To get fed up with people with people like Jamie Oliver trying to coerce poor people via taxation.

[Booyaka]

I absolutely loathe Jamie Oliver anyway, but this crusade of his over sugar is driving me mad. I think something possibly needs to be done about sugar, but I don't think this is the way to do it. He did make a suggestion about prominently labelling total number of teaspoons of sugar in a product, which seemed quite sensible. But mainly he was pushing the tax angle.

Jamie Oliver's entire schtick seems to be that poor people can't be trusted to make the right decisions so they should instead be priced out to force them to make the decisions that he and his ilk believe that they should be making.

It bloody annoys me that they seem to think if you are wealthy and can afford them anyway you can be trusted to make the right decision anyway, but if you're poor you need to be coerced, and that coercion, of something as basic as what you eat and drink, is fine as long as you are poor. He did very much concentrate on handwringing about 'the deprived' too and how this tax would seemingly save them from themselves.

Apparently 1/3 of the products he sell in his restaurants are high sugar anyway, but he probably doesn't mind that, because he prices his tat so highly only middle class people can afford it and they're sensible enough to be trusted with sugar unlike the proles.

He probably doesn't realise, but a lot of people can't afford to take their kids to Tuscany or the Caribbean, Cornwall or even Skeg-bloody-ness. They can't buy their kids a lot of toys or give them days out. Is it really fair to give these people a financial kicking for giving their kids one of the few treats they can afford? Especially when many of them do so sensibly and in moderation.

Sugar in biscuit and cake.

I don't know what your gripe is Op. JO is just highlighting what we are all eating. Whether knowingly or not.

Are you taking it as a personal affront?

Jamie is an all round wanker.

I think you're letting the fact that you don't like him cloud your judgement

He's simply asking for better food labelling and for crap foods to cost more than good foods. What's wrong with that?

Btw it's cheaper to live off healthy food than junk imo

I agree with OP. It's very patronising.

I disagree and I'm not a fan of Jamie Oliver. I think his main angle was that sugary drinks should be labelled clearly - which they should.
I think you are reading things into what he says that don't exist. He is a bit of a prat but I don't think he patronises people. He is irritating but he's not an idiot.
I think increasing the price of sugary drinks is a great idea.
If you are skint then buying sugary drinks seems an odd choice to treat your kids.

I gave my DC sugary treats such as cake and biscuits but I didn't give them sugary drinks. They are the work of the devil

So poor people should be able to give their kids (and themselves) 'treats' of high sugar, zero nutrition food and drink? If he was campaigning for cheaper sugary shit would you be complaining that poor people weren't worth affordable healthy food?

Who said he's aiming it at poor people? Don't better-off people eat too much sugar?
I think it's a bloody good idea, but manufacturers will switch to fake, chemical alternatives so we'll still have a health problem.

Jamie Oliver is a wanker.

Taxing sugary drinks has nothing to do with poor people. These drinks are bad for everyone and popular with lots of people.
We have a diet containing too much refined sugar.
I don't mind if it is Jamie or a medic lobbying for this.
Incidentally I didn't recognise him. He looks different.

Jamie Oliver told us to steal herbs.

I second another webchat.

We tax alcohol and cigarettes partly to limit their consumption. Why is sugar fundamentally different?

There may be a debate about whether a "sugar tax" would have to be fixed at too low a level to have a signfiicant impact on consumption patterns, but it doesn't make having that debate patronising or wrong.

Disagree, I like him.
I like his recipes.
He's right that sugary drinks are full of crap.

I wouldn't mind if he was targeting general crap foods and drinks, but targeting drinks that contain sugar will simply mean that people buy the even shitter 'no added sugar' versions and OD on Aspartame and similar sugar substitutes. It's a very short sighted way of doing things, IMO.

x-post usual

Herbs grow in parks? I've seen wild garlic in the local woodlands but clearly I'm missing out here.

Better labelling is fine.

iwantgin, he's not just highlighting it, he's demanding a change in the law. And according to you lunchpack, it's cheaper to live of healthy food. If that's the case, you've already got what you want and good food does cost more than crap food. So why do we need a law bought in by a multimillionaire dickwad?

And why should unhealthy food cost more than healthy food? The only answer to that is to coerce people into eating what you want them to eat, which is an absolutely unacceptable thing for the state to be involved with. Anyway, in Mexico where they have the tax, it's been argued that it has only decreased calorie intake by 6 calories a day, which will make no difference at all. Probably because people who don't want to eat healthy food will chose another unhealthy alternative like tortilla chips or whatever if they can't eat sugar, instead of the polenta and sun blush tomatoes Jamie probably imagines they'll turn to.

I think this could end very badly for Jamie. Similar taxes on salt, tea, sugar and meat have proved very unpopular in the past and have led to rioting and some contributed to the American Revolution.

He is bloody annoying, and also a hypocrite... HOWEVER...

My pal is in a new-to-her clinic in a hospital, they see 15 kids per tooth clinic, 4 x a week. ALL rotten teeth. And these kids are not middle class (I'm aware anecdote isn't evidence, before anyone shouts at me).

If education isn't working, what will?

Was it here I read that a glass of wine has over a teaspoon of sugar in it? That would mean the a bottle would have at least 4. I do think we consume too much sugar and salt.

He's simply asking for better food labelling and for crap foods to cost more than good foods. What's wrong with that?

Because a lot of people living on low incomes don't have access to shops that offer a good, keenly priced range of fresh foods. Funnily enough the likes of Waitrose aren't particularly fussed about siting their stores in deprived neighbourhoods. And folk on really tight incomes can't afford to spend £x per week getting to & from their nearest supermarket or ££ on electricity to lovingly slow roast a cheap joint of beef for 4 hours. So a tax on convenience foods is yet another tax on the poor. Yanbu to think a millionaire shouldn't be looking to tax to poor even more.

He's just ahead of his time. When the obesity epidemic worsens, the health service crumbles trying to cope with diet related disease and people see younger generations dying/having amputations/going blind/having strokes/heart disease it will eventually be accepted that sugar should be regulated in the same way as other harmful substances which cause death and disease.

Until then we will keep our heads in the sand and call him a health fascist/doomsayers/rich nutter.