.jpg "Jessica Alba & Daughters: Posh Photo Shoot")
Jessica Alba & Daughters: Posh Photo Shoot
Snooki: I've Gained 15 Pounds In My Boobs!
Sharon Stone Sued By Former Nanny Over Alleged Racial Comments And Unjust Termination
10 Pregnant Celebrities: Maternity Style Trends Jamie Oliver's Kids Eat Healthy By "Getting Involved With The Process"
| Apr 13, 2011 by LISA ESTALL |
Jamie Oliver recently talked to Parade.com about his series Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution and how he hopes America will start eating healthier.
The celebrity chef says his children, Poppy, 9, Daisy, 8, Petal, 2 and Buddy, 7 months, eat healthy by "getting involved with the process."
He adds, "Do the shopping, help with the cooking, help with the cleaning up. Plant some seeds and grow a tomato. If kids are involved in the creation of food, they will eat it."
When asked what his favorite dish to cook at home is he replies, "That's like asking me which kid is my favorite. I love to cook and always have a variety of things, salads, roasts, pastas, fish--whatever is in season and looks good at the market. I have training and access to fresh food, so cooking for me is easy. I think it should be the right of everyone to have the same knowledge and access."
The second season of the show was filmed in Los Angeles and Jamie hopes parents will react to what they see.
He says, "I hope that parents will get angry watching this show and demand a better food education for their children. We've tried to tell a very complicated story and show what's possible when people get involved. We work in schools, fast food and in people's homes."
Jamie says he likes all kinds of foods, as long as you balance the portions and that the ingredients are fresh.
I love burgers, I love pizza. I just love when they are made with fresh, whole ingredients. The ingredients list in pizza should be about 5 items long, depending on the toppings. The ingredients list in school piece is 64 items long--that is a problem."
Other Links
Check out top baby names trending in 2012 [Parenting]
The new mom's guide to well-baby visits [PNmag]
Women share the most shocking part of being a new mom [Parenting]
Celebrity Baby Names [FitPregnancy]
Summer Maternity Must-Haves [Parents]
Get Pregnant Faster: Your 7-Step Plan [Parents]
Cool And Unique Boy Names [Fit Pregnancy]
.jpg "Congrats to Chris Hemsworth & Elsa Pataky! Do you like the name India?")
While I respect him for his intentions, I have a major issue with someone telling me how to feed my child. I lived in the UK when he started his movement over there. Even in a more socialized government setting It failed miserably because control was taken away from the parent, so they became apathetic. Fact is if you do not allow children any sweets they will get it elsewhere and then not understand how to balance it. However if you teach them how to have both, they will not crave the sweets as much.
If my son's school ( when he starts) dictates to me what I can and cannot serve him he will be pulled out immediately. Taking the responsibility away from the parent is counterproductive and sends the child a message that their mom and dad cannot make informed decisions on their own.
Well said. In my daughter's class, she is unable to bring any candy or pastries. If I could afford to send her to private I would. It is disgraceful that we are not allowing our kids to enjoy cupcake parties, Halloween treats, Christmas cookies - all because of a few health Nazis. My husband and I are both slim and athletic, yet we indulge and our daughter does to. Leave the decision up to Us!!!!!
Nothing is preventing you from giving your kids all the junk you want at home. They are not going to be deprived just because they can't have it at school as well.
But it should be an option.
Why? No one needs to eat crap. And no one is being deprived just because they can't have crap for a few hours a day.
agreed with Tara.
I completely DISagree with Tara! Have you looked around lately?? There are WAY too many FAT kids in our society!! Some parents are failing and DO need intervention! It's not just the school cafeteria food either. I have met my kids for lunch at school and I look around to see some of the kids' lunchboxes full of nothing but granola bars and snack packs of crackers and cookies! No sandwich on whole wheat, no fruit or veggie and instead of good ole water they've got their Capri sun or juice boxes!! Crazy. That is just not food.
