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.

g'em

Thanks for the link, I'll take a read of it and get back to it.

MoominPapa wrote: »

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

So are people eating junk food and ignoring the fact that it's bad for them? Or is it that they genuinely don't know better?

It's hard to believe the latter, a lack of education is one thing, but food like take-aways, crisps and chips is blatantly unhealthy, and to be quite that ignorant of the effects that eating crap all day every day is difficult to comprehend. I see what you're saying but I guess it just doesn't wash with me.

Khannie

g'em wrote: »

So are people eating junk food and ignoring the fact that it's bad for them? Or is it that they genuinely don't know better?

It's hard to believe the latter, a lack of education is one thing, but food like take-aways, crisps and chips is blatantly unhealthy, and to be quite that ignorant of the effects that eating crap all day every day is difficult to comprehend. I see what you're saying but I guess it just doesn't wash with me.

Have to agree with this. Everybody knows take aways are pure sh*te.

g'em

MoominPapa wrote: »

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

So this is supporting your ascertation that poverty is the prevalent cause of obesity. Fair enough, but we can still argue that being poverty does not mean a life sentence of ill health or obesity. From the article (quoted from some guy called Bob Holman, who's qualifications are glossed over and it simply says he 'quit academia to work on projects in socially deprived areas):

"This is not rocket science. Poor health is a well-known feature of deprivation. Mothers are not daft and they do know fat and crisps are bad for children but they can't afford the alternative. The Government has to give them the means. Initiatives are not going to change anything unless you've got the cash in your pocket. If you buy a salad at Sainsbury's, it's still very expensive."

The first part backs up what I'm saying - parents know that junk is junk.

But an apple costs the same as a bag of crisps. A healthy meal for four can easily cost less than a take-away. Again, it comes back to personal responsibility. We can educate, innovate and inspire to the hilt, but what goes into a person's mouth is, at the end of the day, down to their own free will.

Huggles

Exactly what I was trying to say

g'em wrote: »

But an apple costs the same as a bag of crisps. A healthy meal for four can easily cost less than a take-away. Again, it comes back to personal responsibility. We can educate, innovate and inspire to the hilt, but what goes into a person's mouth is, at the end of the day, down to their own free will.

Macha

g'em wrote: »

@ 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.

That reference was in answer to your question about poorer being more likely to be fat. My response was, as evidenced by the report I quoted, that yes-statistically you are more likely to be fat if you are from a lower socio-economic background.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't that that being poor alone is the cause of bad nutrition, but poverty alongside the other factors that come with being poor. To quote the same study:

Obesity arises from an imbalance between consumption and physical activity. The determinants of food consumption and physical activity on the island are complex and multi-faceted. Both, Fit Futures, a report from the taskforce on food, activity and young people in Northern Ireland (DHSSPS 2006), and Obesity: the policy challenges, the report from the National Taskforce on Obesity in Ireland (DoHC 2005), outline the range of factors influencing rising obesity. These include reduced opportunities for physical activity, particularly among children, the availability of convenience and snack foods, food consumption outside the home resulting from work and commuting pressures, the advertising and promotion of an unbalanced diet, the relative cost of healthy options and greater car reliance.

g'em wrote: »

You said that:
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?

I referred to thatcherism because I got the feeling that some people in this discussion were laying the blame fully and squarely at the feet of the poor. Now the other extreme is to say that they are not agents in their own health and I don't accept that either. I think that personal responsibility is important and that poor people do hold responsibility for their own health, however there are many other factors, obstacles and lack of opportunities that also impact on health and that these should not be ignored.

If all it came down to was money, there would be no unhealthy rich people, which is clearly not the case.

g'em wrote: »

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?

If you are earning €800/month on the dole, are you going to fork out an extra €6 for delivery? I certainly wouldn't. Assuming a weekly shop, that's €24 extra on your food bill every month.

It is unfortunately the case that Ireland's residential planning over the last 15 years has left a lot to be desired. Urban sprawl and low population densities have resulted in many "access-rich" areas (ie along Luas lines, DART lines), and other "access-poor" areas (seriously lacking in public transport). Naturally, there is a premium for the access-rich locations and so many already poor families are pushed out to the access-poor locations, leaving them reliant either on expensive private-car transport or low quality, infrequent public transport. Morever, the planning authorities have been very lax in providing sufficient recreational facilities in some of the poorer areas, leading to children playing in the streets. Not surprisingly, there is a tendency for more recreational facilities to be available in wealthier parts of town.

g'em

I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet tbh, we're just reading the words at different angles

Macha

Yeah basically :pac: Jebus, if only I put as much effort into my thesis...

Edit: I just want to add that I think it's false economy for us not to invest in this area. I shudder at the thought of the burden that unhealthy people put on our health system through completely avoidable illnesses. Diabetes medication, GP check-ups, bypass surgery, pace makers, arthritis treatment & joint operations, etc. Plus beds taken up for people who had very little say in their poor health.

Khannie

g'em wrote: »

A healthy meal for four can easily cost less than a take-away.

For sure! Let's not forget that the take away is making a profit.

taconnol wrote: »

If you are earning €800/month on the dole, are you going to fork out an extra €6 for delivery? I certainly wouldn't. Assuming a weekly shop, that's €24 extra on your food bill every month.

Bus fare / hassle was one of the reasons mentioned for not going to the supermarket by one of the ladies on the show. I have to say...the thought of having to go to the supermarket on the bus with two kids fills me with dread (I have two kids).

taconnol wrote: »

I shudder at the thought of the burden that unhealthy people put on our health system through completely avoidable illnesses.

Smokers too. Before anyone jumps down my throat; I'm well aware how much smokers contribute to the tax coffers. I'd still rather nobody smoked. (edit: purely from a humanitarian point of view).

