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 wouldn't dream of it Lila

It was the best webchat ever. Usual asked him if she was allowed to watch his new show on her big telly

booyaka you're not making sense.

Both sugar and alcohol are safe in moderation, unhealthy in excess. Excessive consumption of both has social, economic impacts as well as impacting physical and mental health. People who drink to excess may be unable to hold down a job, may get seriously ill, cost society £££. Obese people may be restricted in their ability to work, may be socially excluded, may become ill and cost the NHS £££.

The argument about differential pricing is just weird, why is this an issue for sugar and not for alcohol? In fact many health experts would also back minimum alcohol pricing to increase the cost of the cheapest sorts of booze.

And it is a FACT that obesity is highly correlated with income. Rich people by and large get much less fat. Poor diet and obesity are key reasons why the difference in life expectancy between the richest and the most deprived parts of the UK is now at least 10 years.

I'm not saying I agree with a sugar tax (haven't seen enough evidence) but the idea is not fundamentally a stupid one.

"Tap water is free"

You had better tell the water companies that then because they have forgotten to inform us!!!

Oh that man irritates me beyond belief.
He's like that friend who discovers a new diet and becomes all evangelical about it, and your just like, fuck off and let me eat my curly wurly.

The way he cooks too. Hands all over the fecking place. He'll say just a drizzle of oil then pour half the bottle in. Wtf?!
Gosh he really gets to me

Oh, and incidentally, despite all the handwringing about obesity being such a strain on the NHS. Well if all these fatties are dying so young then they're going to save years of pensions, benefits and social care. Job done, it would solve the problem of an ageing population.

My apologies Helena. A glass of tap water costs 0.0000000001p.

As always Helena, you are the voice of reason and an inspiration.

JO is an absolute hypocrite. His body, his choice but it was completely his choice and as such he has no right to lecture people who are far more hard-working and much poorer than he is.

Poor diet and obesity are key reasons why the difference in life expectancy between the richest and the most deprived parts of the UK is now at least 10 years.

Gah. I think you'll find that poor diet is the reason, you can strike out obesity. Poor diet has been killing poor people for much longer than cheap carbs have been available.

We still have malnutrition. Calorie deficit is making its way back, so perhaps all the sizeist sneerers will have the satisfaction of watching large sectors of the population get skinny & starve before long.

I suppose that's one of the more ... Um .. interesting defences of social cleansing I've ever heard.

Do you really, truly think that society should turn a blind eye while people destroy their health, aided and abetted by commercial interests?

You know what, I've never had much time for Jamie but, well, my enemy's enemy is my friend. I'd take Jamie's slightly irritating idealism over your ugly social cleansing any day.

It isn't about whether he's right or wrong though.
The issue is the paternalistic attitude towards the 'uneducated masses'. It's very Victorian. The poor can't be trusted to behave responsibly so if we tax the bad thing they won't have it. But the people who are clever enough to understand will be able to afford to eat sugar and get new teeth whilst the poor fight it out on the NHS
Taxing things that make having a shit life momentarily enjoyable is not better than addressing the causes of poverty.

You are being very disingenuous Bayooaka, obese people don't live lovely lives scoffing all the tasty stuff they want then die nice clean deaths at 60. They typically suffer years of nasty stuff like diabetes and heart disease, skin problems and mobility issues. It's not really funny.

Bollocks Mistigri, sugar has nowhere near the social impact that alcohol has. If you think that sugar is anywhere near comparable to alcohol in it's social (not economic or financial) cost then you must be incredibly ignorant of the realities of alcohol abuse. To suggest that sugar can be as damaging to mental health as alcohol is straight up nonsense.

There may well be a correlation between income and obesity, but the reasons are probably a go a lot deeper than the 'poor people can't be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat' crap that Oliver is always spouting.

I suspect it probably has something to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of us aim to have some sort of pleasure in our lives. If you are wealthier it's pretty easy to do this by pursuing hobbies, going to the theatre, going to gigs, going to restaurants, going on holiday, shopping etc, etc, etc. A lot more pleasurable things are available to the wealthy. When you're poor that list shrinks massively, and is often limited to things like having a chippie tea with a can of coke on a Friday or a bar of chocolate.