You cannot take away all kids rights simply because others are failing. No one should dictate to any of us how to feed our children. It's not my responsibility to deprive my sons because other parents are too lazy to care. Sorry you are completely WRONG.
I am not saying that anyone should take away your right to feed your sons treats at home (as I do plenty with my four) BUT I would absolutely LOVE if someone gave our school lunch a makeover, and in the process benefit our childrens' health. The food they serve is disgusting and over-processed. The problems go way beyond the flavored milk!
Why should I only be allowed to give him treats at home? He cannot tell me how to pack a lunch. It's my choice.
Absolutely! It's your choice! All I am sayin' is that I choose for Jamie to help our system! I want my kids to eat better! You can feed your kids WHATEVER you want!
Can't wait for him to be shown up for the fraud that he is. He failed here miserably. Why not take care of your problems from within. Are you guys that much of bandwagon jumpers that you need us BRITS to help you?
No but apparently we are a bunch of fat-asses that dont want reform!
The only ass on the board is you for equating big brother with reform.
Uh why are you looking at other kids lunches, and what's wrong with crackers, granola bars and fruit juice?!
nothing is wrong with crackers and granola bars as SNACks but they should not collectively comprise a meal! And juice is just junk.
According to whom? I am a RNe and orange juice and apple juice are key providers of vitamins c, d and calcium.
Granola is perfect and peanut butter crackers give protein. White flour is fine in moderation.
I don't dispute your point, but what's an RNe? I've only heard of RN's and RNA's here in Canada.
Typo. RN
Fixing cafeteria food is one thing. Telling parents how to pack a lunch for their child is outrageously offensive not to mention somewhat oppressive.
Yes obesity is at an all time high, but what happened to individual responsibility. I am not talking about the children, it's the adults. Yet I should not have to adjust my life because other parents are apathetic and not active participants in their child's welfare.
I did not tell anyone how to pack a lunch .... that was merely an observation!
Um a bit sensitive, I don't think she mentioned you personally. It seems the target was Jamie, but go on feel persecuted.
Yes, you do seem to have personalized my post. It is meant at any governing body who feels it appropriate to come into my home and dictate how I can rear my child. As long as I am not breaking the law nor abusing him, and a cookie here and there is NOT abuse, they have absolutely no right to intercede.
Do what the hell you want in the cafeteria, in fact I am in favor of giving options, but leave what I pack for my child alone. Fortunately it is a moot point since my son will got to private school, where ironically he will be afforded more freedoms than our so called "free public institutions".
And to the ignorant people stating those against mandatory rule are "fatties". I too weigh about 119 pounds and am 5'8. Not exactly a fat ass. If you resort to insults it merely means you have nothing constructive to add to this fair debate.
The "fatties" comment was not me. I am sorry that I did not notice earlier that I was being identified as anonymous. I will change that on this post. Please note that I contributed only about 20% of the anonymous posts!
No I appreciate that and your points are valid. I think for me what is more alarming is that people cannot have an adult debate without resorting to name calling. If this is how people speak on the boards , I dread to think what they are teaching their children by example. Personally I doubt anyone who questions the overhaul to the lunch programs is feeding their child "crap" all day. If you take the time to discuss this matter on a board you obviously have the welfare of your child at heart, no matter what side you fall on. Thanks
Somewhat agree with Tara. Too much big brother going on today. He did not succeed over here in London because no one wants to be told what to do..
Obesity is an epidemic, however it should be left up to parents and healthcare to control...not schools.
"however it should be left up to parents and healthcare to control"
so basecly what are you saying is just continue how it is now,which is doing nothing about it.
No clearly I am stating it's up to parents to take care of their own children....!! I do my job and could not care a less if the so called "poor children" are born to pathetic screwed up welfare moms, who expect "the village" to take care of their obligations. My children are allowed two treats a week. I taught them properly so they do not attempt to get away with more.
