I've visited this thread a number of times since it was started and so far have not seen a convincing argument from those who think that Jamie Oliver should shut up.
It may well be that you find him irritating, but how can he be wrong for suggesting that kids eat healthy food?
Surely that is something we should all be doing, at least he is using his celebrity to a good cause.
There's nothing wrong with 'suggesting' that kids eat healthy food. No-one would have an issue if that's all that were happening.
But he's not. He's branding parents 'disgusting' and 'morally reprehensible' for not ensuring their kids eat a low-fat, low-carb, low-salt diet straight out of the pages of a women's glossy.
He's indirectly contributing to a society where body fascism is acceptable and the food police are only there 'for our own good'
He's argued in favour of social services removing fat kids from their 'degenerate' parents; destroying and disrupting perfectly happy families, sentencing youngsters to all the well-documented failures of local authority care, because they don't fit an arbitary socially-approved weight limit.
(See links: www.thesun.co.uk/art...
He's helping perpetuate a culture of guilt about food and dietary restriction taken to a ludicrous extreme. When primary-school children are being hauled out of the dinner hall as an example for the 'crime' of having a bag of crisps in their lunchbox, and 7 year-olds are being forced to write and perform poems about why it's good to be thin, something is terrifyingly wrong with our school system.
(Links - www.spiked-online.co...
Over-zealous teachers and heads are even extending this Government's obsession with tracking, spying and monitoring into the dinner hall. A school in Wakefield has introduced fingerprint scanners to monitor kids' lunchtime 'choices' (not that they have any left) and if too many 'unhealthy' foods trip the system the child can be disciplined or a letter sent home. No doubt before long this technology will be cross-referenced against medical records or supermarket logs of how many 'red' foods the family purchased, to be collated on a central datebase and flag up those in line for denial of NHS treatment or that aforementioned knock on the door from Social Services.
Of course as I've said before, all this strikes me as an attempt to create a new moral panic, to scapegoat and focus attention on a particular group of people, and best of all it can now be couched in the rhetoric of 'promoting healthy eating' and 'it's for your own good'. Is a massive rise in eating disorders amongst teenagers good? Is the sort of body image dysfunction and obsession with being 'perfect' reported in the national media this morning something to be proud of?
As NASUWT leader Chris Clarke pointed out, the pressure from the media on kids to be thin and the constant preoccupation with obesity is simplifying the complex issues and not only making those of 'acceptable' size focus on their weight and appearance, but further isolating the already vulnerable larger kids in schools, sometimes with tragic consequences.
It's not even as though the causes, effects and consequences of 'obesity' are universally accepted - there's a lot of counter-arguments about the degree to which average weights have risen and methods of assessing data which are often glossed over - probably because the Government, media and multi-billion pound weight loss industry have a huge amount to gain from pushing the obesity epidemic propaganda into the population at every turn.
Let's face it, it hasn't done Jamie's career any harm has it?
(And by the way: please at least READ through the links before you flame away).