4 ms·

Jamie Oliver's TED Prize wish: Teach every child about food

56 points by hachiya 17y ago

3dFlatLander 17y ago
I'm curious what a better nutrition labeling system would look like. I think each country has a different system. It would stand to reason that at least a few have something better than the US system.
- vishaldpatel 17y ago
  Sugar = fat. A lot of food says 0% fat, when the ultimate result of all that sugar is essentially fat.
  - wvenable 17y ago
    Sugar != fat in terms of the content of food. If something has zero fat but 400 calories, then it's still bad for you but in a different way. Either way, it's clearly labeled. The problem is that people don't know how to interpret the labels. Better education would help with that. Weight watchers, for example, has their points formula which boils down the calories, fat, and fiber values into a single number that is easier to understand. Some food packages even include the WW points number -- but it wouldn't be very accurate or scientific to mandate that sort of thing.
    - albemuth 17y ago
      I can't recall any other sources other than that Robert Lustig talk, but from what I've understood you gain more fat by metabolizing sugar than by actually consuming fat.
      - wvenable 17y ago
        I understand that's the case as well. A lot of low-carb diets, such at Atkins, allow you to eat as much fat as you want and you'll still lose weight. Dietary fat is bad for your cardiovascular system, though. The food that contains 0% fat doesn't contain any fat. That's actually useful information. If people think that 0% fat foods are automatically good for them, that's an education problem not a labeling problem.
        drewr 17y ago
        Dietary fat is bad for your cardiovascular system, though. As cwan mentioned earlier, read Taubes.
      - larsr 17y ago
        That does not appear to be true. For instance, here is Walter Willett, chair of the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health: From many kinds of studies conducted over years, we are quite confident now that a calorie from fat will cause a similar amount of weight gain as a calorie from carbohydrate. There are some interesting questions about whether eating carbohydrate calories versus fat calories will make you eat more calories, but based on what you put into your mouth, it's pretty clear that the source of the calories is really not important. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822118,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822118,00.ht...
        wvenable 17y ago
        Wouldn't the calories label on the food include both calories from both fat and carbs? So this is all moot to the discussion at hand.
        chipsy 17y ago
        That article is talking "carbs vs. fat." Lustig is talking "sugar vs. everything else," and the key to the sugar-obesity link isn't in calorie quantities, but in how it affects future appetite and preferences. After drinking a soda, you will eat _more_ on average than someone on an empty stomach, even though you've just downed ~45 grams of sugar. It's the same reason why you can enjoy terrible bar food once you're drunk.
    - vishaldpatel 17y ago
      Yes, sugar indeed != fat. When you do eat sugar - it is your body's first choice for energy. This means that any fat you eat gets stored for later consumption... which will be never cuz most of us eat way too much sugar anyway.
- DaniFong 17y ago
  I have a startup idea surrounding this that I think could be killer. I'm working full-time (on another startup) but I'm applying to YC anyway because I think it would be an easy hack with huge benefits and the possibility of making a lot of wealth. If you're interested I'm looking for a cofounder -- email me at daniellefong at daniellefong dot com.
  - rdouble 17y ago