People seem to be saying that Jamie Oliver did not succede? I'd like to know how success is mesured by them because Jamie Oliver did open the debate over school food in england as he intended. He got the goverment to do some reform in school food which he wanted. There also seems to be an idea that because you want to treat your child to a sweet that no one dare to say that sweets in large amounts are bad for you. Or that another parent wants schools to teach about and provide better food for our children that they are wrong to do so. Jamie Oliver IS a father to four children he wants what is best for those children as such he has every right to promote better food education in our schools.
well Jamie is banned from Los Angels.
Like Tara, I am also opposed to the Big Brother idea. Doesn't Jamie Oliver have enough to keep him challenged in this area in the UK -- obesity in children is becoming far more prevalent as he well knows. Leave America to the Americans to figure out!!!
Keep him, we think he is a prat here;)
I think that if you yourslef are doing a decent job feeding your kids real whole foods, then you would not be get so bent out of shape when a man tries to get the junk and chemicals out of schools. He is trying to educate the kids and parents on the importance and ease of nutrition. Most of the time I CHOOSE real foods but we have the occasional slice of birthday cake.
Far too many kids do no have that choice because the school/parents are ill informed or just plain do not care. I say Bravo to Jamie Oliver for trying to iprove the health of our kids.
Improving and BANNING are two separate issues here.
Yes! Thank you! I think all these people are so up-in-arms about having their "rights" taken away they are failing to see that all Jaime would do is BENEFIT our children! Who doesn't want that?? Especially, like you said, if you are trying so hard at home to keep it real and keep it whole only to be sabotaged by our schools! I wish I didn't have to pack my kids' lunches everyday in order to ensure that they are eating well.
You sound like one of the too lazy parents. Is it that much energy to pack a lunch. Pathetic.
But I do agree nothing wrong with educating about nutrition AS LONG as it remains optional.
Nope, not lazy at all actually. I pack four lunches every morning, I am just saying that it would be nice if our school system offered a healthy option so that on the days they were serving something one of my kids would like to eat, I would actually LET them eat it! Sheesh!
From what I see now, the only options now are unhealthy or inedible. And it's the kids who choose what they'll eat. Guess what they pick...
Give children the choice and they'll always choose fries, pizza, etc. over healthier options. The only way to get kids to eat the healthier options is by A) making it taste good B) drop the unhealthy option.
No one condemns Nutrition and Healthier options. In fact not one person here has even implied that. It is wrong for you to label them as such. What is at issue here is that it's getting out of hand. A school does NOT have the right to prevent me from packing a candy bar alongside an apple if I want to. We pay taxes and should have the freedoms that come with it.
Mr Oliver comes from a socialized system. Last time I checked we were a democracy of free will.
I dont believe that anyone is trying to tell you what to pack. Jamie is trying to better the school lunches! Feel free to cram as much crap into your kid's lunchbox as you want! (along side that apple.)
Ever notice how the angry posts here come from those who want to keep sugar out of the schools Eat an Oreo and lighten the hell up.
(And to beat you to the punch and insult me by implying i am overweight, I am QUITE the opposite. Not all of us who want to be able to have choice are unhealthy and lazy....as you have implied.)
Actually if you read his complete 375 page manifesto, it details how schools MUST regulate the contents of packed lunches too. He argues that schools need to restrict ALL SUGAR, and ALL fats ( including healthy ones). He states parmets should mot pack anything that the school does not provide in its own menu.
Fix the school cafeteria as much as you want, but don't come into private homes and tell people what they can and cannot provide for their children. Where does it stop? We are one decade away from an Orwellian society.
I am a product of a household where candy, cakes, sugar and fats were completely forbidden. I never learned how to balance it out once I was able to sneak the sweets. For 18 years I was slim and healthy. Then I went to college and all hell broke loose. Today I am not proud to admit- but I am 100 pounds overweight. Now do I blame anyone but myself or this? Not at all. But if you deprive kids the option of choice at a young age they will Never have the tools to know what is best for them in the long run. Trying to reform menus is a good idea as a whole, but from what I have read about Jamie- and his ABSOLUTE control of meals at home and in school is wrong.
