Jamie's Ministry of Food

Khannie

Just started watching this last night (thanks to this post). Crackin' show. Thought it deserved its own thread. Really fascinated at how badly the people were eating.

A few things that really stood out:

• Quite a few of them had never cooked meat
• That woman who ate 10 bags of crisps and a galaxy bar for dinner each night.
• The mum of two's fridge drawers
• Same ladys cooker! I totally want that range and she couldn't even cook a pancake!
• Same ladys children had never had a home cooked meal

Anyone else watch it? What did you think? Is he fighting a losing battle?

It seems counter-intuitive to me to be buying fast food when you're on a budget. Real food is so much cheaper.

Orion

watched it too. Brilliant show - even if your not a Jamie Oliver (which I'm not). Scary that a 5 year old had never had a home cooked meal!

g'em

Khannie wrote: »

• That woman who ate 10 bags of crisps and a galaxy bar for dinner each night.

Srsly?!!? :eek:

Khannie wrote:

It seems counter-intuitive to me to be buying fast food when you're on a budget. Real food is so much cheaper.

I've just started teaching again, and a couple of days ago we briefly touched on eating healthily and why so many people in Ireland don't. A variety of reasons were put forward (the class ranges in age from 17 - mid-50's) with one of the ones they all agreed on being that it was supposedly too expensive to eat healthily.

There are still so, so many misconceptions about eating a healthy, balanced diet it's scary....

MoominPapa

Khannie wrote: »

It seems counter-intuitive to me to be buying fast food when you're on a budget. Real food is so much cheaper.

That Guardian article is a good read. This section shows why is isn't so dumb, in the short term anyway, to eat crap when you are poor

When you are on a low income you buy the kind of food that fills you up most cheaply. What may seem ignorant choices to others are in fact quite rational. Lobstein has calculated the cost of 100 calories of food energy from different types of food. The cheapest way to get your 100 calories is to buy fats, processed starches and sugars. A hundred calories of broccoli costs 51p, but 100 calories of frozen chips only cost 2p. Good-quality sausages that are high in meat but low in fat cost 22p per 100 calories, but "value" fatty ones are only 4p per 100 calories. Poor quality-fish fingers are 12p per 100 calories compared with 29p for ones made with fish fillet that are higher in nutrients. Fresh orange juice costs 38p per 100 calories, while the same dose of energy from sugary orange squash costs 5p.

You don't get fined for feeding your kids crap but the bailiffs come knocking if you don't pay your council tax. Diet is the symptom - persistent poverty is the disease. To achieve its aims it'll take massive political action and thats not gonna happen (see Jamies School Dinners - lots of promises, feck all action). But like Hughes Chicken Run - doing something - its gotta be better than doing nowt

Orion

Carrots, peas, mince, onion, potato, oxo = less than a tenner.
Cottage Pie = feed 4 people

4*burgers and chips = €20

Pretty simple really

MoominPapa

Macros42 wrote: »

Carrots, peas, mince, onion, potato, oxo = less than a tenner.
Cottage Pie = feed 4 people

4*burgers and chips = €20

Pretty simple really

Much more complicated in reality. The chipper is down the road. The supermarket is how many bus journeys away. Imagine doing your weekly shopping by bus with two or more kids in tow

Macha

Plus that asssumes that they know how to cook cottage pie. I saw one of the women standing on the other side of a divide, while Jamie was convincing her to make a pancake. She was quite nervous (obv. cameras didn't help..)

Huggles

Khannie wrote: »

It seems counter-intuitive to me to be buying fast food when you're on a budget. Real food is so much cheaper.

Yeah, this is where we see the ignorance card being played, truth of the matter is nerly all of them are just plain lazy.

MoominPapa

Huggles wrote: »

Yeah, this is where we see the ignorance card being played, truth of the matter is nerly all of them are just plain lazy.

All of who?

littlefriend

Did anyone see 'half tonne dad' on More4 last night? The guys granddaughter was being fed a McDonalds type burger - she was 5 months old!!!! Never seen anything like it

Mr Magnolia

littlefriend wrote: »

Did anyone see 'half tonne dad' on More4 last night? The guys granddaughter was being fed a McDonalds type burger - she was 5 months old!!!! Never seen anything like it

Words cannot express my shock at this. You need a licence for a dog, a car even a TV but nearly any gob****e can have a child. I'm sickened.

As for the J.Oliver programme, I'll look out for it next week(?), sounds like it's better than his restaurants.

Huggles

MoominPapa wrote: »

All of who?

Jamies volunteers.

MoominPapa

Huggles wrote: »

Jamies volunteers.

Lazy volunteers? What must you think of those who were even "lazier" and didn't bother to volunteer?

What makes you believe the volunteers are lazy?

Huggles

MoominPapa wrote: »

Lazy volunteers? What must you think of those who were even "lazier" and didn't bother to volunteer?

What makes you believe the volunteers are lazy?

Did you even see the show?

