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.

A bit of moderation all year round is much better. Christmastime is about gorging on file for two months these days, a few weeks off and then its gorge time again in Easter. Never ending.

Food not file

I wrote my dissertation on obesity and poverty and how it's interlinked. got 92% (Stealth boast)

It is generally not cheaper to live off healthy food rather than junk food. Yes you can argue that Jack manages on a bag of lentils and some nettles for a week and is healthy and it costs like 17p. But it's not that simple. People in true poverty may not have saucepans, or a cooker. They may live on a crappy estate and it's too far to walk to the supermarket and they can't afford the bus. So they have the corner shop and the chip shop, neither of which sell lentils.

Then there's a lack of skills, so they may not know how to cook from scratch, can't afford cookery books.....

Then even with "non junk" food there's a massive difference between the cheap, value ranges and the better, more expensive ranges. Lean mince at 10% fat will cost significantly more than value mince at about 22% fat.

I think we have an undeniable public health problem, which is obesity (and all the conditions related to it) caused in large part by over-consumption of sugar.

If we all agree on the premise, then we go on to the question, do we need to do something about it? And I imagine most of us would say Yes, both as a good in itself (why should small children end up obese and unhealthy because they're stuffed full of sugary food?) and because of the economic cost (obese people getting diabetes, not being able to work etc).

So then the question is: what do we do about it? And that's the hard one, really. In ideal world, corporations wouldn't be allowed to sell sugar-filled crap, but no government is going to take on the might of the food corporations, so we're left with fairly crude measures like taxing such food. And then we're left with the problem that that hits poor people the hardest - and they're not all going to suddenly go out and start cooking delicious stews made from kale just because sugary junk is now too expensive.

I suppose it's possible that if the government introduces a tax for foods that have a certain amount of sugar in them, corporations will start to reduce the amount of sugar they use to avoid the tax, but it's not guaranteed.

I think we're probably looking at the problem the wrong way round. Why are people poor? Why are people forced to scrimp and count the pennies so that they can afford to eat? Much better to tackle poverty so that no-one goes hungry. But a much bigger project, sadly.

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.

Absolutely. JO should keep schtum - if people want their children to die young, waddling toothless into an early grave after a shorter and pretty miserable life, that's their choice.

What, people in the UK are too poor to buy saucepans? Sorry ,don't believe that. You can buy them for a couple of quid, and any other cooking utensils from a pound shop.

And value ranges can be better than more expensive ranges, because they have less sugar and salt. Sainsbury's museli (no added sugar), Sainsburys basic yoghurt (no added sugar), .
Out of interest, how far is 'too far to walk' to the nearest supermarket? I ask because my son used to live on one of those estates (which looked nice on the surface) but the shops were dire. But there was a massive Asda a couple of miles away, which is an easy walk to me. Presumably a lot of people did use the crappy shops ,seeing as they were still open.
It comes down to motivation to me. It does take a lot of effort to eat well on a very small budget but a lot of British people don't really want to. If people like frozen pizzas and fizzy pop they're not really going to be motivated to eat kidney bean burgers or lentil curry.

If everyone could stop assuming poor people eat crap that would be nice! Just because your poor doesn't mean your stupid.

I was on income support a few years ago and could easily cook healthy food for me and my dc. I even had a veg box delivered!

With aldi super 6 or whatever it's called and 25p for a bag of carrots in there I get what Jamie Oliver is saying.

The poor are not a different race.

Brandnew some poor people eat crap (I expect some rich people do too). It isn't neccesary though, as you point out.

The big TV / crap food comment was a bit stupid but taken along with the rest of his comments wasn't nasty IYSWIM. - I still couldn't see anything where he was slating people with 'learning disabilities' or who are 'uneducated'

Anymore quotes where he has said offensive things or was it just the one misguided one.

Lol, bloody hell, I can't believe I'm defending JO . However, even though I find him really annoying I don't think it fair if posters slag him off unfairly just because he is rich saying someone 'slates'people with learning difficulties is an awful thing to say if it's not true.

I really don't think it matters if your poor or rich.

If your rich you might well live off ready meals full of sugar. You might live off oven food if your poor.

Or whatever the state of your bank account you might eat healthy homemade nutritional food.

Isn't the obvious solution setting a uk limit on the amount of sugar contained in each product so there isn't excessive amounts and banning certain chemical sugars which have been linked to cancers, bowel problems or whose long term affects are unknown.

Or taxing the supermarkets and manufacturers of high sugar food so they pay an amount to the NHS for stocking products which can cause harm.

Or even banning intrinsic sugars, so many products contain sugars that may not need them.

I don't see why we have to target the consumer. After all the manufacturers create a product, I'm sure they taste test them with a consumer panel to see which will sell best, market them targeting the consumer and then the supermarket sells the stuff putting it in the best place, putting scents in the air. Honestly all the consumer is doing is what they're meant to be doing which is consuming.