I'm confused...by trying to cause an awareness of the highly-processed crap kids are being fed in school lunches, how exactly is he trying to take control away from parents?
Anyone questioning how the control is taken away from the parents, just ask us Brits. Little by little our freedoms have been stripped.
Jamie has no background in nutritional education. He caused dire problems here in Nottingham and Cumbria. Eventually children were no longer able to bring bagged sacs for tea( lunch). It backfired on him, that is why he has gone to the states. Wake up. I am formerly from newcastle but currently live in New Jersey. I cringed when I saw he was here.
Oh please...!!! (re: AnonymousBrit! 's post)
I'm also from the UK, and i don't agree with you one tiny little bit. He has not caused dire problems here at all! His campaign was for the good of the kids, i don't understand why you're so keen to criticise him! The parents pushing burgers through the schoool gates etc were more of a reflection on them than Jamie, and i TOTALLY disagree that it backfired on him in the least! If anything i'd say the support he received from everyone but the media/uneducated few was probably what spurred him on to try to tackle the problem in America.
Jamie is not trying to 'strip' anyones freedom, merely educate them! And so what if he isn't a dietitian...common sense accounts for a lot, and he has plenty of that.
Good on him.
But as someone raised in England we condemn many Americans for coming over and inflicting their ideas on us. Why are they not allowed to do the same with JAMIE? You come off as the stereotypical conceited Brit they think of us. Let them have their own point of view and its rude to label those who disagree as "uneducated". Don't be elitist
Actually you are incorrect. A recent study by the NHS found that 78% of the children in those schools only went on to purchase the "crap" after the schools. ( THe guardian July 2010) They indicated this was because the kids argued that they felt they were being punished and were rebelling against the system. You need to allow them options, because 9/10 if educated they will order the fruits and veggies and occasionally have the sweets.
In the UK, we had a problem with his mission simply because he pressured s hooks so much about changing the menus, that other programs were cut to bow to the geurilla tactics he utilised.
In Birmingham, letters and arts had about 30% funding removed so that we had more apples and carrots for the kids. Now in my mind I would rather be concerned with feeding my own daughters because that takes little sense. Yet I cannot teach them arts and letters ( a poetry class). Your other programs will suffer believe me,
I'm not the biggest fan of Jamie Oliver, but what he does in the schools is actually good.
He doesn't want to ban foods, he just wants healthier options. He wants less processed food and more fruit and veg.
In the long run it's better for the children because they make healthier decisions. They can still have candy and cookies etc.
He highlights how children don't have a lot of access to fresh fruit, veg, meat in schools and don't have a varied palette because of this.
So in the long run he's helping. He's not dictating, just stating the facts. I mean have you seen what goes in to those turkey twizzlers :)
I totally agree with you. It feels as though everyone is always very quick to jump on the 'Dislike Jamie' bandwagon. When you look at it objectively, he is a genuinely nice guy, who is very very concerned with the way children's nutrition/health is going. All he has ever tried to do is educate people and do good, i really don't see why people are so ready to criticise him at every opportunity!
I'm from the UK, and to the people that said we think he is a prat, this is simply not true. He did a lot of work in schools over here before going to America, and although there was (inevitably) a lot of resistance at first -mainly from the government and media, it should be noted, and not the parents - he did manage to do a lot for the schools, and i think that is commendable.
Those that seem to take his honesty about the state of schools etc personally, really should take a look at themselves. Are you genuinely saying you'd prefer your children to 'be taught poetry' (as someone put it), rather than have a healthy start in life and be taught good habits?!?! That is insane.
