On 2016-10-05 8:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/5/2016 8:12 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-10-05 7:55 PM, wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:07:05 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/5/2016 4:26 PM, wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:54:28 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>> . They don't need to slam him,
>>>>> he is heartily disliked in the UK,
>>>>
>>>> That hasn't been my impression during my annual visits.
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>> There was huge controversy over the school lunches as I understood it.
>>>
>>
>> Please provide the details of this huge controversy. From what I read,
>> followup tests on students showed significant improvements in academic
>> performance after they stopped feeding the kids crap and gave them
>> nutritious food.
>>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/oct/03/2
> Jamie's school dinners: what went wrong?

Thanks, but I was looking forward to lucretia's explanation about all
that controversy.


>
> · Three of the primary schools visited reported that younger pupils
> could not manage a knife and fork
>

That sounds more like a failure of the parents to use itensils No wonder
the kids eat crap.

> · Some schools misunderstood the "five-a-day" fruit and veg
> recommendations and included potatoes
>
> · One teenager told inspectors that he had become far fitter as a result
> of regular walks to a nearby chip shop

One out of how many?
>
> · Pupils snacked on fizzy drinks and sweets on the way to schools

They could have been doing that before.

>
> · At one secondary school counsellors were brought in to help a group of
> high-performing year 10 girls who smoked and were involved in substance
> abuse, and were skipping meals in an attempt to lose weight

That had little to do with Oliver's program.


>
> · Pupils frequently said that the portions were small and left them
> still feeling hungry

It is interesting to note that the news story links to the report from
which they got their information. For some reason, they reported only
the negative aspects.