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.

I agree OP. I've always thought he has an agenda. That is to make himself into a brand and sell sell sell. He might believe his own rhetoric, that the poor need to be educated. But rich people have the same issues. It's just dauphinoise potatoes instead of chippies. He's just been on a healthy eating diet himself. So has Jonathan Ross and other well off/well educated people. When we were poor it was all homecooked food; a stew that would last a few days. Lots of veg. Lots of it homegrown. We were probably healthier then than when we started to be able to afford pasta and sauces with lots of hidden sugar. Exactly the sort of thing he sells in his restaurants. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm told that the best thing about having lots of money is that it buys you the freedom to do and say whatever you want - within the law.

Jamie Oliver has lots of money. But he can't resist taking more of it from the likes of Mars. It pollutes his message and I and many others are justified in wondering just what his priorities are.

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.

Unfortunately, the poorer you are, the more likely it is that you will be overweight.
You go to any deprived area and you will see a higher percentage of fat people than you would in a more affluent town. So maybe there is some truth in the fact that people in deprived areas are more likely to make poor food choices.

I think he is just trying to help. But unfortunately, he has to realize that when people can't afford fancy holidays and leisure pursuits and are living in poor accommodation, with no transport of their own, then life can seem very bleak and without pleasure.
And what do people turn to when their lives are bleak?
Vices -

They end up getting their 'pleasure' from vices such as junk food or alcohol, or smoking or other drugs......

And Who can blame them? Especially when they see no way of escaping their way of life.

So the problem goes way deeper than anybody realizes.

Perhaps it's not us who need reminding that JO isn't Jesus, but him?

I am not sure why you say he has contempt for the poor, but he is a chef, and the poor in the UK display to a larger extent the broader cultural problem that people in the UK don't have a long culinary tradition with fresh veggies. Modern UK food (european continental?) is very good, but some of the celebrated foods here look inedible to me.

That's not true of other countries. Furthermore, his speciality is italian.

It's unfortunate when celebrities talk about policy. If the BMA recommended we would be talking about what JO think of the poor.

Italy has had its own economic problems and challenges and the culture is very different. Half my family including my mother is Italian. You cannot compare the Italian culture to that of the UK. Im willing to bet that Jamie knows fuck all about the high expectations placed on Italian women either.

When I first heard about this I thought "great! yes!" but on further reflection it's like the breastfeeding thing all over.

Poor people eat more sugar and are more likely to become obese than rich people.

Jamie Oliver's response: TAX SUGAR!!

But the UK's poverty levels should be a source of daily humiliation for Cameron, and those who went before him. ERADICATE POVERTY, Mr Cameron, and your obesity levels will plummet.

There is no earthly reason for a country like the UK to have and intolerable 23.2% of the population living in poverty when a country like Ireland, traditionally the "poor relation", has only 8.3%. That's what needs to be fixed, not fucking around with poor peoples' supermarket spending, for the love of God.

UK: www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r96.pdf
Ireland: www.eapn.ie/eapn/training/consistent-poverty-rates

Obligatory conclusion: JO is a cunt. He once called me "sister" on Twitter, when I pointed out that his fish fingers are the saltiest in the supermarket. He told me that they weren't aimed at children, so it was okay. SISTER.

You cannot compare the Italian culture to that of the UK. Im willing to bet that Jamie knows fuck all about the high expectations placed on Italian women either.

he's a chef, not a sociologist. My guess is that he knows more than me and less than you.

So what?

ireland too has high obesity rates.

"he's a chef, not a sociologist"

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hes the one who needs to hear that not me.

Ive seen an advert for Slim Fast that says "Now with 30% less sugar"

Which means they have been ok with the fact that they have been marketing a high sugar product for years.

I live in a fairly rough inner city area and many of the young mums at the school gate are very fat. These women are not well off but they have enough disposable income to buy new clothes for themselves and their children on a regular basis, enough for the odd meal out, enough to buy lots of Christmas and birthday presents, enough to go in cheap isn holidays a couple of times a year. They are surrounded by cheap ethnic food shops which they won't use because the supermarkets are easier.

These women are not fat because they don't have money to buy nice food. They are fat because their food culture involves regular fast food, large portions, snacks, sugary drinks, and almost no exercise. Also because of a cultural acceptance in that particular group of being very overweight.

I don't think that hardened ignoring of health messages and cultural acceptance of overweight can be easily tackled.

He once called me "sister" on Twitter, when I pointed out that his fish fingers are the saltiest in the supermarket

ah how I love MN sometimes !

You cannot compare the Italian culture to that of the UK. Im willing to bet that Jamie knows fuck all about the high expectations placed on Italian women either.

If you mean to imply that the relatively less 'macho' culture of the UK is a good trade-off for a third of UK children being overweight/obese, I disagree. Women being liberated at the expense of their children's health is not a victory.

Long-term stress makes you fat and insulin resistant.

With source references.

Overview.

Easy read.

This has been known for ages. It's easier to pile even more stress on sufferers, using blame and control, than to relieve the stressors in their lives which are currently unavoidable.

Garrick I think you're getting into 'Dr' Gillian McKeith territory there, tbh.
If it was true there would have been an awful lot of obese people during the 2nd world war. What could be more stressful than living through a war, not knowing if your husband was alive or dead, if your house was going to be hit by a bomb or not, if you could even put a meal on the table for your family.
What makes people become obese is eating more than they need.

So it's women's lib's fault eh Sarah?

Because men couldn't possibly ensure their DC eat well and take exercise.

Women being liberated at the expense of their children's health is not a victory

Italy has a high child obesity culture too! esp south Italy which is even more macho like fucking Middle East so lets nip this little one in the bud hey

I don't want to look at anyone's poo, thanks, effing

I was given exhaustive explanations of corticoid reaction chains - by properly qualified consultants - while having multiple breakdowns. (Can be summarised by pop health articles on the HPA axis and adrenal fatigue.) I took the advice on board - and, crucially, was able to reduce the long-term stress. Not everybody has those privileges.

I don't think anybody's suggested all people get fat under insistent stress?

Are you implying that people with little control over their lives, and their children's, should have their diets restricted to survival rations like in wartime?
Toast sandwiches were a popular mainstay, I recall.
Have you some criteria in mind, by which you'll select the families to be rationed?

Garrick what are you on about? I didn't suggest rationing, did I?
I'm just questioning why, if stress is a factor in obesity as you just suggested, why weren't there more obese people at a time when the whole population was under massive stress?

Women being liberated at the expense of their children's health is not a victory.

Do these children not have fathers???

There is no smoking gun here. There is no "one cause" IMO. There are a number of factors, all contributory. Addressing one while ignoring the others is not going to help much. Just addressing high sugar food is not going to do anything but make it more expensive. It's not a solution, by any means.

Ginger nobody, not even JO, is saying that reducing sugar consumption is the answer to such a complex issue.

Probably a sugary finger too

Good grief. Where have I suggested that fathers escape blameless? Rather, I suggest that if Britain has achieved gender equality by of abandoning healthy, home-cooked suppers - thereby dropping a third of its children into obesity - then it's a Pyrrhic victory.