SIDENOTE: I don't have children, but am a 27 year old training to be a paediatric nurse and totally agree a good diet is where it all starts. Health Promotion and good eating habits should be encouraged.
Also, when i was growing up my parents didn't have the money to buy the crappy pre-prepared that so many children have in their lunchboxes now, and as i result i felt left out and envious when i opened my lunchbox and all the other children had what i thought at the time were exciting things in theirs. So i believe it should be about fresh items, if only to avoid the children whose parents don't/won't provide such items from feeling left out and inferior because of it.
Good on you, Jamie!
So i believe it should be about fresh items, if only to avoid the children whose parents don't/won't provide such items from feeling left out and inferior because of it."
WTF? Since when did it become everyone else's responsibility to take care of others obligations? Are you seriously claiming " hurt feelings" as a rational reason to deprive other children? Enough of this EQUALITY bs.
Yeah, quote one sentence out of my entire post and take it entirely out of context why dontcha.
That is NOT what i was saying, that was my personal experience, added as a sidenote at the very end of a long post.
Well done trying to make ME look the idiot. And cut out the swearing. Not cool.
What I find troubling here is those who support Jamie Oliver feel threatened by those who think his motives are questionable at best. You attack those who feel that it's an individual responsibility to provide for your child, and label them as pro chemicals and junk. I read all 37 post and not one person stated" feed my child only sugar and fats". There is a serious and valid concern that our choices and freedoms are slowly but surely being minimalized. First it was prayer in school, then God was removed from the pledge of Allegiance, then there was no Christmas or Hannakuh- it was Winterfest. Schools ban peanut butter for a minority. It's not fair nor is it balanced. Where does it end.
Is improving nutrition good? Of course. Should it be MANDATORY across the board? Absolutely not.
"Is improving nutrition good? Of course. Should it be MANDATORY across the board?"
Absolutely YESS, at home you can give them all the junk you like though..
"Schools ban peanut butter for a minority. It's not fair or balanced." What a selfish, horrible thing to say. You can feed your kid peanut butter at home, but children who are severely allergic to peanut butter can not control their environment if other children bring in the allergen. Peanut allergies usually end up being very serve. Some people do not even need to touch peanuts, but simply breathe in the peanut dust to have an allergic reaction. As someone who has seizures due to allergic reaction and anaphyalaxis, I can understand the pain of these children. Unlike your children, who don't have a peanut allergy, these children can die from peanut butter. These children have a right to be educated in a safe environment were their lives will not be in danger.
As a mom of a 7 year old boy who has a peanut allergy, I actually disagree with you. I support Jamie and his mission. However, I do not think an entire school needs to ban peanut butter solely because my son is allergic. It was up to me to safeguard his lunches as well as making sure the teachers were aware of his dietary restrictions. I would feel completely at fault for telling anyone what they can provide for their children. Peanut butter is an economical choice for many and why should they have to alter their life to fit my needs.
Helene is right on other issues there is way too much being removed from schools in the name of equality.
Actually only about .02% of children with a peanut allergy have it to a degree whereupon anaphylactic shock is a result. While of course we want to avoid any cases, to ban it entirely is truly unfair. I have my degree in nursing from the University of Pennsylvania and also am a physicians assistant at Children's Hospital. The truth of the matter is, that the majority of food allergies are brought on by hysteria. C. Everett Koop wrote in his book in 1999, " the rate at which children are being diagnosed with peanut, wheat or soy products is disproportionately high in comparison to two decades ago" He reasons that while their certainly are valid cases AND they must be treated accordingly, many caretakers actually CREATE these allergies by withholding the food so the child cannot develop the proper immune system. Last year alone over 15.3 million cases of peanut allergies were reported to the HHS, compare this to 1995 where there were 1.2 million., the population growth has stalled so one cannot rationalize it with more births.
There is cause for concern for some, but nowhere near the frenzy it has reached.
