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'll never forget being in a recovery room with my daughter after she'd had a minor ENT op. All of the other children on the ward were in to have multiple teeth extracted. I'll never forget it. The completely avoidable pain they were in was horrible to see. Anything that might stop kids being fed so much sugar that their teeth are completely rotten before they're out of primary school is fine with me.

He's right about keeping KFC and the like out of school buildings but the proposal of JO and others to limit fast food outlets near schools is monstrous. Why should parents be allowed to outsource their responsibility for their little darlings' diets?

And I have never worked out whether it is proposed to close existing fast-food joints or just to block new ones. If the former it will cost a lot in compensation - if you think otherwise see you in Strasbourg - and if the latter you will be giving them massive monopoly value. It's just not thought out at all.

If we're doing anecdotal tooth stories now ... I had fillings & extractions throughout childhood. At 60 now, I'm careening towards having to have 'em all out and get dentures (NHS doesn't do reconstruction.)

I have never eaten a lot of sugar. I was raised with good dental hygiene and nutrition. I smoke, drink coffee and am on a lot of medication, which explains the current decrepit state of my teeth. But not the crappiness of my teeth as a child. That can only be explained by genetics, which must also be why my adult bad habits & illness have affected my teeth worse than others'.

My dentist, an evangelical product of contemporary health theory, actually refuses to believe this. She says I must be consuming a lot of sugar and not cleaning my teeth.

At my annual checkup last week, the nurse told me to reduce the fat in my diet. I smiled and nodded; I've learned there's no point arguing with people's training even when it's irrelevant. I almost said she should be worrying less about the fat in people's diets and more about sugar, then I remembered the dentist

Britain has more billionaires per head of population than any other country. Why don't some of you have a look at their photos before ranting on about poor people being fat?

mumofthemonsters808

bloody hell. That's neglect isn't it? after all that (and don't tell me they don't know its bad for him) to give that poor fat and tooth decayed little blighter a family sized choc bar

The only answer to that is to coerce people into eating what you want them to eat, which is an absolutely unacceptable thing for the state to be involved with.

why? We have a national health insurance here. we pay extra when people get unhealthy.

Taxing bad food doesn't ban it, but it just make it more expensive.

Maru, a healthy vegetarian costs more and requires a greater volume of food. It is not a wise choice for very poor people.

Noeffingidea - We now have very high numbers of people living in B&Bs with no proper cooking facilities, in cramped accommodation with only two rings and one cupboard, sleeping rough or sofa-surfing, with no money whatsoever, and even more people that can't afford the electricity to cook. Hence foodbanks welcoming 'kettle food'.

It seems to need constant repetition that the primary requirement of a diet is to afford sufficient calories.

WhoTheFuckIsSimon, congrats on your dissertation and your very sensible post!

a healthy vegetarian diet costs more - I'm not selling vegetarians

*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.*

I'm sure she has, she's an excellent consultant and they give out brushes and paste. You can't follow families home and see if they can be arsed to use them though which she would if she could I think

She and her team work so hard at educating, yet kids still turn up to clinic with a bottle half full of coca cola. I'm not sure if it's ignorance or sheer bloody minded 'I'm not doing what The Man tells me'.

Bold fail, sorry Garlick

• Garrick

a healthy vegetarian costs more and requires a greater volume of food. It is not a wise choice for very poor people.

I seriously doubt that. Dried lentils, beans, etc are pennies. you can beef that up with a few root veggies and you have a cheap meal. Lentils are about the cheapest source of starch and protein you can find.

we are vegetarian in our house, but have essentially no cost restraints, and I am amazed at how low our food bills are.

You may be right about the bloody-mindedness, Lila :) I often feel like that!

On a related side note, there is a persuasive line of thought that artificial sweeteners may increase the risk of diabetes.

Cold-pressed olive oil, among other things, is thought to reduce diabetes risk. However, it costs about 100 times as much as lard or margarine.

Garrick I'm a vegetarian, and you are wrong. A healthy vegetarian diet is cheaper than.a healthy carnivore diet.
Re your 2nd point, yes, some people are in Band B's, I know that. They still should have some sort of cooking facility.
I've cooked on 2 rings before. It is poseible. Yes a few people people may not be able to afford gas or electric in times of crisis, that is still the minority and it doesn't account for the obesity crisis.

Ridiculous. A healthy veggie diet is cheap as chips. Could live off two pounds a day with a diet healthier than 99% of UK people. Especially if you have a Polly tunnel, forage and have a pressure cooker with induction hob where it costs pennys to get a portion of high quality protein.

I am not obese. I don't eat a lot of sweets or choclaye however i do drink pop.
Ive gone up a bit however that has been due to severe health problems.
I still won't stop buying it.
It will however make me even poorerthan i amat the moment.

Most vegetarians aren't vegan and dairy has never been cheaper in relation to income.

Pulses, nuts, seeds. All these nutritious foods are cheap and widely available.

"It seems to need constant repetition that the primary requirement of a diet is to afford sufficient calories."

Given the obesity epidemic blighting the lives of some of the poorest people in the UK, I really don't think insufficient calories is a massive problem for those on benefits, unless they're facing sanctions, in which case I imagine slow starvation is probably possible.

Taxing sugar would be good if it solved the problem. However, if tax goes up high fructose corn syrup and other additives will be used to make the product cheaper. So taxing may make the sugar more expensive but the products worse !

"I still won't stop buying it.
It will however make me even poorerthan i amat the moment."

It's not really a massive hardship is it? If you have to drink, say, one less glass of sugary drink a week?

Especially if you have a Polly tunnel

Sorry

kali that's your choice though, isn't it. Most of us have to make choices on what to buy.

It is when i have hardly any money as it is. I don't treat myself to things.
I only have sugary drinks as it helps me feel better.
I'd do anything to give myself a little bit of relief!

Garrick, you are right that for some people poor dental health is genetic and not caused by diet and/or lack of dental hygiene. However for most people that is not the case. So if increasing the price of a completely non-essential drink with no nutritional value can have a potentially positive impact for many people I don't see why you wouldn't do it. Just because it may not have made a difference to you doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit others.

I can't bring myself round to thinking raising the price of sugary foods is a good idea - though I accept that there is an obesity problem that needs to be addressed. And a more general public dietary issue too.

How about we tax the income/profit generated by foods containing a certain percentage of sugar and above, at a higher rate?

That way there is a financial incentive for companies to use less sugar in their products - not perfect but perhaps one branch of a solution? Goodness knows doing the right thing for the health of the nation isn't any motivation for corporations, but talking their language (ie financial penalties/rewards) might be more successful.

Marue your post sums up the massive lack of understanding about poverty.

Someone poor, who lives above a shop in a large town or city... Pretty standard.

How the bloody hell do they get hold of an induction hob (£800?) and a fucking polytunnel (stick it on the balcony, maybe?), and where exactly do they forage? Fight the urban squirrels for acorns? Or the foxes for a binned kebab?

Some people need to be stuck for a while in an empty flat with leccy on a ridiculously expensive key meter and £7 to last the week. You wouldn't be buying fucking pulses.