The glossy high sales targeted adverts are mostly on the less than healthy food. For example the Coca Cola advert with the Christmas time is coming song and parade of trucks and Santa Clause, you don't get that kind of advertising for lentils or potatoes.

what on earth are you on about OP? what has being able to afford vacations in Tuscany got to do with it? you sound a bit deluded (I am sure you are not)

you are free to dislike the messenger but don't for gods sake say that taxing this fucking sugar ridden shite is depriving poor people

"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."

It's not really a treat if it fucks their health up and leaves some of them needing amputations and dialysis is it?

That picture of the 'wall of sugar' reminds me that when I go to get petrol at our local garage you have to walk through a 'sugar tunnel' to get to the till. I always imagine if it was big sacks of sugar on the floor with signs on saying 'BOGOF/two for a pound' with cigarette packaging style pictures of diabetic feet/rotting teeth/amputations etc It's madness.

"I really don't think it matters if your poor or rich."

Well it does matter.

Double the number of poor people are fat compared to rich people.

There's something about being poor that makes you more vulnerable to obesity and all the illnesses that accompany obesity.

It's right that we should draw attention to this and be asking what it is and what we can do about it.

"you have to walk through a 'sugar tunnel' to get to the till"

"Well if all these fatties are dying so young then they're going to save years of pensions, benefits and social care"

Except they don't generally die young.

They live on for years and years with horrible illnesses.

My morbidly obese inlaws are late 70's and early 80's. Between them they have: heart failure, type 2 diabetes, stroke, incontinence, depression, hypertension, joint problems, asthma. They have spent their entire retirement in and out of hospital and attending hospital appointments. It's grim.

*Except they don't generally die young.

They live on for years and years with horrible illnesses.*

Exactly, your spot on. Most people neglect their health and only when they become ill they regret the huge amount of crap theve lived off for decades. Its all shit and giggles on here with people boasting about how much crap they have eaten, wait till they get to decades of poor, painful health .

Im at a loss as to how people can say that healthy snacks cost more than the unhealthy ones... taking an earlier example where a PP said that ASDA sells a pack of sliced apple for 49p per bag, 5 bags for £1.50 or 5 donuts for 50p

How much would it cost if you purchased an apple and cut it yourself? Less than 49p i'm sure.

My city has a market that sells fruit and veg for a lot less than the supermarkets. Better quality too. I can buy a single apple for about 20p.

Most towns and cities ive visited across the UK have similar - is it not possible to shop there for your fruit and veg? Or is it just more convenient to get it all at the supermarket?

(FWIW my mum used to struggle on the bus with bags of shopping and 2 kids - she said it was a pain in the arse, but she couldnt drive, couldnt afford a cab and had no childcare. She did it because if she didnt, we didnt eat. She was a single parent in a low paid job with a mortgage at a time when the minimum wage didnt exist and interest rates were through the roof.)

Whilst i know that shopping at a market for fruit & veg probably isnt possible for everyone, i think it is possible for most and the reason that people dont is because of the inconvenience.

"Its all shit and giggles on here with people boasting about how much crap they have eaten, wait till they get to decades of poor, painful health."

It is their decision. Education is great, coercion not so much.

Can anyone give any evidence of increasing sugar consumption and how it links to the so-called obesity epidemic?

if you are really skint then bus fares can be expensive (depending where you live). It's at least £4 to get anywhere that has a market from my reasonably sized town. We have a market but it's a vair posh organic market-town type of market with no cheap bargains.

I find fruit can be surprisingly expensive but frozen fruit is not quite so bad eg Tesco Everyday Value Frozen Fruit Salad 450G is only £0.90

If I couldn't afford lots of fruit I still wouldn't routinely give my DC donuts and I (almost) never gave them sugary drinks.

Not being able to afford lots of healthy food doesn't mean you have to give in and feed your DC crap.

I'm laughing at the idea of all these white people being lazy fatsos while all the lovely ethnics eat wonderful healthy diets. Tower Hamlets has some very wealthy areas which may well account for a lot of the reduction in adult obesity rates. However the childhood obesity rates are some of the worst in the country, and as the children in that borough are much more likely to be from ethnic minorities that is probably a lot more accurate reflection of the state of health among those groups. And South Asians have the highest level of obesity related diseases than any other group. Those wonderful people you're nodding approvingly at when they buy herbs are probably going home and dumping it in a vat of ghee. But who care? Poor white people are fair game right? Are you going to go the full Jamie Oliver and tell us they're too lazy too employ too?

There's something about being poor that makes you more vulnerable to obesity and all the illnesses that accompany obesity.

It's all that sitting on the settee watching Jezza all day.....

(joke) shouldn't have to point that out, but will

Can anyone give any evidence of increasing sugar consumption and how it links to the so-called obesity epidemic?

erm, read the paper! erm google "obesity epidemic in western society"

but sarcasm aside, I do NOT remember having this volume of sweet shit around when I was a nipper- do you? There was no poundland with massive bags of sweet for, erm £1. Sweets was more expensive and therefore, less available. MacDonald's was a rare occurrence. I am not glorifying the 70s and 80s, but we also exercised a hell of a lot more just by having more freedom to play out and commute to school at a much younger age