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.

Charity - that's different though isn't it? Obviously if a child has autism or another special need that means they can't or won't brush their teeth then that's not a sugar problem.
However there ARE a lot of children without such conditions that are having their teeth removed because of poor diet and dental hygiene.
That's like saying let's ignore the obesity crisis because some children have medical conditions that make them overweight...

I know, just saying milk is also sugary and damaging. When DS finally went off drinking so much he became much less substantial too. It's tricky getting enough calories in him now with his preferred diet of carrot and cucumber.

It's good that people are becoming more awake of sugar and its effects. I remember reading another forum ten years ago and a post from someone saying she would rather her baby didn't have any "mood-altering" substances (a petit filou) and thinking WTF?

I've never found fromage frais to be 'mood altering'. I'd probably scoff them myself if they were.

To put it into perspective, that's a ham sandwich. Which suggests the vast majority of people consume it reasonably responsibly.

that sounds responsible to you? Mind this, most children do not consume any fizzy drinks and many adults don't either.

My guess is what's going on is that there is a certain segment of the society that are having two or more a day. And that only accounts for one source of sugar.

While petits filous falls well short of 'mood-altering' (could something have been lost in translation? thats' mad) its popularity reveals widespread ignorance about how to feed a baby/toddler.

I also don't understand why, if it's even the case, it's wrong to target the poor. either you are poor and don't drink fizzy drinks, in which case this doesn't affect you, or you drink a lot of fizzy drinks and hopefully you will stop.

This strange protection of the poor seems to be more for political reasons than medical ones.

sarah no it wouldn't to some people. They'd just continue to find reasons why not.
When people talk about 'poor people' like that I find it a bit patronising, having been very poor at times. The fact is that many 'poor people' actually make a lot of effort to overcome difficult circumstances and to do the best they can.

simple comment from me here but why do 'treats' need to be food? this is half the problem really, we are brought up to regard food stuff as a treat or reward so begin a bad relationship with food. treats and rewards should be activity, time spent together, small things like crayons, chalks, colouring books, bubble bath etc etc rather than always food. I had lots of fillings as a kid, my lovely GM gave us 'treats' every day, sweets or sixpence to go to the shop to buy... sweets. I brought my boys up with very few sweets / cakes / biscuits they have perfect teeth, a healthy attitude to ffod, they know what healthy eating is and do make healthy choices most of the time, naturally they have sugary stuff sometimes when they fancy it but they never regard this as treating themselves.treating themselves is a new top or a ticket for a gig now, when they were little a treat was a mini action figure or a tube of bubbles, a small puzzle or something else from mums treat box which I collected as and when I saw cheap little gifts and had a quid spare.

That article says we consume an average of 123ml of sugar sweetened drinks per day. 1/3 of a can of coke. Or just over 0.8 litres in a week. That's about 50 calories per day, or 350 in a week.

To put it into perspective, that's a ham sandwich. Which suggests the vast majority of people consume it reasonably responsibly.

The problem, naturally, is the average. Some people drink none (like in my family and redstrawberry's, for example) and some people drink a lot.

This strange protection of the poor seems to be more for political reasons than medical ones.

It's a sick hangover from Labour treating adults like children.

Agree with that, Sarah. And it hasn't done us any favours.

Just seen this on the fabulous Johnny Void's website. Worth a read!

"In Jamie Oliver’s pampered mind it appears he thinks everyone has a farmer’s market just down the road. No-one has mobility problems, and so can easily drag home bags of shopping, even if the plebs don’t have a car. The electricity and gas required to slow cook cheap cuts of meat never runs out. Hard pressed single parents can simply pop out to browse the artisan stalls outside the local Poundstretcher, whilst pensioners should just pick up some cherry tomatoes and fresh fucking mussels at the off licence on the way home from the Bingo."

On the face of it, that sounds like a really clever, withering critique. The unfortunate truth is that most of his ingredients are available at the Co-op.

And, you can run a slow-cooker all day for pennies.

I just don't get all the Jamie Oliver hate on here. He's the son of pub landlords from Essex who now runs a successful, high profile business and does a lot of media work too. What's so awful about that? He was born with nicely polished stainless steel spoon in his mouth, not a silver one. He could perfectly easily just get on with his business and not bother about the abysmal diet so many of his compatriots feed themselves and their children. Because he instead actually makes the effort to try to make this important topic a bit more high profile, he gets all this opprobrium. Why?

I don't get it either.

I just don't get all the Jamie Oliver hate on here. He's the son of pub landlords from Essex who now runs a successful, high profile business and does a lot of media work too. What's so awful about that?

I think if you read through, nobody is saying that they object to Oliver for any of those reasons.

He doesn't 'do media work'. He sells cookery books, and funnily enough everything he ever says in his 'media work' seems to have a corresponding cookery book! He makes his points in a politically illiterate and hypocritical fashion. Also, he likes UKIP. Nary a redeeming feature, IMO.

On the face of it, that sounds like a really clever, withering critique.

not even on the face of it is it clever.

he has loads of cheap food ideas.

I don't get what people want from him. Should he just ignore the poor altogether?

He sells cookery books,

we should have prisons for people like him.

He can sell all the cookery books he pleases, and you know darn well that's not what anyone's problem is here.

"He sells cookery books,

we should have prisons for people like him."

strawberry I have spat my tea all over my keyboard. Thanks for that.

Well, that would be a clever satire, if anyone had said 'I hate Jamie Oliver because he sells cookery books', yes.

The fact is, he's a business man, and he's a very successful writer of cookery books - to be fair, some of his flavours are really good, though I find the techniques a little off.

He's very good at selling cookery books. He's not good at nuanced political issues, or comprehending the actual situation of the poor to whom he presumes to preach.

He's not good at nuanced political issues, or comprehending the actual situation of the poor to whom he presumes to preach.

He's not a member of BMA nor an economist, that's for sure. We certainly shouldn't be having a sugar tax because JO recommends it.

And, you can run a slow-cooker all day for pennies.

Not if you don't have one. And some people don't have the £15-20 to spare to buy one. They need that money for food or heat or electric.

FFS Sarah they ALL contribute to the problem.

And why shouldnt HA do repairs quicker. Thats what tenants pay a service charge for.

You mentioned taxpayers. a. If YOU expect something for the tax you pay then why shouldnt tenants expect something for the service charge they pay. What makes your money better than theirs.

Seniors are or have been taxpayers so that argument falls down. Everyone pays some form of tax.

And the diet industry does need to be held more accountable. I have a nasty feeling that you think its ok because they are making money.

No one here has a problem with Jamie selling cookbooks. If we had a problem with that we would all be on this thread having a go at Nigella James Martin Lisa Faulkner Delia Smith etc. But we are not.

Because none of these chefs have felt the need to "other" and patronise one section of the population to sell cookbooks to another section of the population. JO did exactly this two years ago. Had a go at the way poorer ppl budgetted and THEN admitted that Save With Jamie wasnt aimed at them. So why keep mentioning them then.