Yesterday, Education News published a critical opinion piece by school food reformer Dana Woldow regarding Jamie Oliver’s recent foray into education reform. (Oliver has a reality show now airing in Britain called Dream School in which the celebrity chef attempts to inspire a class of teenaged drop-outs.) Of more relevance to Lunch Tray readers, however, is that Woldow also takes issue with Jamie Oliver’s much-watched, Emmy-winning Food Revolution series, season two of which premieres on April 12th
In season one of Food Revolution, which many of you no doubt watched, Oliver visited Huntington, West Virginia (allegedly the fattest city in America) and attempted to teach healthful eating to its citizenry as well as improve its school food. Dana, however, who has worked on the ground for almost a decade to reform school food in San Francisco, was unimpressed with Oliver’s efforts:
He [attempted to reform school food] not by railing against government underfunding of the school meal program – which might be boring – but by shaming the lunch ladies. He didn’t bother explaining that school meal programs which violate any of the myriad complex USDA regulations can lose their government funding, while still being required to feed low income students – which would be boring – but instead attacked the school nutrition director. And he never revealed that the school’s cafeteria budget couldn’t cover the cost of his healthier menu – because it was expensive, requiring both extra labor and higher priced ingredients – so the TV production company just quietly paid those costs.
But what did that prove – that someone operating completely outside the constraints of a regular school meal program (financial, regulatory, and social) can do things differently than someone who is forced to stay on budget and follow the rules?
I don’t disagree with these criticisms. As I noted in my own recent post on Oliver’s latest doings, JO did unfairly vilify the Huntington “lunch ladies” for the sake of reality TV drama, as these women are low-level employees with no say in the menus they prepare each day. And I agree with Dana that it’s wrong for Oliver to leave viewers with the impression that his fresh, appealing lunches could be prepared as cheaply as the chicken nuggets and fries he replaced. That creates false expectations among parents and district administrators that don’t do anyone any good.
On the other hand, as I also noted in my JO post, I do tend to overlook some of Oliver’s shtick — and questionable tactics — when I consider how much valuable attention he’s drawn to critically important issues like childhood obesity and diabetes, our nation’s over-processed diet and the abysmal state of school food in many places in the U.S. I’m just not sure he would have achieved the same high ratings with a measured, PBS-style documentary on the topic.
In other words, maybe to get a nationwide school reform omelette cooking, you have to break some (powdered) eggs . . . .
I won’t give away the excellent conclusion to Dana’s piece, with which I wholeheartedly agree. You’ll just have to head over to Education News to read it yourself. 🙂