(With a click of her mouse, EatingLiberally's kat corners Dr. Marion Nestle, NYU professor of nutrition and author of Pet Food Politics, What to Eat and Food Politics:)
KT: The last two episodes of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution have yet to air, but folks are already assessing whether Oliver's attempt to launch a culinary coup in the community of Huntington, West Virginia was a success or a failure. Jamie's 'people' consulted you at the start of this project. Did they heed your advice? If it had been your show, how would you have gone in and done it?
Dr. Nestle: I don't watch much TV (technophobe that I am, I have yet to figure out how to turn it on without resorting to instructions), but I would not miss the Jamie Oliver show. I first heard about it from students in my NYU Food Ethics class. They made it clear that the show was well worth watching by anyone who cares about how America eats.
I was dubious. When I met with Jamie Oliver's staff in London last summer--an information session, not a consult--I thought the project sounded kind of arrogant but knowing nothing about reality television, I was curious to see how it would go.
Splendidly, I would say. What I hadn't realized is how much fun this guy is, and how gutsy. OK, he has annoying Briticisms. OK, a lot of this is about him.
But he wants everyone to learn to cook healthy food and have fun doing it. He wants school lunches to be better. He wants people to be healthier. Along the way, he is exposing deep flaws in the federal school meal programs and in the kinds of foods that many people eat without giving what they eat much thought. Sounds good to me.
I'm kind of stunned by the hostility the programs have evoked among people I would have expected to support these goals. My teaching assistant, Maya Joseph, a doctoral student at the New School, categorized the criticisms for me:
• the wounded ego messages (how dare Jamie Oliver not mention MY work!!)
• the ugly foreigner message (how dare Jamie tell AMERICANS what to eat!)
• the outraged sensitivity messages (how dare Jamie Oliver not take account of X,Y, and Z when he so rudely ballooned into this town).
Maya adds: "I would have thought that it would be obvious...that this is (a) a TV show! and (b) great publicity for our food system tragedies."
Me too. Or, as food consultant Kate Adamick points out in her review on the Atlantic Food Channel, "the revolution will be televised."
This is reality TV aimed at an important public health problem. Is it theater, or is something bigger going on?
From the number of people I know who are watching it and talking about it, I'm voting for bigger. I think it's useful for people to know that kids at school think it's normal to eat pizza for breakfast, French fries for lunch, and nothing with a knife and fork. And they have no idea what a tomato or a potato looks like. People need to know that schools and USDA regulations allow these things to happen. They need to know that better food costs more.
From my observations of school food over the years, getting decent food into schools requires:
• A principal who cares about what kids eat
• Teachers who care about what kids eat
• Parents who care about what kids eat
• Food service personnel who not only care what the kids eat, but also know the kids' names.
Jamie Oliver is trying to reach all of these people, and more.
I think the programs have much to teach about the reality of school food and what it will take to fix it. The New York Times reviewer, also dubious at first, ended his review with this comment:
One thing noticeably absent from the first two episodes is a discussion of any role the American food industry and its lobbyists might play in the makeup of school lunches and in the formulation of the guidelines set for them by the Agriculture Department. If Mr. Oliver wants a real food revolution, it can't happen just in Huntington.
Yes! And these programs could help.
Finally, let me comment on the West Virginia University's evaluation. This survey found that the kids didn't like Oliver's meals (but did try them). The staff didn't like the increased work. Everything cost more.
Once again, this is TV, not a real school intervention. Real ones start at the beginning of a semester, not in the middle, and are about food, not entertainment. They also do not leave it up to the kids to decide what to eat.
As I said in one of my blog posts on these programs, I want to know what happens in schools and in the community after the TV crews are gone. If the programs are any indication, I think real changes will take place in the minds, hearts, and stomachs of at least some participants and viewers. Whether researchers can figure out how to capture those changes is another matter.
Watch them. And get your kids to watch with you.
Follow HuffPost Food on Twitter and Facebook!
Follow Kerry Trueman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kerrytrueman
Food conglomerates and soft drink companies spends BILLIONS of dollars every year using product placement, cartoon characters, flashing images, snappy music and catchy slogans to market DIRECTLY to children. The longer hours that Mom & Dad now work coupled with the complete immersion of their children in an untempered commercial culture mean that the fast, instant and frozen foods industries are winning the battle for the stomachs and hearts of America's future adults.
We need to take a page out of the Britain and France's books and BAN commercials aimed at young, formative minds. We need to fine and ban companies that would use our children's health and vulnerability as fodder for their money-making machine!
Corporations should not have the rights of individual citizens and the decision to treat them as a full-fledged citizens, instead of the business ventures that they are, is what destroyed American freedom and accountability. Freedom of speech and the right to privacy were never intended for the owners of polluting chemical companies, greedy bankers, sleazy food chemists or corrupt defense contractors. We consumers need to be vocal about bringing that corporate accountability back into the American political landscape. First and foremost, you vote with your dollar and with your television viewership.
there would be resistance pretty much anywhere at first.
And If the average American spent just 15% of their grocery bill on foods from local farms, the positive effect on the economy of towns across America would dwarf any conceivable stimulus package.
Sorta like Sting singing about global warming during his uber-carbon-footprint concerts.
Funny that you choose to focus on that, but completely ignore the fact that in Great Britain, he got the government to spend £280,000,000 pounds on nutritious meals for children in need! Exactly hat the heck have you done that's so damned superior to that, that makes you feel so comfortable trashing his extremely important work?
Did you know he put his house up as collateral to start the 15 Foundation, which funds a program for young people who are from disadvantaged backgrounds and/or have criminal records or history of drug abuse, are trains them in the restaurant business. It has been amazingly successful, and has set off a chain reaction around the globe, saving hundreds of young people from a life of poverty. Exactly what have you done that is so superior?
I've worked, and will continue to work with the Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project to help train disadvantaged children in cooking techniques for affordable whole foods, which is a good thing, but I wouldn't kid myself that my small efforts are anything remotely as important as what Jamie Oliver is doing.
Marion Nestle is absolutely right; the petty hostility towards the amazing things that Jamie Oliver is doing is stunning.
That is one of the keys to learning to eat well. We teach children so many things...aren't we also responsible to teach them how to eat good /healthy food?
Jamie has shown through so many of his previous programs (unfortunately not all shown in the US) how easy and tasty looking food made with natural ingredients can be....If children are not exposed to this early on...they will become like most of us adults who accept fast food, microwaveable dishes, and prepared frozen dinners as 'nourishment'.
Very surprised that small children couldn't identify any veggies! So glad that my children are grown and don't have to try to survive on what is served at school lunch.
A follow up a year later would be helpful. Changing eating habits longterm is tough. Going to comfort food is easy to do when life gets tough.
The only time we ate out was when we went shopping for school clothes and at Christmas. No joke. It was a big deal to go out to eat, and we got to order a Coca Cola and something we didn't eat at home very much.
We also played outside, irrespective of the season. We road our bicycles for miles every day.
Trouble is, too many folks don't even have those things in their lives today.