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.

Also, what Garrick said. Despite the 'sugar is satan' message Jamie is endorsing, we all need energy from somewhere.

"we all need energy from somewhere"

But sugar isn't the only/healthiest way to get energy...

processed sugar…

Because, the vast majority of people in poverty have a basic education, including in cooking/nutrition.

there's no doubt of this. There is, from what I can tell, relatively poor culinary education in this country, especially in regards with what to do with fresh veggies.

However, should we really be that patronizing to the poor? Many poor people have access to a phone, a library, or whatever. People, even the poor, can learn these things.

but isn't JO changing that?

Also, it's a bit of a myth that the poor are short of time. Recent studies have suggested that the poor are actually much longer on time than the middle classes.

To whoever queried my choice of Jamie Oliver recipe - I got it from his "cheap & cheerful" collection I'd be cheerful if I counted fontana and pancetta as cheap!

A lot of poor people are working zero-hour contracts and/or two shift jobs. Look at carers: having to drive to each client, only paid for the minutes they are scheduled to spend in the home; having their hours changed at a moment's notice. And, in most cases, managing their children's schedules on top of that. Sure, you can stick a load of beans & bangers in the slow-cooker every morning - but every day? For life?

Once again, the problem isn't "the poor". It's the escalating economic abuse by our society of less advantaged citizens.

Because of this I am morally opposed to taxes punishing "the poor" for so-called lifestyle choices. If there were fewer fat kids in my childhood, it's because today's children live much more stressful lives in every way. That's what needs addressing.

Garrick, there is a whole generation of kids growing up who eat almost no vegetables other than baked beans.

My parents grew up in poverty as did my FIL. They all cook and eat fish, leafy green veg, pulses, and a wide range of other veg. The meal you describe is OK nutritionally but there are many families who will eat minor variations of this every night of the week: egg and chip (and beans), chicken and chips (and beans), chips (and beans). Sometimes no beans but always chips and some cheap protein. Meanwhile the rates of intestinal cancers go up and up.

I hate the fact that the sort of cooking and eating that many ordinary families did in the 1960's is now seen as 'pretentious' and 'middle class'. And why is it that other countries have a great working class food culture (hello pretty much the entirety of the developing world) while in the uk it's seen as fine that huge numbers of people are eating a hugely restricted and narrow diet with a ridiculously small proportion of fresh fruit and veg. I blame NHS dietitians partly. Typical patronising 'lowest common denominator' advice....

"Also, what Garrick said. Despite the 'sugar is satan' message Jamie is endorsing, we all need energy from somewhere."

We don't need to get it from food which is otherwise nutritionally worthless.

Most adults only need around 2000/2500 calories a day. If 500 of those come from a bar of chocolate and a can of Coke, what do you suggest they should drop from the rest of their day's consumption so they don't consume more calories than they burn off?

"Somebody needs to say something and say it loud, and he's got the public ear"

a. He has got the public ear because of the obsession with celebrity.

b. Why doesnt the NHS say something then. Why dont they admit they got it wrong about fat. Because they are giving advice that is out of date.

GPs are also sending patients to Weight Watchers and Slimming World and a lot of the low points/low syns products they try to get you to eat are high in sugar. When i did SW the first time around i followed their plan to the letter. It worked I lost 10 stone in 18 months. I lost a stone a month for the first seven months and got gallstones from losing weight too quickly It was caused by losing weight too fast Two doctors and my surgeon told me this. I went through ten months of excrutiating pain and actually considered suicide and then my gall bladder was removed.

Second time around i had 4 stone to lose and ive tweaked the plan and done it MY way . Dropped sugar carbs and portion sizes. Its taken longer to lose the weight this time but i have no gall bladder and am a decade older.

I agree with you in principle, mini. I was reacting to the predictable inflow of bad advice from people who think they know a lot about healthy diets. There's no good reason not to have frozen peas & chopped/tinned carrots instead of baked beans, for instance. But you won't find me knocking baked beans as great food value per £, or promoting a 300-calorie meal as good value.

Whilst JO does have a good point (the nation is becoming obese) his delivery of the fact is wrong.

