Two more things following yesterday’s recap of Episode 5 of Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution.
In my review of the show, I’d criticized Jamie Oliver in a big way for failing to tell viewers that Carpinteria High, the school he held up as a model for excellent food (and it did look fantastic, no question about it), was the recipient of a generous grant from the Orfalea Foundation which assisted with staff training, the purchase of kitchen equipment and the planting and maintenance of the school garden.
In my post I’d asked Mike McGalliard, the head of West Adams High School (the school at which Jamie has been filming this season), how he hoped to “scale up” the Carpinteria model on the regular federal reimbursement that schools receive for providing meals. Once again, Mike was kind enough to give TLT readers some “behind-the-scenes” information in a comment left on the post yesterday. He wrote:
Your question about how I expect to scale up a Carpenteria style operation at West Adams is a fair and difficult question. Orfalea Foundation will support the effort and retrain all our current workers. The kitchen at the school is very well equipped. Procurement will be a challenge. The district is considering supporting a zone of schools to pilot this effort.
I do not think it will cost a bazillian dollars, as someone implied. In fact, Linh Huynh (our VP of Health and Community Services) who comments in episode 5 about the $800,000 extra, isn’t talking about a scratch cooking model, but rather on what it will take to bring in a different food provider – in this case, the respected innovators Revolution Foods. In the scratch cooking model, we’d be retaining and retraining all staff.
I do have to say, I was very compelled by the operation in Carpenteria. The kids gobbled up the food, and though they didn’t eradicate junk food from their diets, they were enamored with their school’s fresh and diverse lunch time offerings.
I really appreciate Mike’s candor about receiving outside assistance at West Adams, and I do hope he keeps us posted on the school’s progress in instituting the scratch cooking program.
And that leads me to another, more basic question. Do you all think I was being overly critical of Jamie by even raising this issue of outside funding and his failure to disclose it? And do you think I’ve been too much on Jamie’s case generally this season?
I ask this because yesterday Christina Le Beau of Spoonfed, a blogger whom I respect (and whose blog I’ve recommended to you in the past), took me to task on Facebook. She’d mentioned that she couldn’t understand “nitpicking critics” of the show and I wrote in:
Oh dear, hope I’m not in the category of “nitpicking critics”! As I say in my recap/review of this and prior episode(s) I really like the Barrett family segments and all of the segments at West Adams- both the nutrition education he provides there and the way J.O. has really brought home (to me, at least) the terrible human cost of diseases like Type 2 diabetes. But when he gets into the arena of school food reform (e.g., the whole segment on Carpinteria this episode), I never feel that Jamie is playing fair with viewers.
Her reply to me:
Bettina, well, since you mentioned it… 😉 I do think the TLT critiques have focused a lot on minutiae. I’ve been surprised, actually, by the harsh tone and the degree to which you seem to be trying to discredit the show. I do get your point about school-food reform, but I think we need to remember that the mission of the show is to raise food IQ. The audience is American families, not wonky school-food reformers. Plus JO can’t provide a solution that every school/district can use, because there is no single solution. (In fact, I’d argue that the one-size-fits-all “solution” to school nutrition is what got us here in the first place.) But JO can get people thinking about the problem by showing examples and imploring them to fight for change in their own communities.
My answer to Chris is this:
Wow, Chris . . . ouch! Not sure how to respond here.
On the question of minutiae: as you know, my reviews are also full recaps of each episode, so yes, I talk about and kibbutz on almost everything that happens on the show, large and small (although dissing Mike McGalliard’s wardrobe might have been a bit too small! 😉 )
And while I’m flattered to be considered a “wonk” (not sure I have the chops to really live up to that title), I think you might not be giving enough credit to “American families” if you believe they, along with the wonks, don’t appreciate up-front candor in a show that purports to be sharing real information about school food reform.
We can debate whether there’s a one-size-fits-all solution to school food, but it’s irrefutable that the “solution” Jamie showed us on Friday night is currently available only to a teeny tiny fraction of the schools in this country lucky enough to find an angel like Orfalea, and that’s information he quite intentionally did not share with us.
