Michelle Obama’s School Chefs
[Guest post by DRJ]
At the White House today, First Lady Michelle Obama welcomed 500 everyday and celebrity chefs from 37 states who are joining to fight childhood obesity. Their goal is to increase the use of healthy foods in school lunches, pair chefs with local schools to collaborate on healthier menus, and reduce reliance on junk food in school cafeterias. That’s a worthwhile goal, both now and in 2005 when British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver pioneered it in his Feed Me Better school campaign.
It’s good to involve chefs but I don’t agree that chefs necessarily know a lot about nutrition, healthy foods, and how to plan economical menus. Chefs know taste, as evidenced by some of the hefty chefs (who will remain unnamed here) in our communities and on TV. Then again, perhaps health-focused chefs like Jamie Oliver will be more interested in this program and more likely to sign up for it.
So kudos to Michelle Obama for trying to improve school food in our communities with volunteer chefs. And kudos to Jamie Oliver for actually doing it.
— DRJ
Whatever happened to the saying, “Never trust a skinny chef”?
wherestherum (d413fd) — 6/4/2010 @ 7:13 pmA considerable amount of the time spent in a culinary school is devoted to nutrition and management.
To be a successful chef requires more than just the ability to please the palate.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 6/4/2010 @ 7:17 pmHow about fighting childhood obesity by giving them PE class a fraction of what it was like when I was a kid. These grade school kids can’t do pull ups or push ups worth a damn today.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/4/2010 @ 8:08 pmCall it gym again instead of something PC like Kinetic Wellness.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/4/2010 @ 8:09 pmI remember watching Shaq’s Big Challenge where he took a group of overweight school kids and challenged/trained them to exercise, eat right, etc.
In one segment he had Food Network chef Tyler Florence go to the school and work with the cafeteria workers and nutritionist on creating healthy lunches. It was ridiculous. He was busy teaching them how to make healthy wraps, going on about the quality of veggies in the wraps, etc., and all the while the employees were rolling their eyes and as one finally explained rather bluntly, with over 700 lunches to make each day and around $1.50 to spend on each lunch, they simply didn’t have the time or luxury to be hand wrapping wraps or adding $1.00 to the cost each lunch. He looked really ignorant and obviously had no idea of the magnitude of the task nor the severe cost limitations. You can’t get the best produce, you can’t make everything by hand at that moment, and organic freshness is not at the top of the priority list.
So I had this great original idea: Why don’t parents take 5 minutes in the morning and *make* their children a healthy lunch: P & J sandwich, piece of fruit, baked chips, whatever. Just because it’s easier to let others push the *big rock* uphill, doesn’t mean one should.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/4/2010 @ 8:23 pmEW1(SG):
Absolutely, and these BLS statistics support your statement. But not all chefs go to culinary or similar schools and take those courses, nor are they all into healthy eating.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/4/2010 @ 8:23 pmDRJ, I always appreciated Nigella Lawson’s honesty about her food love, healthy or otherwise. No pretenses. It is ironic that her hubby who was a bit chubby, went on a vegetarian diet and told her she was no longer allowed to cook for him!
With that, the seeming inevitable problem that comes with these do-goodisms of Mrs. Obama’s is there is some political agenda behind it or an another attempt to force something on citizens is in the making – something that should remain a choice… we’ll see.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/4/2010 @ 8:44 pmWhy don’t parents take 5 minutes in the morning and *make* their children a healthy lunch: P & J sandwich, piece of fruit, baked chips, whatever.
Exactly. I’ve always found that while I was in school, the heavily subsidized school lunches more often than not ended up uneaten and in the trash.
wherestherum (d413fd) — 6/4/2010 @ 9:01 pmI have a cock-eyed theory probably worth nothing:
There is a huge difference between “good” food and “healthy” food.
Humans haven’t been around for a long time, but they have progressed a great deal because of something, let’s call it “intelligence.”
So, in a very short period of time, humans have progressed from a sustenance existence to a bountiful existence. And we managed to send people to the moon as well as make very good, high-caloric, tasty food.
But everyone forgets that the reason we have high-caloric, tasty food now is because about 200,000 years ago, we did indeed need it.
And that high-caloric, tasty food that we created allowed us to send people to the moon and create a world where Keith Olbermann is beamed to every home in America to complain about what lousy people we are. Or, if you’re of another bent, it has allowed Rush to take Oxycontin and be fat, although he’s not as fat as Olbermann is now.
So, we have every nutritionist, doctor, lawyer, liberal and First Lady on the planet telling us to stop eating tasty food. And they’re right. But it’s a hard sell.