The problem is, Jamie Oliver's thinking never goes any deeper than 'we should stop poor people from doing this, or punish them financially if they do'.

Smokers are gifts to the taxpayer as well. They support the NHS through massive contributions, usually work all their lives until they get sick in their sixties and die fairly quick deaths from pretty awful illnesses, not lingering with various minor ailments for decades claiming state pensions or bedblocking due to dementia.

Which is why the government isn't really interested in people stopping smoking and are trying to bring in legislation to tax vaping.

So have and while you can. We can no longer afford for you to get old.

A lot more pleasurable things are available to the wealthy. When you're poor that list shrinks massively

YES, YES, YES!!!

Where the fuck are all the inspired suggestions on healthy little treats for children at 80p?

Thankyou Charity thats incredibly kind.

Around the time of that webchat i was very very down and knew i had to lose weight again for my health which ive now done.

What i found an inspiration was many of you on that chat who knew exactly where i was coming from

Ive lived through it and know the links between poverty and weight gain.

When DH and i were surviving on £40 a week that not only included food but also paying for his prescriptions and hospital parking It was hell and stressful and i could NOT afford to eat healthily at that time.

aretheyanyleftatall

Our water bill is £48 a month.

There are loads of things to do that are free, pleasurable and which don't involve junk food and sugar. Children particularly need to be shown that. Or is that paternalistic? Certainly it's what a good father would do.

Discussion on R5 relating to this on now. Maybe we should all phone in?

Maybe he should have approached it from a more positive view point... Ie. Campaigning to make healthy foods cheaper for those who can't afford it instead of punishing them with what will likely be a nominal tax.

However I agree with the overall message. We eat too much crap not just sugar but all sorts of chemicals

I think there are much worse people to get in a frizz about to be honest.

The work he did on school meals should have been more applauded than it was. As an ex teacher I can honestly say that school dinners were shit and I wouldn't have fed them to my dog. They are still pretty crap now despite all the new guidelines. I know one school that does serve lovely, healthy dinners like Jamie recommended and they are very strict. There is one meat and 1 veggie choice and that is it! All of the children eat them and enjoy them because they are used to it. The woman passing her already overweight child a Big Mac through the railings certainly needed someone to step in and make her think twice....and if taxing sugar is the first step then so be it.

Lila - has your friend investigated whether those children know how to clean their teeth, how often, and that they have toothpaste & fresh toothbrushes?

Has she considered malnutrition?

The way "unhealthy poor person" has become a synonym for "eats too much sugar" is very worrying imo.

A fair number of well-off kids are fat and eat sweets. They also eat a healthy diet as well, and have good hygiene routines at home. Their teeth don't decay prematurely.

You're very welcome Helena. I know how hard it has been for you and yet you are always so generous with your time and advice here

I absolutely think there should be more tax on food that are bad for you (like those loaded with sugar) and then that tax should go straight into the NHS to pay for all the medical treatment we are all (or almost all) going to need as a result of eating all that sugar (and salt and fat).

That money raised could also go into education, in teaching us all to cook and make sensible choices.

Just looked on the Asda website and there special offer bags of sliced apples are 48p each, or 5 for £1.50, a five pack of donuts is 50p! Food that is bad for you is generally cheaper than food that is good for you! That isn't how it should be.

At least Jamie Oliver cares about this stuff. he has plenty of cooking talent and money so he doesn't need to be involved in this stuff, IMHO.

Even if those donuts were taxed more I reckon most people could afford them. But much nicer if the money went to the government rather than the shops. And if he could encourage the shops to make fresh fruit and veg cheaper, great.

Oh yes, alcohol too, they were going to introduce minimum pricing I think but didn't, is that right?

Helena what was your secret to weight loss, I need to lose loads, I will PM You, please

Jamie Oliver is a Conservative party supporter.

Food bank usage has exploded during the last five years and is set to rise.

People who are hungry need donations of calorie-laden carb-heavy food to keep going. Many people who use food banks are working and / or carers and it is impossible to store fresh protein /veg-based meals en masse.