

So basically your saying because it's inconvienent and more expensive we keep shoveling crap into our kids?

If your doctor told you you were killing your kid with a certain behaviour would you then say sorry doc, it's just to expensive and to hard to change the behaviour?

Sorry, that's the entire attitude we need to throw out. The bottom line is these kids are obese (no not every one). NO it is not easy but instead of automatically saying it can't be done, it's time to say we have no choice but to change.

What I find so ironic is that if we were to feed laboratory rabbits the way we feed the nations school kids we would have PETA protesting and throwing paint.
Studies have shown that our kids are OBESE. They are having health problems directly associated from the garbage we shovel in them. IT IS killing them. Bone and joint problems, diabetes, high blood pressure are now routinely being seen in 13yo.

Sigh. No that was NOT what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it is not surprising that the workers on the ground in the school were annoyed at his attitude, because they can only do their best with what they are given to work with, and he was consistently asking them to do things that could get them fired under normal circumstances. (Give knives to primary school children, for instance. In my 48 years, I have NEVER seen a grade school in the US allow a child a metal knife at lunch. Even back in the 60's when I was in school, the assumption was that there was too much potential for injury. Had any of those ladies put those knives out without their principal saying it was OK on camera, they would certainly have been fired. As it is, I'll bet that the district's legal counsel nearly had coronaries of their own when they saw that scene.)

What I am also saying is that his program as it is currently designed has no hope of succeeding in the US unless MAJOR increases in funding are given to programs for feeding children in schools, both at the local and federal levels. I'm talking increases on the order of 50%. The FDA rules for funding also would have to be loosened to allow more leeway in sourcing food locally and letting managers estimate nutrition numbers more freely. It cannot consistently be done his way without additional personnel and equipment. When I was in school we had two shifts of cafeteria workers, one full-time and one part-time. The full-timers came in at 4 am and left at noon, and the part-timers came in at 10 am and left at 2 pm. There were normally upward of 20 people working in the cafeteria kitchen from 10-noon. Most cafeterias these days have half that many workers on shift at any given time, and usually only the manager is full-time now. .

Repeat: I am NOT saying it isn't worth the effort, but I am saying that when it comes time to vote for the necessary extra taxes it will take, most American voters will balk because of the spectre of wasted food. We know this, it happens consistently. It has been happening for nearly 30 years now: remember the first Reagan administration, when an FDA official famously tried to get ketchup declared a vegetable in order to trim $1B off the Federal free-lunch program? There is always a choice in food service: give the kids what you think that they SHOULD eat and take the chance that there will be a massive amount of wasted food, or give the kids what they want and actually get the food eaten. The Federal push for 30 years now has been on the side of "give them what they will actually eat" so as to reduce waste. Americans HATE waste of any product paid for by a government. I think that the better strategy for success is to try to make incremental changes that will improve the situation without demanding a complete instantaneous sea-change in the way that school lunches are done.

Someone questioned how the UK attacked the problem? Money, including an enormous amount of it given by private donors. However, that program started in 2005 when the economy was good, and if you look at recent news stories from the UK, you'll see that they are in a major struggle not to lose the funding and have to cut the allowed expenditures again.

As for potatoes, we're arguing over a bad example. The US armed forces were the masters at manual potato peeling, and they shifted over to freze-dried potatoes in the early 1950's, for exactly the reason we are speaking of: no matter how they are prepared, whole potatoes are massively labor intensive for institutional food service. There are lots of different kinds of dried potato products, and some are more nutritious than others; there are choices that can be made. However, in most instances it just doesn't make sense to abandon the product altogether unless you have a LOT of free labor and good insurance. Think back: when did you ever get scratch-cooked potatoes in grade school? I'll bet that almost no one here can remember it if they went to a public school, because even 40 years ago, they probably never did. I grew up in South Louisiana, and we almost never had potatoes at all; our staples were rice and beans. My Irish mother, however, served potatoes at every meal; we children peeled at least 10 lbs every single day. I'm a dang fast potato peeler, but there is no way that I can peel more than 30 lbs in an hour on my own, even if I'm not shooting to entirely eliminate the peel.

 

[sallybrealey]

The article below was in one of our most right wing papers that tends to sneer at things that people like Jamie does.

It was in today and makes interesting reading


Jamie Oliver's healthy school dinners campaign has dramatically boosted children's exam results, a study found yesterday.
The TV chef's nutritious meals are more effective at raising standards of English in primary schools than the Government's daily 'literacy hour'.
The scrapping of junk food lunches led to a 4.5 percentage point increase in English test results in the first schools where Oliver's healthier meals were tried, according to academics from Oxford and Essex universities.