For better or worse, we are hard-wired to eat high-calorie, tasty food for survival. Our intelligence outstripped our adaptation to plenty. You can blame whoever you want, but markets rule.
Ag80 (1b8eea) — 6/4/2010 @ 9:31 pmIf we’re spouting theories, Ag80, I’ll do you one better: The older we get, the more we need those tasty, high calorie foods. Why? Because being slim is good until we’re about 70. After that, we live longer if we’re a little plump.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/4/2010 @ 9:39 pmDRJ:
It makes sense doesn’t it?
For most people over 70, heart disease will kill them first. For the ones who are in good shape, the likely cause will be cancer. But plenty of old, fat people do survive until 70 and if heart disease doesn’t get them, cancer has a good chance. Logically, they have an advantage in a wasting disease such as cancer.
Regardless, we all have a 100 percent chance of leaving the mortal coil.
Ag80 (1b8eea) — 6/4/2010 @ 9:58 pmJaimie’s food was reportedly not very healthy when analyzed by a nutritionist. I watched the show and he was completely obnoxious–sort of like Sir Paul mocking Bush. MYOB, Limeys!
However, at least Michelle is not funneling taxpayer dollars to these people but is just talking…right?
Patricia (160852) — 6/4/2010 @ 11:14 pmWas Paula Dean there?
Dick S (aca5c8) — 6/5/2010 @ 8:40 amHer cooking is certainly healthy.
Reason magazine had a whole article on Jamie Oliver and his food activism. Worth a read if you haven’t read it yet.
Scoop11 (b7fb80) — 6/5/2010 @ 9:19 amSo I’m guessing my family’s bacon, mayonnaise and beer casserole would not get the Nanny State Chef seal of approval.
Dr Carlo Lombardi (23dbc0) — 6/5/2010 @ 10:05 am#6 DRJ:
No, they don’t. And to solicit advice from a celeb chef who isn’t practicing in the field of healthy and cost effective nutrition is like going to a podiatrist about your eyes.
#9 Ag80:
I don’t think it was as long ago as all that, I think you could pare that down to 50-100 years ago, and make a good case for it.
Since developing diabetes, I’ve noticed that a lot of people are hung up on calories…which are related to weight gain and loss, but clinical dietitians and diabetics think in terms of carbohydrates, fats and proteins. I never understood prior to that how it was that rice had been so popular in many cultures throughout the world, but it is such a carb rich food that only a small amount supplies the energy required for a day. And my great grandparents, living into their nineties with those big huge white slabs of pork fat they called bacon…but for many years my great grandpa tilled behind a horse team. And as DRJ notes, as we get old (not merely older) our ability to process our food intake declines, requiring us to choose more effective foods.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 6/5/2010 @ 10:15 am3.How about fighting childhood obesity by giving them PE class a fraction of what it was like when I was a kid. These grade school kids can’t do pull ups or push ups worth a damn today.
4.Call it gym again instead of something PC like Kinetic Wellness.
Comments by daleyrocks — 6/4/2010 @ 8:09 p
I agree that the amount of physical activity has changed more in the last 40 years (perhaps largely due to TV, video and computer games) than food has.
I think Wii and other computer games that force physical activity (more than bowling) would be a good idea. Maybe the Obama girls could convene a meeting of game makers to make games that are fun, physically active, and don’t include stealing cars. (half sarc/half serious- worse things could be done) I played a soccer simulation game at a science museum where you played the goalie and had to block shots coming at you. As the game went on the shots came quicker and faster and was quite challenging.
MD in Philly (cb8efe) — 6/5/2010 @ 10:31 amScoop11,
There are similarities between Michelle Obama’s suggestions and Jamie Oliver’s mandates. Any bets on whether those suggestions will become mandates?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/5/2010 @ 11:24 amWasn’t the whole point to have celebrity chefs that could bring attention to the plight of the poor school lunch, in order to improve it through various means? It wasn’t to have them all plan the meals, it was to have them each adopt a school, and use their celebrity as a chef to focus attention on the quality and nutritional value of the school food. Bringing such focused attention on the school lunch programs in so many areas in the US at the same time is bound to have an impact on awareness. It is kind of ingenious, actually.
Chris Hooten (3bba6e) — 6/5/2010 @ 3:30 pmI’m not sure where you got that idea, Chris. Here is the program’s stated goal:
That’s not PR. It’s pairing chefs with schools to make specific decisions about what students eat.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/5/2010 @ 3:37 pmHere’s Mrs. Obama’s explanation of the chefs’ role:
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/5/2010 @ 3:38 pm