Yes, it’s wonderful to “implor[e] [people] to fight for change in their own communities,” but how can they fight when they don’t know the facts? All Jamie told me on Friday night was that a well-run school with people who really care about kids can have a beautiful garden and fresh, scratch-cooked food. But what’s going to happen when, inspired by Jamie, I rush into the Houston ISD Food Service Director’s office and “implore” him to set up school gardens and scratch cooking in our 300 schools, and he tells me the federal government simply doesn’t provide him with enough money for staff training, kitchen equipement and all the rest? Without knowing that Carpinteria is the beneficiary of outside funding, I’m going to unfairly blame my Food Services director for being apathetic, or a bad manager of his operation, or maybe just a jerk who doesn’t care about kids.
Is sending people into the fray without first arming them with the facts really the best way to run a “revolution?”
That was my response to Spoonfed, but maybe you, too, think I’ve been an unfair Jamie-basher this season? Do you think I’m so deep into the topic of school food reform that I can no longer see the forest for the trees? If so, let me have it in a comment below. 🙂
Get Your Lunch Delivered and never miss another Lunch Tray post! Just “Like” TLT’s Facebook page or “Follow” on Twitter and you’ll also get bonus commentary, interesting kid-and-food links, discussion with other readers AND you’ll be showing TLT some love. ♥♥♥ So what are you waiting for?
Brad says
Hey B I thought you were being quite fair, but I’m not a huge fan of “reality tv” and I think people need to understand that what they are seeing is a fiction created to sell a story and you are highlighting the biggest fiction.
Jamie had exactly the same problem in S1 when the fact that his production company picked up a huge bill for more expensive food was not disclosed.
This is very misleading for consumers and cuts against the heart of the show’s purported premise that it is somehow “evil” or “incompetent” school boards and food service people out to hurt our kids narrative. When in fact it is people doing what they feel they can within the resources available to them.
Jen says
“This is very misleading for consumers and cuts against the heart of the show’s purported premise that it is somehow “evil” or “incompetent” school boards and food service people out to hurt our kids narrative. ”
I agree with Brad. I became frustrated with Jamie late in Season 1 when I noticed just how much of Jamie’s tirades/tantrums/drama seemed to be self-manufactured. Yes, school food is a complex issue, but Jamie’s inability to work within the established framework was just too frustrating. His “you’re with me or you’re against me” attitude plays great for audiences, but it ignores reality and makes villains of the very people who should be his staunchest allies.
After hearing all the behind-the-scenes stuff that came out after Season 1 ended, I resolved not to even bother with Season 2.
Better that Food Revolution fully disclose that this school is getting an additional boost and be open about the problems of scaling up than incite thousands of parents to storm the gates of their local school nutrition program only to receive the bucket of cold water to the face. Is it any less entertaining to show that we’re all on the same side?
EdT. says
Bettina, if you’re “overly critical” of JO, then what does that make me!?
Seriously, when I heard Mike mention “going rogue” on the show, I thought “yeah, sure… and WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM?” I’m glad he clarified that, just as I am glad you provided the background info on Carpinteria and Orfalea – it really does help to put things into perspective.
What I think we are seeing is a lot of “ends justifies the means” thinking here. Where the idea that JO’s end is so important and noble, that any deception he might practice (whether deliberate or inadvertent) should be excused, if not totally ignored, in order to further “the cause”. I happen to feel this is a load of bunk, as it leads to really bad policy-making (think “the road to Hades is paved with good intentions”), and you need to look no farther than the schools to see this. Remember the “high-stakes testing”? Started in Texas back in the 1980s, when then Gov. Mark White got a bill passed to increase teacher pay and offer them a bonus. The great-grandaddy to the TAKS was a part of that bill, intended to bring a measure of “accountability” to the bonus-determination process. And, the idea that kids who failed the test would be held back? Another after-thought, in order to prevent students from deliberately blowing the test in order to mess with unpopular teachers.
BTW, this “all-or-nothing”, “the cause is all” type of mindset aggravates me every bit as much on the conservative side of the spectrum (in case you haven’t guessed, I lean to the right) as it does on the progressive. One of my biggest gripes with the Tea Party is that they strayed off-message, and got hijacked by the social conservatives (a.k.a. the RRR, or “Rabid Religious Right”) – another is that they see everything in black/white, good/evil terms. There are things we need to do collectively, and in these cases we want the government (acting on our behalf) to do the best danged job it can (this is also my gripe about the Libertarians – no roads? ORLY!?) In an ideal world, maybe we wouldn’t need the schools to provide meals to students. However, (1) in many schools, the students are not allowed to leave campus during the day, and (2) students suffering from mal- or under-nourishment are not likely to do that well in school. For these reasons (among others), in this reality yes we do need the schools to provide food. And, it behooves us to ensure that the food they provide, while not “the best that money can buy” (after all, schoolkids don’t need to chow down on fois gras and caviar every day), is adequate (both in quantity and quality) to get the job done.
