Future of Food - BBC2 Monday night

underlay_guru

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

True.

I wasnt taught much more than pizza and cakes in school either and I didnt learn to cook from my Mum (she doesnt eat crap she just isnt a very good cook ) I taught myself to cook.

But I still think that it would be a good thing to be taught cooking in school, alongside budgetting, housekeeping and basic DIY.

Yeah, I agree with you. I was never housekeeping/DIY etc at school.

My mum couldn't cook for toffee either...but it doesn't take much to rustle up something healthy or balanced for your children. That's the difference: If a parent couldn't cook, they'd chuck a bagful of veggies and a packet of mince in a pot, knowing that there is some form of nutrition there. Nowadays, they just shrug their shoulders and drive down to the nearest drive-thru, without a care in the world whether it is nutritious or not, as long as it shuts them up ("But the burger, chips and fizzy drink comes with a tiny fruit bag, so it's good for you").

ceridwen

Well....actually one doesnt even have to be able to cook to eat healthily - an evening meal, for instance, of good-quality bread and butter/some cheese/freshly-prepared salad/fresh fruit afterwards and that would be "all bases covered" as regards nutrition.

Right - I'm off to watch this programme with interest - assuming its there on IPlayer or summat:D Having read that Cuba is featured - then I imagine that the basic theme of the programme is not the:
- some people eat "junk" versus other people know how to eat healthily

BUT
- how are we all going to get enough food to eat once chemical fertilisers are no longer available (as I gather oil is necessary somewheres along the line in the manufacture of them - and we know oil production is starting to decline)
added to:
- how are we all going to eat bearing in mind the world's population is still increasing at present and for the foreseeable future:mad: on the one hand and (just to quote our own country) arable land is still being built on at present on the other hand:mad::eek::eek:

So - I'll just go and view that programme to see if I'm correct about the basic premise I believe its probably based on.....(ie the healthy v. unhealthy eating debate is for another time - not now).

I strongly suspect that the whole "point" of this programme has been totally missed if people are re-running a junk food v. healthy food theme.

COOLTRIKERCHICK

the parents of today, are the children of the start of the 'convienience food ' so alot of them know no different, so waffles, lasagnes and beans is a nutriitonal meal,,, why ? because the packet makes them believe it is..its called clever marketing..... and before anyone jumps on these remarks and say 'they should know better' yes they should, but its all that the know...

its like before i found MSE, the only tart i knew were made by Mr Kipling...( and some others..lol..) i didnt know anything about how to manage my credit cards etc..... WHY decause i didnt know any different.. i just managed my cards and bills like my parents did...

and its the same with food.... baby steps i was told when it came to thinking and managing my then debt.... and the same goes for educating people about healthy food, and cooking....

I totally agree with some comments.... about lessons in school about household management... this would cover cooking, budgeting, basic diy, growing your own veg..sewing etc...The scools insist on p.e AND games... to keep kids active.... they should have classes on keeping them healthy too.... ( this is to make sure families like the one in the programme, the children can educate the adults)

but at the end of the day i think the programme was trying to highlight the strain that the food chaiin is under, due to the increasing population, and the change in weather/climate in countries

DrScotsman

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

4. Robinsons no added sugar juice is NOT the healthy option ! its full of carp!

I agree with absolutely everything you've said except this. What "carp" is it full of? And don't say sweeteners.

Although you can find better squash for cheaper (Sainsbury's for example)

Lifeisbutadream

ceridwen wrote: »

Well....actually one doesnt even have to be able to cook to eat healthily - an evening meal, for instance, of good-quality bread and butter/some cheese/freshly-prepared salad/fresh fruit afterwards and that would be "all bases covered" as regards nutrition.

Right - I'm off to watch this programme with interest - assuming its there on IPlayer or summat:D Having read that Cuba is featured - then I imagine that the basic theme of the programme is not the:
- some people eat "junk" versus other people know how to eat healthily

BUT
- how are we all going to get enough food to eat once chemical fertilisers are no longer available (as I gather oil is necessary somewheres along the line in the manufacture of them - and we know oil production is starting to decline)
added to:
- how are we all going to eat bearing in mind the world's population is still increasing at present and for the foreseeable future:mad: on the one hand and (just to quote our own country) arable land is still being built on at present on the other hand:mad::eek::eek:

So - I'll just go and view that programme to see if I'm correct about the basic premise I believe its probably based on.....(ie the healthy v. unhealthy eating debate is for another time - not now).

I strongly suspect that the whole "point" of this programme has been totally missed if people are re-running a junk food v. healthy food theme.