Success: Jamie Oliver serves up a healthy school dinner to pupils from Ealdham Primary School, Greenwich after his year working on nutritious school meals. The schools he worked with had a boost to their exam results
This compares to a 3.2 point rise linked to the introduction of structured daily literacy lessons.
Youngsters who were served Oliver's healthier lunches also did better in science and took less time off school due to sickness.
The research findings were heartening news for Oliver, who is struggling to make inroads in his latest mission - transforming eating habits in America's fast-food capital.
The celebrity chef was recently reduced to tears on his US show after encountering hostility to his crusade in Huntingdon, West Virginia.
Oliver said yesterday the study results vindicated his campaign to banish cheap, processed meals which were laden with fat, sugar and salt.
His crusade took him to Greenwich, south east London, where he insisted that schools served nutrient-rich foods such as fish and broccoli instead of 'turkey twizzlers' and chips.

More...
Jamie Oliver's healthy eating crusade for America gets a ratings boost after he appears on Oprah
Chinese and Indian pupils get more top grades at GCSE than British children
Shamed by Oliver's revelations that youngsters were routinely fed poor quality meals, ministers introduced tough new school lunch standards across the country.
'The research results are fantastic as it’s the first time a proper study has been done into the positive effects of the Feed Me Better campaign and it strongly suggests we were right all along,' said Oliver.
'Even while doing the programme, we could see the benefits to children’s health and teachers – we could see that asthmatic kids weren’t having to use the school inhalers so often, for example. We could see that it made them calmer and therefore able to learn.'
But a poll of teachers yesterday revealed that many still have concerns about the healthiness of food being served in schools.

Less successful: Jamie is failing to make an impact in his U.S. show Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution
Seventy-three per cent of members of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers demanded tougher legislation governing what schools can sell to pupils to further curtail fried foods, crisps, chocolates and sweets.
More than half of teachers - 56 per cent - had seen a significant deterioration in pupil behaviour after pupils have consumed fizzy drinks or eaten snacks with high sugar content.
One in seven said the on-site catering facilities at their school were inadequate, while more than a third - 35 per cent - said their school had received complaints about the standard of food served.
Oliver said: 'It's just yet another piece of evidence that we need to move faster in terms of improving take-up of nutritious, tasty home-cooked school meals across the country - training and supporting more dinner ladies, getting the kitchens and dining halls up to scratch, educating kids and parents about how easy a good diet can be.'
The study into his campaign concentrated on primary schools in Greenwich, which featured in Oliver's 2005 TV documentary on the state of the country's school meals.
The researchers assessed the impact of the crusade by comparing pupils' results in SATs tests - taken at age 11 - with scores achieved by their counterparts in neighbouring areas. This enabled them to look for a causal effect.
In Greenwich, the proportion of children reaching level four - the standard expected of the age group - rose by up to 4.5 percentage points in English between 2005 and 2007.
And in science, the proportion of children reaching level five - one above the level expected of 11-year-olds - increased by up to six percentage points.
Michele Belot, of Nuffield College, Oxford University and Jonathan James of the Department for Economics, Essex University, who will present their findings at the Royal Economic Society's annual conference this week, also found that Oliver's campaign led to a 15 per cent fall in 'authorised absences' - which are often linked to illness.
The study found the costs and benefits were 'comparable' to the Government's literacy hour, introduced by Labour in 1998 to improve literacy teaching standards.
The report said: 'There is no doubt that the campaign provides large benefits in comparison to its costs per pupil.
'These effects are particularly noteworthy since they only capture direct and relatively short-term effects of improvement in children's diet on educational achievements.
'One could have expected that changing diet habits is a long and difficult process, which would possibly only have effects after a long time, effects that would be hard to measure.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...paign-boosted-exam-results.html#ixzz0jaF4SF3G

 

[eliza61]

Sigh. No that was NOT what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it is not surprising that the workers on the ground in the school were annoyed at his attitude, because they can only do their best with what they are given to work with, and he was consistently asking them to do things that could get them fired under normal circumstances. (Give knives to primary school children, for instance. In my 48 years, I have NEVER seen a grade school in the US allow a child a metal knife at lunch. Even back in the 60's when I was in school, the assumption was that there was too much potential for injury. Had any of those ladies put those knives out without their principal saying it was OK on camera, they would certainly have been fired. As it is, I'll bet that the district's legal counsel nearly had coronaries of their own when they saw that scene.)

What I am also saying is that his program as it is currently designed has no hope of succeeding in the US unless MAJOR increases in funding are given to programs for feeding children in schools, both at the local and federal levels. I'm talking increases on the order of 50%. The FDA rules for funding also would have to be loosened to allow more leeway in sourcing food locally and letting managers estimate nutrition numbers more freely. It cannot consistently be done without additional personnel and equipment. When I was in school we had two shifts of cafeteria workers, one full-time and one part-time. The full-timers came in at 4 am and left at noon, and the part-timers came in at 10 am and left at 2 pm. There were normally upward of 20 people working in the cafeteria kitchen from 10-noon. Most cafeterias these days have half that many workers on shift at any given time, and usually only the manager is full-time now.

Repeat: I am NOT saying it isn't worth the effort,.

But as long as we keep using the excuse nothing will change. It's too expensive, it's too _____.