Remember, *these* are the people who will be picking out our nursing home, someday 🙂
Cheers,
~EdT.
KGreene says
I think you were critical of Reality Television as a whole. That is, drama is produced for the sake of keeping the show moving, and that JO produces drama. I’m an English teacher, and in all compelling drama, there has to be an antagonist and a protagonist and in reality TV, this is manufactured.
As I’ve said before, the problem with this model is that Hollywood knows it, but the rest of America does not. The average American viewer does not. They think it’s all REALITY. I recall my grandpa telling me about the first movies when people screamed and fainted because they thought that the train was going to crush them. This is the same thing. You have been critical of the drama that is created surrounding the issue.
But the issue still stands, and it’s a valuable issue. JO has the platform to bring it to people’s attention (he got mine!). I choose not to judge JO on this because he’s doing what he does, and that’s create a dramatic presentation relating to his issue in order to create an effect. It has worked. If people are compelled to action, then more power to them; they will learn quickly enough that the issue is not nearly as easy as JO portrays. In many ways, JO is like a presidential candidate who smiles and makes us all feel great, because he can’t possibly explain the intricacies of the presidency to the average person who really doesn’t want to know.
Bri says
Here’s what I think.
JO is a polarizing figure, but he doesn’t have to be. It has surprised me just HOW polarizing he’s become, honestly. I think BOTH things can be true; I think he can have amazing intentions and be a great person attempting great things; I think he can even be succeeding in some areas, especially, as Christina points out, in continuing to make sure that real nutritional dialogue is at the forefront of our national discourse. I also think that while those things are all true, he can also have shortcomings and failings, as do we all; he can be too reactive and too quick to write off individuals and whole segments of a very powerfully entrenched system of which he’s only scratched the surface; he can focus too much on quicker and “easier” successes rather than long-term changes that will take more time and resources than are viable in a reality TV format. I think it’s possible to question and even chide his methods, without having to also question or demean his heart. I think that’s what you’ve been trying to do — pull apart and examine the HOW, not the WHY or the WHO. And I’m with you.
Jamie Oliver is a great human being with a great passion, but too often in the world of social justice and change, great passions burn so brightly that they flame out before they can implement the change they seek. He’s so gung-ho that sometimes he chooses methods and tactics that make him seem as though he misses the forest for the trees. And that’s what you, and I, and all of the other Jamie champions who are taking him to task this season, are responding to. Is it good and noble to simply continue to bring attention to these important matters? YES. Resoundingly yes. But that’s actually a different show from the one Jamie’s trying to do. If he inspires OTHERS, like Mike McGalliard, to take up the cause and actually create sustainable, authentic change over the long term, then he will have achieved what he’s set out to do — but he, himself, is not getting it done. And that’s in no way meant to discredit or dishonor a wonderful human being; that’s just fact.
Holiday says
Ok, first off I’d like to say I’m relatively new to this entire topic of food reform and particularly school food reform – but since one of the things everyone seems to be trying to do is to attract/educate/interest more and more folks, maybe my newbie perspective could be important.
Bettina, I really like your blog. I’ve been trying to make some changes in the way I eat and the way I approach food in general, as well as educate myself on the food industry and legislation regarding food, and I’ve found your posts to be really helpful and supportive. So please don’t think I’m bashing, but – I think you’re coming down a little hard on Jamie Oliver. I think your intentions are perfectly good, but it seems to me your focus is pretty narrow. Food Revolution is trying to bring some widespread attention to a very real problem our country is facing – and even if you don’t agree with every little comment or every source of funds, or even the platform of reality TV itself – I think you should still show some respect and maybe even some gratitude that at least SOMEONE with SOME influence is trying to do SOMETHING. It can be hard to remember that the vast majority of people in this country probably don’t even know this is something we should be concerned about – six months ago, I didn’t either! My opinion is, if Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution show reaches even one person – if one person sitting on their couch watches that show and thinks, “Huh…I wonder what they’re feeding my kid at school? I should look into that…,” it’s worth it! Thanks to everyone for their great, interesting comments and for caring about this topic 🙂
Jen says
“My opinion is, if Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution show reaches even one person – if one person sitting on their couch watches that show and thinks, “Huh…I wonder what they’re feeding my kid at school? I should look into that…,” it’s worth it!”
