I've been watching Jamie Oliver's TV series filmed in the USA, Jamie's Food Revolution with a degree of interest. I call shows like this (and its UK-based predecessors, Jamie's School Dinners and Jamie's Ministry of Food) car-crash television: some of the scenes are so horrific, you can't help but watch them.
Jamie's message on the Food Revolution website says:
This food revolution is about saving America's health by changing the way you eat. It's not just a TV show, it's a movement for you, your family and your community. If you care about your kids and their future take this revolution and make it your own. Educate yourself about food and cooking. Find out what your child is eating at school. Make only a few small changes and magical things will happen. Switching from processed to fresh food will not only make you feel better but it will add years to your life.In this series Jamie heads to Huntington, West Virginia - which has been called the unhealthiest city in America - to start his new cooking initiative. He aims to combat obesity, heart disease and diabetes by challenging the way the people are eating and he hopes to use Huntington as the spark to initiate positive change across the United States.
I've only watched two episodes so far, but I was especially shocked by the meals that were being served up to young children in the school cafeteria in the first school he visited in Huntington, and I remember being similarly shocked when I watched the UK version, Jamie's School Dinners.
While the meals may technically tick all the boxes with regards to Government nutrition guidelines, I would hate to think my children were being dished up processed, frozen and reheated pizza for breakfast, or chicken nuggets for lunch (washed down by flavoured milk).
Have a look at the (top) photo of a school meal that meets that US Federal guidelines here.
Or how about this promo video which shows some of the processed foods Jamie found in the school kitchen freezer?
Whether it was by design or default (I don't know, perhaps someone may be able to enlighten me) I think one of the cleverest choices Australia made before our time, was not to provide Government-subsidised school lunches. I suspect that when a Government delivers food, cost-cutting and efficiencies become paramount. In addition, parents lose some of the accountability of choosing what their children eat.
Australia has a strong culture of 'packed lunches'. Each child brings his or her own lunch to school, or selects and pays for his or her own from a school canteen (which doesn't always offer great food options, but that's another story). This places the total responsibility for that child's nutrition firmly back in the family fold. It doesn't mean parents always make great choices either, but at least we don't have to battle an institution and Government to ensure our children eat what we want them to. (We just have to battle stubborn children!)
On the other hand, the provision of subsidised meals can offer a guarantee that children are getting at least one meal a day which will be filling and will meet some nutrition guidelines, as not all children are fortunate enough to be well-fed at home.
What do you think? I'd be interested to hear the school-lunch experiences of readers in other parts of the world.