    Have you seen Joel Fuhrman's ANDI rating system? It's being used at Whole Foods. http://www.examiner.com/x-672-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2009m3d6-Whats-the-nutrient-density-of-your-food-Get-the-ANDI-score http://www.examiner.com/x-672-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2...
    - jrockway 17y ago
      What I get out of these "boiled-down" systems is that I should just eat a vitamin pill and some cardboard. Low sugar, low fat, high nutrients.
      - rdouble 17y ago
        Go for it.
      - DaniFong 17y ago
        There might be a lot you're missing. Nutrition is hideously complex, but since we're evolved to eat whole foods and there are a lot of bioactive enzymes and or compounds that aren't well known or in vitamin pills you could be missing out on something crucial.
        jrockway 17y ago
        That would be my point.
        DaniFong 17y ago
- henrikschroder 17y ago
  Where I am, all nutrition labels contain the amounts per 100g/100ml (for comparison with other items) and per "serving" (for knowing how much you typically get). The problem though is that serving sizes typically don't reflect how much you actually eat, especially for food that's bad for you. A serving of chips is usually a fistful, a serving of chocolate is not the entire bar, etc. Overall the system is ok, but there's room for improvement. On the other hand, nutrition labels are such a small problem, the big problem is that people eat too fucking much, and no label in the world are going to stop them from doing so.
NZ_Matt 17y ago
A very impressive and passionate presentation. Jamie's use of shock value is very effective and probably necessary to get people to listen and take action.
- cubicle67 17y ago
  Have you seen his Chicken special? The one where he kills a few dozen cute fluffy yellow chickens in front of a live audience? That show was full of shock value, all aimed at getting people to realise just what happens in the industry, and also where your chicken dinner comes from
cwan 17y ago
I found this rant a bit vapid - you'll find more usable information here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1041452 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1041452 (or read Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories). I think Oliver clearly identifies a problem (and quite passionately believes in what he says), but the solution seems squishy - "fighting obesity" and "education" are great ideas but when you empower people with bad ideas that's probably worse than useless. Besides, the problem isn't educating the kids but the parents.
- felixmar 17y ago
  Besides, the problem isn't educating the kids but the parents. In one episode of Jamie's School Dinners some parents were giving junk food through the schoolyard gate to their children when Jamie had convinced the school to start serving healthy and delicious meals. His Don Quixote like crusade to improve the food culture of the English is worthy of praise and makes him much more remarkable than most TV chefs.
  - henrikschroder 17y ago
    That parents do that to their kids is sad on so many levels. :-(
grannyg00se 17y ago
Main graph and video take aways from the presentation: -obesity related deaths are responsible for orders of magnitude more deaths than homicide -typical families have extremely poor knowledge regarding food consumption, eating mostly processed, unhealthy food. Some suggested solutions from the presentation: -food education in grocery stores (cooking presentations) -food education in schools -labeling improvements -a new standard of fresh local food in schools -every child should know 10 recipes that will save their lives by the time they finish school -better food in the office -pass on good food preparation and cooking as a philosophy to friends and family All pretty basic stuff. Know what to cook, how to cook it, and how much of it to consume. It's sad how people live their entire lifestyle on processed junk.

