So, apparently if you give food appealing names, children are more likely to eat it.

[conuly]

To which I say "Well, duh".

It's the same principle for adults. You go to a restaurant (and eating in the school cafeteria is effectively eating in a restaurant, albeit a loud one with no real menu selection to speak of) and they don't just slop spinach on your plate, they tell you it's "buttery braised spinach" that's been "picked at the peak of perfection" and hopefully present it in an attractive fashion. Who wants to eat nameless glop?

Well. Not there, but at other articles referencing the same subject, the comments are all variations on "kids these days". Apparently, back in the day, you tossed crap on a plate and your kids ate it and were grateful, and simply because of this it is wrong to ever vary from that plan.

Firstly, that's bull. That is absolute garbage, and it boggles my mind that people still say stupid things like that. Back in my day, we all planned on being smarter than that when we grew up, but apparently many of us didn't manage that. There was never any magical time or place where children ate whatever they were given and were grateful for it, and if there was then those children were probably starving, or else their diet didn't vary much.

Secondly, even if it were true, why make a big deal about it? I could understand the exaggerated outrage if the study had shown that kids eat more if you hire clowns to juggle before them at every meal, or if you pay them $10 a bite - but what does it cost us, as adults, to refer to food as "Princess peas" instead of just "eat your peas there are starving children in Africa"? How does it harm kids to spend an extra minute making food look appetizing before dishing it out? I'm not saying you should spend hours every day making fancy bento boxes for every single school lunch - but are they really harmed because you show them a small amount of consideration? What nonsense!

It really just doesn't make sense to me.

Comments

Well-said

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I agree with your post because y'know, at home we don't get the "Broiled Filet of Prime Angus Beef, Seared to Perfection, accompanied by Fluffy Idaho Potatoes, whipped with Pure Dairy Butter."

At home, it's "What's for dinner, honey?" and the answer is "Steak and mash."

I'd say "Princess Peas" CAN be part of overindulgence and spoiling (of children, not food) because eating your food is not a special event, it's not a favor to be rewarded, it's part of normal everyday life like washing, brushing your hair, using the toilet. (Note I say "can be". As pointed out above, every family has its little ways and pet names for certain dishes.)

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

I love in Calvin and Hobbes, where Calvin refuses to eat, and his Dad whispers "Good idea, Calvin. It's a plate of toxic waste that will turn you into a mutant if you eat it" - so Calvin snorks it right down. His mother tells him stuffed peppers are "boiled monkey heads", and says of another dish, "It's spider pie. You can pick out the big legs and give them to your Dad if they're too hairy for you." Calvin: "Hey, I LIKE it!".

My Dad had a sense of humor like that. That's how the whole "Snake Steak" thing got started, when he first got the hibachi in about 1962, and the name just stuck forevermore.

My daughter and I call beef jerky "lizard-on-a-stick". No doubt my grandchildren will too. ;D

Re: Well-said

[conuly]

Maybe you don't eat that, but I do.

Or I would if I were inclined to make steak and potatoes often. Steak is one thing I can't master....

Re: Well-said

[marveen.livejournal.com]

That reads like you misunderstood. I eat steak like billybedamned, I just don't go into transports of purple prose describing it. (The steak issue is frequently the meat you're getting, not your technique. Consumer-level meat is often tough as old boots if it's not expensive, and sometimes when it is...which is why we have pot roast or meat loaf with our mash much more often than steak.)