"I think that if you yourself are doing a decent job feeding your kids real whole foods, then you would not be get so bent out of shape when a man tries to get the junk and chemicals out of schools."
Completely agree with this! He's clearly hit a nerve...
The sad truth is that there are a lot of parents who obviously can't be trusted to feed their children well, hence the obesity crisis we are seeing in the west now. It is the responsibility of everyone in society to ensure that we are raising a generation of healthy, fit, educated children, not a society of overfed and overweight kids who will end up being a massive burden to the health system and probably seeing their own lives being cut dramatically short. It is no longer legal (at least in Australia, where I'm from) to drive with children in a car while smoking, so why should it be okay to let your kids live on a diet of junk food, which is just as detrimental to their health? If parents can't be trusted to do the right thing by their kids and feed them healthy and nutritious food, then I'm sorry, but somebody else needs to step in. Letting your kids live on a diet of junk food is a form of abuse, and should be treated as such.
I think Jamie Oliver is doing a brilliant job, and I can't believe that people can't see the good in his message.
100% agree. (Also, see my other post for a longer response, its too long to repeat lol) x
lol the fatties aren't happy, of course you disagree...
What an ignorant post from a completely inarticulate person. This society has become too politically correct. God forbid you have a differing view. God fir bid you actually make PARENTS do their job and be responsible for the welfare of their own children. If you take the time to teach them and guide them in the making the right choices then there should be no concern NOR any need to control everyone else's lives.
I would bet the majority of the women in agreement are "working moms" who have a habit of pushing off their jobs of raising their children to a third party regardless. Why not get off YOUR FAT ASSES and do YOUR JOBS! Feel in adequate so much so that you can only resort to pre pubescent name calling. Pathetic much?
For the record I run the boston marathon and new York marathon every year, how about you?!
We live such fast paced lives too self absorbed and stressed most of the time to worry about healthy eating. I applaud Jamie for taking a stand and trying to get people to eat healthier. People need to stop being so defensive and put on their big people pants and think about what they are teaching and shoving down their kids throats!
Here is an idea why not get up in arms about the pathetic education our children receive in the wealthiest country in the world? We placed 24th last year in standardized tests out of 75 nations. It's the educators obligation to teach my children core curriculum. It's my job to teach them health, morality and social skills. By putting this emphasis AND tax dollars on "feel good" programs, condom distribution and sex education to grade schoolers, and over hauling food services, you are taking much needed funds and MORE importantly time away from the things school have traditionally been responsible for. Additionally the NYT reported a month ago that Jamie is paid by your tax dollars if the city/ school district uses his services. How is that balanced. I want my child to have arts, athletic and educational advantages from my taxes.
In Finland school meals are free to all children and they are carefully balanced, nutritious dishes, not the plates of chips and baked beans that are the favourites of British children at lunchtime. And as an incentive not to over-indulge in fizzy drinks and hamburgers, the children are weighed at the end of every school year and if obesity is suspected, their parents are contacted immediately.
Feel free to do the same and stop whining about how someone wanting your kids to eat healthy is taking something away from you as a parent. Jamie's cause is great and every parent should be behind it 100%.
Completely agree! If other parents feel threatened or get defensive about Jamie's stance then clearly something is wrong. Maybe you're not feeding your kids properly and don't want to be reminded of that?
What I do not want is someone infringing upon my rights as a mother. As Tara has tried to make clear to everyone here ,without resorting to insults I might add, the issue is not about the overhaul of the cafeteria. Do what you want- more power to you. However his plans include restricting what one can BRING into their lunch bags. Sorry I thought I lived in a democracy.
I completely agree with you but I am telling you if our school here in Western New York heard about kids being weighed in at the end of the school year, parents would completely freak out and protest. I would say easily that 1 in 4 and maybe even 1 in 3 kids in our school is what I would consider "pudgy". So not by any means obese, but definitely in the danger zone of becoming so if not carefully monitored.
