"they ate fast food and junk food but had splashed out of a plasma TV."

[ConfusedPixie]

This comment just came up on the radio news, supposedly said by Jamie Oliver about one of the families he was working with in his new TV show.

AIBU to wonder how the fuck what you eat relates to what TV you have?

Surely this just reinforces stereotypes of the people likely to have bad diets through lack of education on the matter? What a bullshit statement.

I haven't read his comments in context because apparently it's in the Radio Times and I don't have a copy, but I've read the reports in all the mainstream papers (online).

He has been taken out of context to some degree, and I think he has a valid point to make about how our culture has contributed to this situation. However, the comment about the TV was just crass because it was totally unecessary to illustrate his point. That may be down to lack of thought on his part rather than prejudice, but the furore on here shows the effect - it has polarised people into either thinking poor people waste money on flatscreen TVs and junk food, or those who want to fight damaging prejudices against the poor. No one is talking about what our culture - in particular the dominance held by supermarkets and the food industry - is doing to the nation's diet (and by nation I mean all incomes. Just because a ready meal is labelled low fat and comes from Waitrose doesn't make the better off any different from those buying 99p ones from ASDA).

I was just saying what we do instead of spending money on a TV at the moment. Weive in a flat in the city we share an allotment husband shoots deer for farmers we get to keep it I know that's not the case for everyone! There's loads of free fishing in scotland you don't have to poach!

I blame the supermarkets - they have conned the consumers, they have conned the farmers and they have conned the producers, they conned their employees and the tax man.

Supermarkets have left us with a series of lies about the origin of food, the cost of food, the health benefits and dangers of additives food.

Most people can't be bothered to wade through the details to get to the truth and buy the easiest thing that they can afford.

I shall just hop on a train to Scotland then.

I'll just nip up to Scotland with my fishing rod then.

Oo just have to say that taxing food that causes obesity, heart disease etc is no more morally wrong than taxing alcohol and cigarettes - its about how much the country can afford to spend on treating these preventable problems in the NHS. Diet is such a major factor in the biggest killers in the UK today that the government would be morally wrong if they didnt care - and the NHS is drowning because of things that should be preventable - prevention is far cheaper than cure and any way they government can think to try to change the current situation is worth considering, whether it be education, taxes etc - and tbh popular tv such as JO is probably a good way of getting the message out and raising awareness rather than purely relying on government campaigns -Id never heard of them for instance, and every little helps.

The UK should all care about healthy eating (even if only because so many billions of taxes are spent treating obesity related illnesses) and I dont think JO is trying to slag of people with TVs and no money, hes trying to change the way we think about food. And hes only human surely he can make some mistakes (and/or be susceptible to being taken out of context).

Don't forget to 'forage' people.

Fresh nettles, dandelions, cobnuts, walnuts, sloes, blackberries, apples, wild garlic, mushrooms, etc... etc... etc...

Also, road kill.

We can all be fashionable and frugal.

its true though!!!!

Incidentally I think a tax on food which would essentially be the state dictating to people what they should eat would be far more morally wrong than someone on benefits eating a few cream cakes.

They've already done it with the tax on cigarettes, and minimum unit pricing on alcohol has a lot of support. The precedent has already been set on that one I'm afraid. Personally, I'd be in favour of a higher tax on food that has a ridiculously high fat or sugar content. I don't think it has anything to do with the basic freedoms of poor people, it would just make most people think twice about buying it if it was expensive. Not everything has to be about poor people, some poor people have perfectly adequate diets and some people who aren't poor eat terribly.

I haven't read the whole thread, just the first two pages and everyone is disagreeing with him.

I agree with him 100%.

Ready made meals are shite. To make something from scratch is cheaper and far, far healthier and you can make doublé the amount and freeze it.

He says in the article people are buying chips from the chippy with cheese on top and eating them out of styrofoam containers while watchin their plasma TV. It is disgusting and I agree with him. People that eat like this are also fat. It is a no brainer.

Jamie Oliver is great, IMHO.

The modern poor are also time poor and don't have time to do allotments and deerstalking. They are often two parents working full time with several children that need homework done/ reading to at the same time. They also have a right to reasonably priced food and shouldn't have to go out foraging.

Someone mentioned teaching people how to cook in bulk. Great idea in principle but where does the money come from to buy all the ingredients to cook in large quantities and where should the cooked food be stored if you have a basic fridge and no money to buy/run a freezer?

Sorry for multiple posts here.