Khannie raised the point that the volunteers raised with Jamie, saying that being on benefits means you can only afford takeaways. We, myself and khannie agree that fresh food is cheaper, however a numbr of said volunteers also played the ignorance card saying that they didn't know that fresh food was cheaper...imo in some of the cases, 10 packets of crisps and a galaxy bar girl, its just plain lazyness.

Macha

Huggles wrote: »

Did you even see the show?

Khannie raised the point that the volunteers raised with Jamie, saying that being on benefits means you can only afford takeaways. We, myself and khannie agree that fresh food is cheaper, however a numbr of said volunteers also played the ignorance card saying that they didn't know that fresh food was cheaper...imo in some of the cases, 10 packets of crisps and a galaxy bar girl, its just plain lazyness.

Sorry did you miss this quote?

When you are on a low income you buy the kind of food that fills you up most cheaply. What may seem ignorant choices to others are in fact quite rational. Lobstein has calculated the cost of 100 calories of food energy from different types of food. The cheapest way to get your 100 calories is to buy fats, processed starches and sugars. A hundred calories of broccoli costs 51p, but 100 calories of frozen chips only cost 2p. Good-quality sausages that are high in meat but low in fat cost 22p per 100 calories, but "value" fatty ones are only 4p per 100 calories. Poor quality-fish fingers are 12p per 100 calories compared with 29p for ones made with fish fillet that are higher in nutrients. Fresh orange juice costs 38p per 100 calories, while the same dose of energy from sugary orange squash costs 5p.

Huggles

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry did you miss this quote?

No I didn't, I don't think the people we are discussing are not even considering nutrients or calories. Merely buying what is tastiest and handiest to them. The quote has nothing to do with my lazy point.

Macha

Huggles wrote: »

No I didn't, I don't think the people we are discussing are not even considering nutrients or calories. Merely buying what is tastiest and handiest to them. The quote has nothing to do with my lazy point.

So..they eat bad food because they're lazy but you've just stated above that they don't consider nutrients or calories because of ignorance..you can't have it both ways. Do they eat bad food purely because they're lazy or are you accepting that there is an element of ignorance?

But research shows that their food choices are actually quite logical when looked at from a satiaty point of view. Their choices are also not surprising given the lack of food and nutritional information handed down at home. I'm sure convenience is an issue, but I would laugh if anyone here said that convenience never influences their food decisions.

God, I just love this thatcherite extreme of "personal responsibility". Most people with this view, usually come from quite priviledged backgrounds, surprisingly enough.

olaola

I was quite shocked that one woman (the 10 bags of crisps one) didn't know what simmering meant .. and didn't know what boiling water looked like!!! :eek:

The other mother (the one who cooked a pancake) said it was prohibitively expensive to cook fresh food, while she spent £12 a night on take-aways and she was smoking cigarettes? I don't really understand if she was lazy, ignorant, afraid or what. At least she showed the desire to change and wanted to be able to cook for her children. £12 in the UK will get you ingredients for at least 2 nights dinner.

The series is an eye opener anyway! I wasn't a major fan of Jamie's tbh - but I am warming to him. From all accounts (my sister works in the publishing business) he is a very nice chap and what you see on tv is what you get in real life.

Huggles

taconnol wrote: »

God, I just love this thatcherite extreme of "personal responsibility". Most people with this view, usually come from quite priviledged backgrounds, surprisingly enough.

No, I come from a background of I am fat, I know I am fat and I know how I got fat. I am now educating myself to change that.

taconnol wrote: »

God, I just love this thatcherite extreme of "personal responsibility".

Who do you think is to blame?

MoominPapa

Huggles wrote: »

Who do you think is to blame?

Poverty is too blame. It might not be the reason why you are/were fat, but it is the main reason the western world is experiencing a rising obesity crisis and why an ever increasing proportion of the population is not eating a properly nutritious diet.

Macha

Huggles wrote: »

No, I come from a background of I am fat, I know I am fat and I know how I got fat. I am now educating myself to change that.

Good for you. I was in the same boat. I also recognise that I come from a middle-class family, with a mother who stayed at home, a very sporty father and brother so plenty of inspiration and encouragement. I went to boarding school, had tennis lessons paid for and a lovely gym and hockey pitches to run around in.

I had the advantage of doing my LC, and spending 4 year faffing around in college. I'm now doing a Masters so that's another 18 months of faffing. I have access to the internet, spare cash to pay for my gym membership, yoga classes and nutritional books, and spare time to doodle around on the internet (broadband speed at home) looking up nutritional articles.

I recognise that people are people and poor people are not in any major way different from me than other middle-class people. Sure some are lazy but I sure met a lot of lazy middle-class kids in uni so that's a fairly universal attribute.

What's the difference? I got a leg-up when I started life, I effectively got lucky and hit a mini-jackpot when I was born into my family. My parents worked their asses off & instilled that idea in me. I am surrounded by people who have total faith in me and expected me to go to uni & have a successful career. I could just have easily been born into a family with serious financial difficulties, unemployed parents, perhaps with some sort of addictions, incarcerated members of the family. I could have lived in a crappy innercity tiny flat, and gone to a school with the sum total of sports facilities being a grey tarmacked courtyard. I could have been forced to leave school early to work & never believed that I could amount to anything in life.