All those from countries that are socialized do not mind because they have become accustomed to being lazy sheep. They don't have to work for their healthcare so expect freebies for their entire life. Keep your opinion in your own country!
To be frank, they are not FREE. My husband was born in Helsinki and he said the amount of taxes that are taken to cover government sponsored programs amounts to almost 55% of your pay. You must follow all their choices and all their guidelines. It's the same lame argument when people say healthcare is free in countries like CANADA ( where I am from) and the UK. It's not free you have no choice. At least in the USA you have many more freedoms and options. I find fault with other things in AMERICA but I do envy the fact that things are less big brother-ish
I really don't think that is what is going on here. I really does seem to me that the people on this board who are anti-Jamie, really are concerned about the loss of rights that goes along with it. I see that point, but I also don't see what it hurts in this case. Even if it extends to the lunch boxes. My daughter's fourth grade teacher this year mandated that for snack the children could only bring in fruit or veggies. It did seem extreme to me, but am I going to argue for my child to bring in a granola bar or crackers? No. Because the truth is, I'd really rather she'd eat fruit and veggies over what may be her preference. I enjoy baking for my kids and they get plenty of treats, I just like to balance that by offering real, whole foods as their meals... lunch included. Our school does offer options such as a yogurt parfait or a tossed salad in place of the main course offered but as someone else said, if it is the child's choice they will often times opt for the pizza or chicken nuggets. Why can't those things be brought up to a healthy level? And if Jamie's plan does nix all the treats and sugary milks, I for one don't mind "making up" for that with a warm home-baked cookie and a glass of regular milk afterschool. Isn't that giving me MORE control?
Whoops, my above post was supposed to be a reply to lara. Sorry.
Now this is a contradictory opinion I can respect. She states her point without criticizing others for theirs. Anyone here who thinks those of us against Jamie do so because we want our children to become fat and lazy are ignorant fools.
It's about creating mandates on a tax payers dime. Yes that's what government does as a whole, however when it be ones too much you have to be able to question it without the entire debate becoming like a schoolyard brawl.
Finally, someone that sees this for what it is! 100% agree!
I'm probably the only one who believes that Jamie Oliver is not dictating how a mother should feed her child. A mother can feed her child however she wants, if she wants to give candies and other sugar food that's ok, Jamie's fight is not against mothers. Every mother knows what's best for her own child, if it includes anything unhealthy not just food that's a problem for the future not for the present.
If a mother do not want the school her child attend to give him vegetables, fruits and other things she believes to be awful for her child. She should tell the school what her child can and can't eat. The school can feed the other kids whatever they planned.
Jamie is not trying to give butter to a child who is allergic. He is not trying to give specific food to a child that has health problems related to it.
I really doubt Jamie has the power to make you stop feeding your child however you want. If the man has so power over you, there's certainly a problem with you not with him.
If his mandate includes bagged lunches, as is detailed in his mission statement -and the schools comply, that IS controlling what I can feed my child.
This does not happen in private schools thank goodness.
After watching Jamie Olver In LA, I find it funny that some one here has said that there is more freedom in america and the it is less big brother-ish. It looks like America is fast heading away from being a democracy to becoming a Corparate State. That school board knows what its doing, pulling the wool over peoples eyes and making lots of money for there masters. Big Brother is alive and well in America!
I dont think eating junk is a privilege. Children are more clever and adaptable than you think they are. I remembered when our bio school teacher told us coke is bad and addictive, a lot of us started cutting down on sodas. Some of us ( including myself) stopped completely ( this was in middle school). I did feel much better and better able to concentrate on my study and earn good grades. They will resist, yes at first. But in the end, as a professor on nutritional studies put it "Change depends on the commitment of adults, not children." Providing healthier food at lunch will benefit our children and society in the long run.
Post new comment
By leaving a comment you agree to the Terms of Service, including
specifically celebritybabyscoop.com's right to delete comments or otherwise
as set forth in Section 8.