Good, nutritious food takes time. The one thing that is in very short supply for most people. It also takes planning, budgeting skills and motivation. We live in a culture that labels people according to what they earn, not for what they do. Being a good cook might be a nice accolade, but unless you've made a living out of it like Jamie Oliver or Nigella Lawson it's almost sneered at by wider society. Looked down on, like a lot of homemaker skills. We're quick to censure people for giving their children junk foods, but no one goes round publicly lauding their peers for providing a healthy diet for their children. In fact in some cases the healthy option can also be sneered at.

This is partly because people are time poor, but also because the food industry has made it their business to capitalise on the idea that people don't have time for banal things like everyday cooking, so try some of these convenient options, while at the same time promoting the myth of that good cooking is done for special occasions and dinner parties and so you must not spare any expense on these essential (and overpriced) ingredients.

There is little middle ground. Our attitude to food is as polarised as opinions on this thread. Instead of telling people to eat 5 a day (which is prohibitively expensive for many) we should be teaching people about food science, balancing food groups and teaching children how to cook a healthy family meal on a budget. My friend's DD recently took in ingredients for home economics lesson that cost in excess of £15. That's ridiculous and again promotes the idea that home-cooked meals from scratch are for special occasions only.

Wealthy people are also fat.

Is that ok? Or is it just poor fat people you find disgusting?

Perhaps JO was insinuating that if you haven't got enough money to buy or run a freezer, then you haven't got enough money to buy or run a telly either.

But that's just me speculating, I didn't hear what he said, nor do I have an insight into what's inside his head.

the foraging thing - you may laugh about forgaing - but if you live in the country its easy - blackberry picking is fun and free and easy, as it garlic picking etc - its not about time to do it as its entertaining for the children - i loved it as a child and love getting free food - blackberries are like £2 for 10 in the supermarket! Only works for the countryside abiders I agree - those in london shouldnt forage!

I like and loathe JO in equal proportions.

On the one hand, he has done a lot of good, and raises issues that need to be raised. Schools dinners have improved immeasurably down to him. Hats off for that. I believe the Ministry of Food centre at Rotherham is still going. The 15 restaurants, yeah they make him money but at least he's doing something. And he has a point about British people eating too much crap.

On the other hand, every time I watch or read one of his recipes I get irritated. He uses 20 ingredients when he needs 2. His recipes are really expensive and totally unrealistic. Unlike Delia or Mary Berry, for example. And no, it doesn't take 30 mins to make 3 courses, Jamie. It just doesn't. Unless you have a team of people doing your prep, not to mention washing up the 10 different gadgets you have used afterwards. His books show that he is not living in the 'real world', tbh, because I cook fresh food from scratch, I enjoy cooking, and yet I couldn't afford to make his meals.

Personally, I'd be in favour of a higher tax on food that has a ridiculously high fat...content.

What, like extra virgin olive oil?

you the cat usual
suspect what is your point in your replys. You sound like you both have a massive chip on your shoulders because I said there was free fishing in scotland. I don't get it.....

If he's just talking about 'poor' people then he is indeed an idiot.

Wasn't there research published recently saying that middle class children are more likely to be overweight?

Certainly in my experience obesity is as prevalent in folk who can afford to overeat 'healthy' food as it is in people who give the kids a couple of quid for chips and cheese for tea because parents are working a back/late shift.

Most people don't live in the country though.

Okay, so you forego the tv and get a freezer - how will you fill it?

The poster that just used the word 'disgusting' didn't even mention poor people usual. You are projecting.

Youthecat - I mentioned bulk cooking. The cost of running a freezer is about £1 per week plus initial freezer cost. I think my experience with bulk cooking is that we just eat more, and that then costs more.

My point is that not everyone has the luxury of being able to go hunting and fishing for their food. In fact, most people don't. And I really don't think it is at all relevant.

Empress that's bollocks because nobody ever died of having no cigarettes or alcohol.

And you might well be interested to realize that a tax like that would bring in a whole other raft of health problems.

Part of the reason why the developed world has such good health is that we have cheap, plentiful protein available. Often via products such as turkey twizzlers or burgers. Lack of protein which this kind of legislation would likely cause for many people would just bring in a different set of health problems, not lead to general good health which is a reason why it hasn't been done.

That and the fact that historically taxes like this tend to cause social unrest and the fact that the mass of the general public would never accept it. Partly because when it came down to it even those who like to moan about the poor 'eating chips in front of their telly' probably still like a pizza or a chinese take away and when they actually realized how much it would affect them wouldn't be in favour of it any more. They like it in theory but not in practice.

And it is about poor people because a tax would penalize them the most, take away more of the overall % of their income and mean that what they ate was essentially dictated whilst those with wealth would have the freedom to eat what they wanted.