Knives: My kids went to Catholic school. from 1st grade on, they had plastic forks, knives and spoons. Guess what, we didn't have any mass throat slices from the knives. Children reach the level we set for them. Maybe if we stop assuming that every kid would chop off their fingers and start teaching them the proper way to handle cutlery we may be surprised.
Same thing with menus. The school administration immediately cried that the kids wouldn't eat healthy foods. Well of course they won't if all you ever give them is fried chicken nuggets.

How do you start? Get rid of the chocolate milk. start offering good ole H2O. Get rid of the french fries. totally. Offer apple sauce instead. I've yet to hear of a kid dying in our schools because they weren't able to have fries.

Instead of chicken nuggest, how about some boneless chicken strips not breaded and fried. how about some wheat wraps and salad fixins Now the kids can make their own chicken wraps and guess what, cafeteria ladies did not have to cook 1 thing there. And yes a 7 year old is capable of wrapping his own.

heck good ole fashion Peanut butter & Jelly would probably be more nutricious (sp) than that sloppy joe stuff. Yes, I know some adjustments would need to be made for kids with peanut allergies.

It can be done and it can be done without tons of money.
So once again I ask what is the alternative? keep killing our kids because we lack the imagination or initiative to do better?

No it's not easy. I'm weaning my entire family off of soda. did my kids whine, definitely but after I installed a water cooler in the kitchen they realized I was serious about it. No one is passing out from not having 40 oz of soda every day and I'm losing weight without even doing any thing else.

Any time you live in a city that the CDC has named the "unhealthiest" in the country and roughly 50% of your population is designated obese. I would think that would be the school systems wake up call.

 

[NotUrsula]

Knives: My kids went to Catholic school. from 1st grade on, they had plastic forks, knives and spoons. Guess what, we didn't have any mass throat slices from the knives. Children reach the level we set for them. Maybe if we stop assuming that every kid would chop off their fingers and start teaching them the proper way to handle cutlery we may be surprised.

Look, I'm with you on the knife thing; I always thought it was ridiculous not being allowed to eat with a knife in school. However, the alternative you describe, using disposable plastic knives, isn't really a good option, either. It costs a lot more than washing permanent cutlery and is bad for the environment.

I went to some tough schools, and we didn't have knives in high school, either. By that time, no one was assuming that kids would hurt themselves; they were assuming that they would hurt other kids, or teachers, with knives that they had taken from the cafeteria.

Insurance is a huge cost for US schools, and I think that in the larger scheme of things, the knife battle (if you'll pardon the pun) isn't worth fighting for the most part; it will draw too much money and attention away from the heart of the matter. I just mentioned it to illustrate that Oliver should have done his homework a bit better about common US school policies, so as to reduce the disrespect he was meeting because of his ignorance of really basic rules that those workers MUST follow if they want to keep their jobs.

I certainly think that the issue of school nutrition and nutrition program funding needs to be addressed, but honestly, having a famous Englishman lead the charge might not be the best strategy, even though he managed it at home. This is a MUCH larger country with a much more complicated attitude toward the role of government in educational matters, and he and his crew are just not sufficiently doing their homework about that so far. It makes for good TV, but it doesn't bode well for getting people who do this for a living onto his bandwagon.

(Also, ironically, TV is a huge part of why US kids have the preferences that they do; they are constantly hit with processed food ads in children's television programming. Get rid of those, and you've won a large battle.)

PS: About this example:

Instead of chicken nuggest, how about some boneless chicken strips not breaded and fried. how about some wheat wraps and salad fixins Now the kids can make their own chicken wraps and guess what, cafeteria ladies did not have to cook 1 thing there. And yes a 7 year old is capable of wrapping his own.

OK, let's break that down. With your nuggets, you are dealing in one frozen product which is made from processed chicken parts that have a fixed cost of A, plus some kind of dip, which we'll assume is a cost that is also fixed. With your boneless strips, you are dealing with a component that is made from whole chicken that has a fixed cost of A +20%. You are also adding wheat wraps, which will add an extra meal component and cost about, what, $.10 each wholesale? You are also adding fresh salad greens, which are going to cost you a minimum of about $.70/lb wholesale, and that will have to be washed before being served. We'll assume any dressing that they put on is covered as the cost of the previous dip. So, your food cost has probably increased about 40% per serving, not counting the labor cost of washing the greens.

Now, I'll agree that a 7 yo can build his own wrap sandwich, but can he do it in under 3 minutes? Lots of kids have only a twenty-minute lunch break these days, mine included. Half of that time is often taken up just getting through the line. If you watched the show you will have noted that a huge part of Oliver's frustration was coming from the fact that he did not feel that the children were getting sufficient time to eat; he wanted to send them back to the table when they brought their food to the dumpster uneaten. Are we going to lengthen the school day, too?

(Personally, I'd love to lengthen the school day, but I'm hoping that you see where I'm going with this -- that it's just not as simple as it first seems. Not impossible, but not simple. Every little change you make impacts something else within the system, and all of that has to be taken into consideration or it won't be an effective change. We amateurs cannot just jump in here and expect to fully understand what the professionals are up against. Institutional cooking is DIFFERENT.)