I wonder where the cost / benefit evens out for education / health initiatives v's hospital costs.

Khannie

Oh, there was one other thing that I copped last night.....

The closest I've been to the situation most of the participants are in was when I was a student. You're starting out with an empty cupboard. If you want to make soup for the first time (for example), you have to buy quite a few expensive things: Stock cubes, maybe some bay leaves, salt, peppercorns, etc. Now once you've made that investment you have the stock cubes / bay leaves / whatever for the next soup, so the 2nd one becomes very cheap, but you have an initial outlay before you can start cooking properly at home. Simple meals can become fairly expensive when you have an empty cupboard.

Last thing is something my wife pointed out: Salmon was used on the show. If you're not a confident cook and you're on a budget, are you going to shell out for expensive meat? What happens if you balls it up? Pretty serious mistake. Another possible factor pushing people towards the chippy.

Orion

Huggles wrote: »

Who do you think is to blame?

Maybe nobody? These people didn't learn to cook from their parents - which is how I learned to cook. Maybe it was because their parents didn't have time. Maybe because their parents were never taught to cook themselves. Maybe you need to be a bit more open-minded and a little less judgemental. Maybe.

Huggles

Macros42 wrote: »

Maybe nobody? These people didn't learn to cook from their parents - which is how I learned to cook. Maybe it was because their parents didn't have time. Maybe because their parents were never taught to cook themselves. Maybe you need to be a bit more open-minded and a little less judgemental. Maybe.

Plenty open minded thanks and not judgemental at all. If you hve read all my posts you'd see I am in a similar position to a lot of these people but I have discovered its down to personal responsibility.

Orion

I did read your posts.

Huggles wrote: »

Plenty open minded thanks and not judgemental at all. If you hve read all my posts you'd see I am in a similar position to a lot of these people but I have discovered its down to personal responsibility.

Yet you have an issue with others seeking to improve themselves.
Is it laziness that the mother of two signed up for a cookery course because she was concerned about her 5 year olds health? This is before she knew that Jamie was the teacher! The ad didn't mention that.
Is is laziness that she actually thinks that fast food is cheaper?
Is it laziness that she was willing to try anything including cooking in public in front of hundreds of people when she'd only just learned how to make even pancakes?
Is it laziness that one of the men in the class is 84 years old and never even peeled a potato before or is it simply that he is from a different era when women stayed at home and cooked. My own father never attended the birth of any of his 5 children because it just wasn't done - and he's 20 years younger than this man.
Is it laziness that 2 of the women work 10 hours a day and just don't have the time or energy to cook when they get home? I know that feeling. And I enjoy cooking. Maybe I'm lazy too.

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.

Case in point. Did you even watch the show?

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.

Which is exactly what the people Jamie is working with are trying to do and you're begrudging them their efforts. That's what I mean about being open-minded and less judgemental.

Mr Magnolia

I caught a re-run of the first episode last night. Fair play to the people for making the effort. The satisfaction they had after preparing home cooked meals for their families was very evident so hopefully they'll continue to learn. It was sad to see that the young girl had never had a home cooked meal.

I must set the sky box to record the next episode.

mags16

I also caught the rerun last night and was quite surprised at how good it was. The programme makers were very sympathetic to the subjects, especially to the girl with the 2 kids who ate kebabs all the time. She definitely wasn't lazy or stupid. I think she lacked confidence and know how. I really felt for her at the end of the show when everything was falling apart.

It's very easy to label these people as lazy and ignorant. But it is far more complicated than that.

Loved the show, will definitely be watching next week. Not sure what to think about the people - on one hand, a lot of my extended family are jobless and live on council estates and benefits, I lived on one for some time, and I know the 'culture' - kids aren't taught to cook, brought up on crap, so they feed their kids crap. It can be difficult to buy nice, fresh ingredients when you don't have a car and there's no supermarket nearby. But on the other hand, grown adults should be taking responsibility for themselves. My parents worked full time and I was left to feed myself lunch from age 11 (mum cooked dinner), and was eating all that processed rubbish. I was never taught how to cook. I went away to college at 18 having no idea. But then I wised up and realised how expensive and unhealthy eating processed crap is, and slowly learned how to cook for myself. I couldn't even imagine feeding children that rubbish. I know the people in the docu weren't the best educated of people, but they did come across as making excuses for themselves, and yes, being lazy. A lot of those young mothers didn't even work. How hard is it to cut up an onion and some mushrooms, fry them, pour canned tomatoes on them and mix it with pasta? 2 minutes prep and about 10 mins max cooking time. (And NO, I am not privileged/posh - both my parents are from council estates, a lot of my cousins are teenage mums who cook for their children). Fair play to those who did sign up for the classes though.

One thing that did shock me - how on EARTH did the 22 year old mum on benefits have an 8 burner cooker? My mum can't afford one of those after working her arse off for 30 years, and she cooks every night. It was shocking to see how nice some of their houses were - big TVs, wood floors, fancy cookers, when I've been working full time and can only afford to rent a room in a shared flat where the oven doesn't work at all.

jimmycrackcorm

[quote=[Deleted User];57482192]One thing that did shock me - how on EARTH did the 22 year old mum on benefits have an 8 burner cooker? My mum can't afford one of those after working her arse off for 30 years, and she cooks every night. It was shocking to see how nice some of their houses were - big TVs, wood floors, fancy cookers, when I've been working full time and can only afford to rent a room in a shared flat where the oven doesn't work at all. [/QUOTE]

Perhaps the house is rented from a landlord instead of local authority and the DSS pays the rent.

I think one proactive idea would be to teach cooking and healthy eating in schools to try to prepare people for a more healthy lifestyle as a preventative measure against obesity.