The point of the programme wasnt missed - as I said I enjoyed it, but found it laughable that the family they had on was used as a 'basis' for what people on a low budget eat.

Lifeisbutadream

DrScotsman wrote: »

I agree with absolutely everything you've said except this. What "carp" is it full of? And don't say sweeteners.

Although you can find better squash for cheaper (Sainsbury's for example)

Why arent I allowed to say sweeteners??

Personally I would rather give my children sugar than Aspartame, but maybe I am just fussy.

Agreed re Sainsburys though - their no added sugar high juice doesnt contain the worst of the sweeteners.

DrScotsman

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

Why arent I allowed to say sweeteners??

No proof of what you're insinuating of course

Personally I would rather give my children sugar than Aspartame, but maybe I am just fussy.

That's perfectly fine, I just don't think anyone should criticise anyone else for having it since there isn't any evidence of it causing harm. I'd be criticising the show for buying branded squash rather than diet squash

Lifeisbutadream

DrScotsman wrote: »

No proof of what you're insinuating of course



That's perfectly fine, I just don't think anyone should criticise anyone else for having it since there isn't any evidence of it causing harm. I'd be criticising the show for buying branded squash rather than diet squash

Agreed, each to their own, but it is more than just my opinion, Aspartame and other sweeteners have been linked to behavioural problems in children (which I agree with as both my children are intollerant to Aspartame)

Slightly off topic though

ceridwen

Okays - I've just watched that programme.

So - my verdict: I think its a mini-series that is very well worth watching. See:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m9xjc

for the first in this series of programmes.

The presenter has clearly done his homework - its well-researched and informative. I noted the bit re junk food eating (that was 45.22 minutes into the programme to 57.00 out of the 59 minute programme). I spent most of that 11 minutes odd out of the 1 hour programme wondering what on earth that "junk food segment" was doing as part of this programme - but I guess it started to make more sense come the very end as to why the presenter felt it was relevant (until that point it had felt like two totally separate tv programmes cobbled together...).

Having said that - I DO wish that 11 minute "junk food segment" hadnt been inserted into the 59 minute programme - as it will just be SO easy for those who dont wish to see the point of the programme to "blind themselves" to the rest of the programme/the whole point of this mini-series. "There is none so blind as those that will not see" is very much one of my personal phrases - and I have the horrible feeling that many people will "skate straight over" the 46 minutes "whole main point" of the tv programme. I DO understand why - they are scared. Well - actually - so am I - but it aint gonna do me/or anyone any good whatsoever to try telling ourselves that actually the programme is "really about junk food eating". It isnt...believe me it really isnt...and watch it again - carefully - if you think it is.


Overall - I came to the conclusion that the programme is very well worth watching - as will be the rest of this mini-series and I guess that doing a "wind-up" thread about it on this particular Board is one way (somewhat convoluted to my very direct head-on way of thinking:D) of getting people to watch it...and start thinking...:D

Lifeisbutadream

ceridwen wrote: »

Okays - I've just watched that programme.

So - my verdict: I think its a mini-series that is very well worth watching. See:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m9xjc

for the first in this series of programmes.

The presenter has clearly done his homework - its well-researched and informative. I noted the bit re junk food eating (that was 45.22 minutes into the programme to 57.00 out of the 59 minute programme). I spent most of that 11 minutes odd out of the 1 hour programme wondering what on earth that "junk food segment" was doing as part of this programme - but I guess it started to make more sense come the very end as to why the presenter felt it was relevant (until that point it had felt like two totally separate tv programmes cobbled together...).

Having said that - I DO wish that 11 minute "junk food segment" hadnt been inserted into the 59 minute programme - as it will just be SO easy for those who dont wish to see the point of the programme to "blind themselves" to the rest of the programme/the whole point of this mini-series. "There is none so blind as those that will not see" is very much one of my personal phrases - and I have the horrible feeling that many people will "skate straight over" the 46 minutes "whole main point" of the tv programme. I DO understand why - they are scared. Well - actually - so am I - but it aint gonna do me/or anyone any good whatsoever to try telling ourselves that actually the programme is "really about junk food eating". It isnt...believe me it really isnt...and watch it again - carefully - if you think it is.


Overall - I came to the conclusion that the programme is very well worth watching - as will be the rest of this mini-series and I guess that doing a "wind-up" thread about it on this particular Board is one way (somewhat convoluted to my very direct head-on way of thinking:D) of getting people to watch it...and start thinking...:D

I agree that it is a series worth watching.;)

Hoever the thread was about how one particular part of the programme really annoyed me, which was why I put it in 'Praise, Vents and Warnings' but thanks for turning my light hearted, !!!!!y thread into a serious one!