I disagree with this, particularly if the one person the show inspires is sucked into the dramatic “us vs them” mentality of the show. We could all do with a little less extremism and a little more critical thinking when it comes to trying to change the world, you know?
Holiday says
“I disagree with this, particularly if the one person the show inspires is sucked into the dramatic “us vs them” mentality of the show.”
To be honest, this statement makes me feel a little icky inside, because it implies that the average individual doesn’t have the capacity to understand the complexities of the issue. Would it be better if no one responded to the show in any way, than to have some people go “gung-ho”?
Having said that Jen, I completely agree that we could all do with a little more critical thinking! At the same time, I don’t have the same concerns with “extremism” that you do. At one time or another, most good and decent causes were considered extreme – abolition, democracy, civil rights, women’s suffrage – the list goes on and on. Of course, that is not to say that extreme always equals good! But I don’t think that any cause or effort should be written off merely because it may be considered extreme in our time. Thanks for the discourse, I really appreciate it!
Dana Woldow says
Well, you DID basically ask this woman if she thinks you are a “nitpicking critic”, so she is entitled to her opinion on that, and on JO’s show, or anything else. Just as we are all entitled to our own opinions. Except – it seems like she doesn’t think that we ARE all entitled to our own opinions when it comes to JO’s show. It sounds almost like she believes that everyone who supports better school food is obligated to also support JO, no matter what.
The internet is a big place; there is room for all kinds of opinions there. Anyone who finds your blog too “nit picky” , or who only wants to read cheerleading for JO, can certainly find plenty of that available on other sites.
For those of us who prefer to read informed debate, to look at the issue from many points of view, and perhaps to learn something new, I think your site is one of best places to do that.
Thanks for all of the hard work you put in on The Lunch Tray, Bettina – and especially thanks for continuing to work so hard even while school is out and your kids are on vacation. It can’t be easy to try to keep one eye on your blog and another on your young family, and I don’t know if we, your readers, tell you often enough how much we appreciate your efforts. So, from one food policy wonk to another – thanks!!!
EdT. says
One more comment and I’ll be quiet (for awhile, at least):
There is a real danger in over-simplifying issues like this, and I think others have touched on it, so I’ll go ahead and say it, point-blank: when you lead folks to believe that a complex problem (like boiling the ocean, or solving world hunger, or fixing school food programs) has a quick & easy solution (e.g. “ban flavored milk” – or even “spend more money”), and they are moved to act, and when they do they run into a bucket of cold water (or, even worse, the brick wall of reality check), they are likely as not to get discouraged and quit the fight, which ends up hurting the cause more than it helps. Unfortunately, the Reality TV format (which is the genre in he chose to present his cause) tends to lead to over-simplification, maybe to the point of trivialization (remember, this is the same genre that brings you such earth-shattering, compelling stories as “Survivor” and “American Idol” and even “The Bachelor(ette)”!)
I think your criticisms are, to a large extent, totally spot-on. It isn’t just what JO is presenting, it’s what he is choosing to leave out. Things like the gory details of where the additional funding is coming from (or even that it exists); things like the fact that he flits from fire to fire, never completely dealing with one thing before he’s “Off, to Save the Day!” somewhere else; things like the lack of visual follow-up (e.g. the “2-week shopping list”, or even a link to such resources, for those who are interested); and the list goes on and on and on…
~EdT.
Justin says
I couldn’t agree with your last few points more. The thing that has frustrated me about this entire season is that the show is not in any way shape or form depicting an organized, methodical, or respectful campaign effort on Jamie’s part. It seems like each day, he just comes up with a new bold idea and throws it against the wall to see if it sticks. When his efforts go unnoticed or unappreciated, he whines about it and says he doesn’t understand why people don’t see him as the good guy.
I have a lot of respect for Jamie Oliver and he’s been one of my favorite food television personalities all the way back to his days as the Naked Chef. However, I really think he’s bitten off way more than he can chew on this one and the editors of the show are scrambling to build a story line out of the content they’re getting because it’s not what they expected. I think Jamie’s used to leading his crusades through shock value and fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants tactics and, with a huge bureaucracy like the LA school department, it’s just not working. They’re building walls and shutting him out faster than he can come up with new ideas to get around them. He’s trying to barge his way through instead of asking permission to enter and it’s not setting well with anyone.