56 points by hachiya 17y ago

I'm curious what a better nutrition labeling system would look like. I think each country has a different system. It would stand to reason that at least a few have something better than the US system.

vishaldpatel 17y ago
Sugar = fat. A lot of food says 0% fat, when the ultimate result of all that sugar is essentially fat.
- wvenable 17y ago
  Sugar != fat in terms of the content of food. If something has zero fat but 400 calories, then it's still bad for you but in a different way. Either way, it's clearly labeled. The problem is that people don't know how to interpret the labels. Better education would help with that. Weight watchers, for example, has their points formula which boils down the calories, fat, and fiber values into a single number that is easier to understand. Some food packages even include the WW points number -- but it wouldn't be very accurate or scientific to mandate that sort of thing.
  - albemuth 17y ago
    I can't recall any other sources other than that Robert Lustig talk, but from what I've understood you gain more fat by metabolizing sugar than by actually consuming fat.
    - wvenable 17y ago
      I understand that's the case as well. A lot of low-carb diets, such at Atkins, allow you to eat as much fat as you want and you'll still lose weight. Dietary fat is bad for your cardiovascular system, though. The food that contains 0% fat doesn't contain any fat. That's actually useful information. If people think that 0% fat foods are automatically good for them, that's an education problem not a labeling problem.
      - drewr 17y ago
        Dietary fat is bad for your cardiovascular system, though. As cwan mentioned earlier, read Taubes.
    - larsr 17y ago
      That does not appear to be true. For instance, here is Walter Willett, chair of the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health: From many kinds of studies conducted over years, we are quite confident now that a calorie from fat will cause a similar amount of weight gain as a calorie from carbohydrate. There are some interesting questions about whether eating carbohydrate calories versus fat calories will make you eat more calories, but based on what you put into your mouth, it's pretty clear that the source of the calories is really not important. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822118,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822118,00.ht...
      - wvenable 17y ago
        Wouldn't the calories label on the food include both calories from both fat and carbs? So this is all moot to the discussion at hand.
      - chipsy 17y ago
        That article is talking "carbs vs. fat." Lustig is talking "sugar vs. everything else," and the key to the sugar-obesity link isn't in calorie quantities, but in how it affects future appetite and preferences. After drinking a soda, you will eat _more_ on average than someone on an empty stomach, even though you've just downed ~45 grams of sugar. It's the same reason why you can enjoy terrible bar food once you're drunk.
  - vishaldpatel 17y ago
    Yes, sugar indeed != fat. When you do eat sugar - it is your body's first choice for energy. This means that any fat you eat gets stored for later consumption... which will be never cuz most of us eat way too much sugar anyway.
DaniFong 17y ago
I have a startup idea surrounding this that I think could be killer. I'm working full-time (on another startup) but I'm applying to YC anyway because I think it would be an easy hack with huge benefits and the possibility of making a lot of wealth. If you're interested I'm looking for a cofounder -- email me at daniellefong at daniellefong dot com.
- rdouble 17y ago
  Have you seen Joel Fuhrman's ANDI rating system? It's being used at Whole Foods. http://www.examiner.com/x-672-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2009m3d6-Whats-the-nutrient-density-of-your-food-Get-the-ANDI-score http://www.examiner.com/x-672-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2...
  - jrockway 17y ago
    What I get out of these "boiled-down" systems is that I should just eat a vitamin pill and some cardboard. Low sugar, low fat, high nutrients.
    - rdouble 17y ago
      Go for it.
    - DaniFong 17y ago
      There might be a lot you're missing. Nutrition is hideously complex, but since we're evolved to eat whole foods and there are a lot of bioactive enzymes and or compounds that aren't well known or in vitamin pills you could be missing out on something crucial.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        That would be my point.
        DaniFong 17y ago
henrikschroder 17y ago
Where I am, all nutrition labels contain the amounts per 100g/100ml (for comparison with other items) and per "serving" (for knowing how much you typically get). The problem though is that serving sizes typically don't reflect how much you actually eat, especially for food that's bad for you. A serving of chips is usually a fistful, a serving of chocolate is not the entire bar, etc. Overall the system is ok, but there's room for improvement. On the other hand, nutrition labels are such a small problem, the big problem is that people eat too fucking much, and no label in the world are going to stop them from doing so.

NZ_Matt 17y ago

A very impressive and passionate presentation. Jamie's use of shock value is very effective and probably necessary to get people to listen and take action.

cubicle67 17y ago
Have you seen his Chicken special? The one where he kills a few dozen cute fluffy yellow chickens in front of a live audience? That show was full of shock value, all aimed at getting people to realise just what happens in the industry, and also where your chicken dinner comes from

cwan 17y ago

I found this rant a bit vapid - you'll find more usable information here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1041452 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1041452 (or read Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories). I think Oliver clearly identifies a problem (and quite passionately believes in what he says), but the solution seems squishy - "fighting obesity" and "education" are great ideas but when you empower people with bad ideas that's probably worse than useless. Besides, the problem isn't educating the kids but the parents.

felixmar 17y ago
Besides, the problem isn't educating the kids but the parents. In one episode of Jamie's School Dinners some parents were giving junk food through the schoolyard gate to their children when Jamie had convinced the school to start serving healthy and delicious meals. His Don Quixote like crusade to improve the food culture of the English is worthy of praise and makes him much more remarkable than most TV chefs.
- henrikschroder 17y ago
  That parents do that to their kids is sad on so many levels. :-(

grannyg00se 17y ago

Main graph and video take aways from the presentation: -obesity related deaths are responsible for orders of magnitude more deaths than homicide -typical families have extremely poor knowledge regarding food consumption, eating mostly processed, unhealthy food. Some suggested solutions from the presentation: -food education in grocery stores (cooking presentations) -food education in schools -labeling improvements -a new standard of fresh local food in schools -every child should know 10 recipes that will save their lives by the time they finish school -better food in the office -pass on good food preparation and cooking as a philosophy to friends and family All pretty basic stuff. Know what to cook, how to cook it, and how much of it to consume. It's sad how people live their entire lifestyle on processed junk.