Huggles wrote: »

Who do you think is to blame?

Well poverty is definitely a factor. But when I say poverty, I don't just mean a lack of money. Students can be on a tight budget at times but they still have the safety-net of parents. Real poverty means no safety-net.

But if we were purely dealing with financial difficulties, it would be a whole lot easier. Unfortunately, poverty is usually accompanied by lower levels of education, health, accommodation and social inclusion. So not only are these people struggling with seriously limiting budgets, they are also trying to do so without the wealth of knowledge that we are all accustomed to, etc. They are trying to do so while dealing with bad health, lower-quality accommodation and social exclusion.

It is not a coincidence that people who live in poverty die younger, have more health problems and have a lower quality of life. It's just too easy for us as a society to wag our fingers at them, look down our noses at them and call them things like "lazy", turn our backs on them and order another overpriced skinny cappuccino and low-fat blueberry muffin while our monthly gym fee comes straight out of our bankaccounts.

g'em

MoominPapa wrote: »

Poverty is too blame.

So the less money you have the more likely it is you'll be fat?

MoominPapa

g'em wrote: »

So the less money you have the more likely it is you'll be fat?

Don't be ridiculous

Macha

g'em wrote: »

So the less money you have the more likely it is you'll be fat?

Actually, in Ireland the answer is yes.

http://www.publichealth.ie/files/file/Tackling%20health%20inequalities_0.pdf

All-Ireland research shows that 39% of adults are overweight and 18% are obese (Irish Universities Nutrition Alliance 2001). In Ireland the Report of the National Taskforce on Obesity (see Department of Health and Children 2005) noted that obesity tends to be higher in men, those aged over 35 and those in the lower socio-economic groups.

MoominPapa

taconnol wrote: »

Actually, in Ireland the answer is yes.

http://www.publichealth.ie/files/file/Tackling%20health%20inequalities_0.pdf

The reason I think its a ridiculous question is that the program is about diet and nutrition, I didn't bring fat into the debate but notice how g'em choose not to ask "So you think the poorer you are the more likely you'll have a poor diet"

BTW best post I've read in a long while

g'em

MoominPapa wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous

No more ridiculous than your unfounded claim. If you're going to state that poverty...

MoominPapa wrote:

...is the main reason the western world is experiencing a rising obesity crisis and why an ever increasing proportion of the population is not eating a properly nutritious diet.

... then it would be just super if you could back up such claims with some evidence.

@ taconnol - correlation does not equal causation though. Stating that a person is more likely to be fat in lower-socio economic classes doesn't address the 'blame' issue which is at hand. You said that:

taconnol wrote:

poverty is usually accompanied by lower levels of education, health, accommodation and social inclusion

which I absolutely agree with, but what's with the 'thatcherite' extreme reference with regard to personal responsibility? Are the lower socio-economic classes exempt from taking care of their own health?

The idea that eating healthily is more expensive than eating sh!te is a fallacy. Long bus journeys? Where in the country don't Tesco deliver?

g'em

MoominPapa wrote: »

I didn't bring fat into the debate

*ahem*

MoominPapa wrote:

Poverty is too blame. It might not be the reason why you are/were fat, but it is the main reason the western world is experiencing a rising obesity crisis

MoominPapa

g'em wrote: »

*ahem*

I said I didn't bring it in. Check the post I quoted. That was where it was brought into the debate. Understand?

g'em

MoominPapa wrote: »

I said I didn't bring it in. Check the post I quoted. That was where it was brought into the debate. Understand?

Quit the snottiness please, that kind of attitude won't get the thread very far, and I'll apply that to myself also. This is a hot topic and people will have very different views on it, I trust we can all discuss this like adults?

So obviously poverty is a factor of obesity, but it's not an insurmountable symptom of the "poverty disease". Being poor does not force you to eat un-nutritious food. So why do people still do it?

MoominPapa

g'em wrote: »

No more ridiculous than your unfounded claim. If you're going to state that poverty...


... then it would be just super if you could back up such claims with some evidence.

Here you go (Googled "Povety" + "obesity" - first result) http://www.sirc.org/articles/poverty_and_obesity.shtml
Theres plenty more where that came from.

I was replying to a different point of yours but saw this:

Being poor does not force you to eat un-nutritious food. So why do people still do it?

My first post in this thread gives an explanation - its tasty and high in calories

olaola

MoominPapa wrote: »

My first post in this thread gives an explanation - its tasty and high in calories

I don't think the people who buy these foods are concerned about 'bang for their buck' regarding energy content per £. They buy convenience foods because of a number of reasons - and this is not at the top of their list.
Perceived value, convenience and lack of education regarding nutrition would be further up the ladder on the 'why' behind the purchase.