I’ve said this before… The type of tactics he’s used to may work in a small town (or in Britain’s case, a small country), but it doesn’t work with the kind of bureaucracy we’re so adept at developing here in large American cities. In those types of environments, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You can’t beat them. You have to join them (Shall I continue trotting out tired cliches? It’s kind of fun…).
That’s not to say that I see no value in this season of the show. As you pointed out, there are some great segments like the ones where he works directly with families and individuals (though admittedly, some seem way more forced than the fry-everything Mom from Huntington). I kind of wish they’d stop pounding so hard at the school department and focus more on the home. That’s where this revolution really has to start anyway, isn’t it?
Christina @ Spoonfed says
Hi, all. Chris the Spoonfed blogger here. (Or, as Dana called me, “this woman.” Yikes. Makes me sound like a soap-opera villain!)
I’ve already responded to Bettina on the Spoonfed FB page, so I won’t repeat all that here. But, Dana, I’m not sure where you get the impression that I don’t think others are entitled to their opinions. Just because I’m firm in defending my own views doesn’t mean I think others can’t feel differently, you know?
My mission with Spoonfed is to get people rethinking assumptions about kids and food. Partly I do that by fostering conversation (and man do we have conversations over there). And partly I do it by making arguments that I hope actually shape conversation. So, yes, I voice my views more strongly than some bloggers might. But the world needs all kinds of blogs/bloggers. (And hell knows plenty of people probably think I’ve nitpicked on any number of subjects.)
BTW, for those not familiar with my blog, it might help to know that my focus is raising food-literate children, so I’m viewing the show not just from the angle of wanting better *school* food, but better food, period. I’m not in favor of supporting Jamie Oliver no matter what the man does. And I haven’t even liked some of what he’s done this season. But I am in favor of putting it in perspective and appreciating the bigger picture.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Just wanted to give a blanket “thank you” to all who’ve commented here, both in support and with criticism. I do feel that these arguments, while sometimes heated, draw out key issues about school food reform and give everyone, myself included, something to think about. The fact that all of you have taken the time to share your thoughts is really gratifying and makes the blog a valuable forum for these and related issues.
Jennifer says
Just putting in a thumbs up for Jamie right now, and something that should be thought about more on this blog: The Food Revolution has inspired a school near me to promote healthier milk choices in its students. Rather, students educating other students about making those wise decisions. The show is promoting change in other parts of the world too, and that should be mentioned as well. Here’s a link to the article about thes school, with further links to their blog and videos within.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/06/21/edmonton-milk-revolution-westglen.html
Nit-picking the show does nothing when you see the bigger picture of how it is making a difference on a bigger scale. Promoting more people to follow in these kids’ footsteps does.
Brad says
@jennifer – Nobody is saying Jamie is evil or some such, and the fact that some good is resulting is not in doubt. Also undoubtedly the school food landscape in Canada is different than the US market. The biggest complaint about Jamie’s show is the lie that more can be done with the same when in every case, many of Jamie’s changes require more to do more. If Jamie was honest about this most of what you consider nit-picking would go away.
Jennifer says
In addition to my previous post, I still think you are doing a good job of bringing many issues to light, particularly since you are trying to encourage other schools to provide good food. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and you always bring up some very good points. Just remember to step back once in a while and look at the bigger picture. 🙂 Thanks for keeping up such a great blog.
Susan Bostian Young says
Bettina and all –
I’m new to your blog but having just been hired (yesterday!) as the kitchen manager for a private school – which participates in the National School Lunch Program – I am thrilled to find you. The irony of your JO posts is that my girlfriend, the Vice Principal at the school loves JO’s show and thinks we can do what he does for the school. I’m all for it! But I have said to her “you know it’s tv, right?” I’m really just finding out how intrenched and insipid the commodities program is. Mini corn dogs are a staple! The walk-in is full of them! As a professional chef of 17 years I am anxious to get in there and work to make real food for these kids. And I will fight for healthy changes. Yet I do think it’s a problem that JO sweeps in and makes it all glamorous, fun, and financially sound when schools, even private ones, are pinching pennies, having to educate parents and students about healthy food, and oppressed by their regulating agencies who make the marginal food in the first place. I say, you remain critical. Every decent movement has internal criticism – that’s what keeps it real.