If he was truely on a mission to change things (and not more driven by the revenue it brings him) he could make a serious attempt at creating a way to educate rather than discriminate the uneducated (in food I mean)

I've said it before and I'll say it again if he really wants to understand (whilst making a profit) then he needs to make a programme where he and his family live for at least a month in a flat with limited income. The nation can watch whilst he prepared healthy affordable meals, entertains his family and meets all the bills.

There are fat rich people and fat poor people. The majority are this way because they eat too much of the wrong food and don't move enough. It's not rocket science.

We have never had so much choice and so much information about food. We are bombarded with TV shows,Internet, food labels, school initiatives, government initiatives for 5 a day, 7 a day. People know the advice but they choose to ignore it. As with smoking the only way to make people pay attention is through raising the cost.

What is also requires is better cooking skills/ nutrition at school. Not making fairy cakes but proper meal planning, budgeting and prep. So many people just cannot cook and they will never be able to feed themselves or their kids a proper meal without these skills.

That would be a brilliant challenge for him, Moln! I wonder if he could do it without cheating??

Also, he'd have to start with 'food cupboard ingredients' comprising salt, pepper, dried mixed herbs and a bag of flour.

Moln that is a show I would watch...

Garrick your post of 17.11 is bang on.

And i really dont think the reduction in tax credits that some families are facing is going to help matters.

Wonder if any of JOs employees are having to claim it.

"If there were fewer fat kids in my childhood, it's because today's children live much more stressful lives in every way."

No, it's because children exercise less and eat and drink much more sugary crap than we ever did!

Childrens lives ARE more stressful now Look at all the tests they get put through at school.

If children are bullied now it dosnt end when they walk out of the school gate as it did when i was at school in the 80s.

It carries on on social media.

A lot has changed in the last 20/30 years.

Yeah, bumbley, I was thinking of exercise as a major life-enhancer for children. No sports fields at schools any more, no street cricket & football, no tree-climbing or roaming wild on their bikes. I'm pretty sure that level of activity would counteract a large amount of cola. Yet, the same people who are being demonised here have inadequate resources to ferry their DC to lots of (paid-for) after school activities at set times. Those are the only way most kids can get their natural quota of running around.

YYY, too, Helena.

The most stressful thing for kids these days is when mummy forgets to bring a snack

Helena, I'm not saying they aren't stressed. I'm just saying that isn't the reason they're fat.

I think taxes on products like sugary soda are a good thing. There is a cost to society of obesity and I think a tax is an imperfect but helpful (to an extent) way to curb obesity. Soda taxes have not been popular so far, but that's because people want things that are bad for us. I understand that there is a personal freedom argument but let's face it, individual responsibility is a joke when it comes to stuffing our faces with junk. Britain isn't the fat man of Europe because of our responsible eating behaviour.

At the end of the day, I frankly don't care if an adult makes poor health choices, the point of these taxes is really to target children. Overweight children are strongly predicted to be overweight or obese adults. Children can't be expected to make responsible choices when adults can't plus drinks and snacks companies relentlessly target children, how are they supposed to resist? If a tax makes the price higher so that parents buy less then great. Taxes are only one part of the solution but still with merit I think. This article in Guardian gives a fairly decent overview of sugar taxes:

www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/mexican-coke-sugar-tax-health

Garrick re Ah, now this goes some way to explaining what I see as your rather impractical attitude to food and diet I know A LOT about food but I hate to cook!

Properly understanding food and health makes you immune ... you are going to need to explain this in relation to people buying sugary food, because I am not sure what you mean? Do you mean knowing about food makes you make good choices? Because it may for some, some not so much. The idea of all these things like 5p shopping bags and extra tax on alcohol and sugary food is it can nudge people in the right direction that is all IMHO.

Toadinthehole re .... preferably with a huge slice of cake on it. mmmmmm!

bearleft re ... if we are going to tax sugary food that money should be used to subsidise healthy food and to ensure that lower income families can access that food. Another option would be to provide free meals for children in the holidays when many children go hungry What a great idea.

You'd hope that money raised from such a tax would go towards improving the accessibility of healthy food for the poorest. But that's really a separate issue.

I think the people who are up in arms about this don't realise the extent to which governments use taxes to "nudge" behavioural change. The most obvious example is taxation on gas guzzling vehicles (which get taxed for being inefficient, and are subject to ongoing taxation in the form of duties in fuel), but there are plenty of others - alcohol, cigarettes, as well as tax "carrots" like tax relief on pensions savings.w