Irritated by Jamie Oliver's sometimes preachy stance against junk foods and desire to keep kids eating healthy, some Yorkshire mothers are getting revenge - by "smuggling pies, burgers and fizzy drinks to their kids, as well as their children's friends, at a school." The foods are handed off through the fence at the school boundary.
A better, more logical way to get "revenge" would be to feed the children healthy foods, proving that neither mother needs Jamie's apparently unwanted help and advice to keep their kids fit and healthy. But the mothers seem to feel that trying to make their kids, who are about 11 years old, fatter, is the best course of action.
Hopefully the kids will figure out that this isn't necessarily in their best interest, since the mothers don't seem to be taking that into consideration.
Cheese Course: Brebis Pardou
A transcendent summer tomato salad
Sliced bread turns 80 today
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-19-2006 @ 12:33PM
Christina said...
Schools shouldn't be so strict. Whatever happened to letting kids be kids? Encouraging choice? We've all had sweets and sodas sometimes. It doesn't necessarily lead to anyone getting fatter unless it's in excess. That's why I think all these bans on "junk food" and sodas in schools are ridiculous.
Thinking of it that way, as if these parents were "trying to make their kids fatter" is biased and silly. What if they're simply exercising their right to decide what they want to feed their children. And additionally, just letting kids be kids and have fun instead of living under some draconian 'school (government) knows best' rule.
What these schools are doing is taking away any elements of choice, even over what parents can feed their own children. That is a ridiculous usurpation of parental rights. No wonder these parents are angry.
Reply
9-19-2006 @ 1:53PM
calamari said...
What is with this Oliver-style dogma that if the child ever eats anything that isn't fresh, organic produce, the results are instant obesity, diabetes, and early death?
I agree with Christina that parents are reacting to the insulting idea that the schools need to protect children from their own parents and home life. There's probably also more to the story in terms of whether the children actually eat what the school serves -- we're told it's wonderful, but I'm not sure that an empty stomach because Johnny didn't want to eat his healthful lunch is better for learning than Johnny having had a burger.
Reply
9-19-2006 @ 2:45PM
Mike said...
The linked article isn't clear on whether things were "banned" vs just not being offered by the school. If the parents want to pack a lunch of chicken nuggets and Pepsi for their kids, that should be their prerogative. But whining because the school doesn't supply those things to the kids is nonsense.
The same way kids are "forced" to go to phys ed, learn to read and write and behave in class, they should be "forced" to learn to eat in manner that is good for them. If the parents want to circumvent that, fine, but that's no reason the schools should go back to serving deep fried mystery meat and Coke in the lunch rooms.
"He's forcing our kids to become picky about their food". Funny that statement was intended to be derogatory.
Reply
9-19-2006 @ 7:35PM
Paul said...
Jamie Oliver's crusade is 'junk', not the food he dislikes so much.
There is a need to look at improving the funding of children's dinners, and to promote healthy eating, but it is wrong to peddle the myth that 'junk' food is harmful. There is no evidence that when consumed as part of a healthy diet that these foods do any harm. He should promote a healthy active lifestyle and stop trying to paint 'junk' food as nutritionally worthless/harmful.
Reply