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.

lila what makes you think some of us haven't been in those circumstances?

My post was to Marue who suggested the things I discussed

Sadly many of us have been in or regularly see those circumstances.

Fair enough. I've never had a polytunnel either. My mum had a pressure cooker though, scary thing. They can be useful. I suppose a slow cooker would be a good replacement nowadays.

Interesting thread.

A few random points.

1. Tap water is free, as mentioned many hundreds of posts ago. Yes, we pay water rates and some people are on a meter. But you pay the water rates whether you drink any tap water or not and the cost per glass of tap water has to be a tiny fraction of any other drink you can buy, surely? Best drink of all for the teeth and the waistline, unless you are a tiny child who needs milk.

1. Fruit is great but the really good stuff for health is vegetables, which are usually cheaper. Frozen veg is just as good as fresh from a nutritional point of view. Tinned veg isn't bad either, if there isn't too much salt and sugar in it.

1. Garrick, if you are 60 now you probably grew up before tapwater and toothpaste were routinely fluoridated (as I did). Fluoride has made a huge difference to children's teeth. Another good reason for drinking tap water!

1. I'm not equipped to comment on the statistics or the causes but from the evidence of my own eyes I'd say it's undeniable that there are far more overweight people around now than there were when I was growing up. I'm 54. It was rare to see a plump child, even growing up in Scotland on a diet that would give a nutrition expert palpitations. It was very rare to see anyone who was morbidly obese.

And finally, 5. I see we had the old chestnuts further up the thread that:

(a) People who eat what they want live a happy life and die at 60.
(b) It's nobody else's business what anyone chooses to do.

Rubbish in both cases.

As others have already pointed out, people who do any or all of the unhealthy stuff (smoke, drink a lot, eat a bad diet, don't take much exercise) are very, very likely to get ill and end up leading a very miserable life dominated by their state of health, and not necessarily a much shorter life, either. Nobody wants that for themselves or their loved ones, surely? Don't most of us want to see our children grow up and get to spend time with our grandchildren if we have any, and still be in good health to have some fun with them?

And yes it is a matter of concern to the whole of UK society when large numbers of people are ending up in poor health from avoidable causes. We all pay for it through taxes and NIC, we all need the NHS from time to time and would like it not to be overwhelmed by dealing with those avoidable illnesses and, last but not least, out of common humanity none of us wants to see people suffering when it's not necessary.

I agree pressure cookers are terrifying I suppose a slow cooker would be a good replacement nowadays not really, as pressure cookers cook fast = less energy used. Slow cookers sit there for hours sucking up energy... Dinner in the dark anyone? That's the sort of sucky choice people have to make.

From 2013 Telegraph article

Electricity costs around 15p per kWh, so using an oven for an hour to cook your stew will cost around 30p - depending on your temperature. A slow cooker, which uses around 0.7kWh over the eight hours cooking time as an average of , will cost a third of the price, at 10.5p.

That's a point, Gasp. I must have been 7 or 8 when my region fluoridated its water. We did drink a lot of tea, though! (Natural fluoride source)

I haven't had time to read beyond page 3, so apologies if I'm repeating what somebody else has said.

The comparison made between alcohol and sugar is irrelevant when it comes to children. It is childhood obesity that JO is seeking to reduce.

That's good info Gasp, thanks.

nuts

See, it's interesting for someone to class nuts as inexpensive, because in our basket of goods, they are by far the most expensive things. I am always shocked by the price of nuts.

But, compared to meat, my guess is nuts are cheap.

Gasp, I presume those prices would be higher for people on a meter system? (Another example of people with less money having to pay more for things).

Also, you don't need a "polly tunnel" to be a cheap vegetarian (I didn't even know what one was).

Gasp, I presume those prices would be higher for people on a meter system?

no they wouldn't.

Most of the water you pay for is used for bathing and toilet. I bet if all you drank was tap water, the most you could get down your throat is 10p a month. Water is priced as a few pence per cubic metre (a ton of water).

You wouldn't be buying fucking pulses.

I am not poor, so I may be ignorant here. But why not? for 30p worth of lentil + 2 onions, some garlic and cumin you can make a nice soup for a family.

The prices were for energy though.

Shockers, why is it irrelevant?

It's money earned by adults which pays for the purchase of sugar for the young largely.

Why would sugar be the only commodity where the basic laws of economics don't apply?

I haven't read the Telegraph article, it was just the first hit on Google when I looked to see what a slow cooker costs to run. Two years out of date, of course, and it probably doesn't take into account all the different tariffs, I agree. But it does look as if heating a slow cooker for a long time is a lot cheaper than heating an oven for a shorter time, which is what I would have expected. If I make a stew in the oven, the whole kitchen gets warm. That doesn't happen if I use the slow cooker, so I would assume that the slow cooker is more efficient at keeping the heat inside itself than the oven is.

[spot the non-scientist]

I thought the increase in tax was to help offset the additional burden that health problems caused by sugar consumption are putting on the NHS.

Mini, the argument I was referring to was that people don't beat up their partners or lose their jobs after too much sugar, but they do after alcohol. It was that comparison that was irrelevant, IMO.

Calories in Hairy Bikers' spicy bean & veg stew, per serving: 300.
With bread: 400-500.
The recipe includes aubergines, peppers, courgettes & creme fraiche. It's a very nice stew, but poor on cost for food value.
I realise there are much cheaper ways to make a bean & veg stew, however the calorie value is always about 300.

A ten-year-old needs about 1,800 calories a day.

Calories in sausages, oven chips & baked beans, per serving: 680 with ketchup.
Cost for food value: excellent.

I realise this isn't about sugar, sorry. My inner nutritionist can't be repressed when faced with a bunch of middle-class diet tropes

I am not poor, so I may be ignorant here. But why not? for 30p worth of lentil + 2 onions, some garlic and cumin you can make a nice soup for a family

Because, the vast majority of people in poverty have a basic education, including in cooking/nutrition. (I know 72 of you are going to come on and say you've got 4 PhDs and you still live on 25p a week, but research says otherwise). Give that person lentils, onions and whatever else, they (may) not make a nice meal. Even if it was a nice meal, if that was every day you'd soon go off it.
With a salty/sugary ready prepped meal, or a just add hot water people have cheap (relatively) , satisfying, comforting and familiar food.

I didn't make a comparison on those grounds though so I'm not sure why you are taking issue with it. The point was that governments have sought to reduce alcohol consumption by increasing the purchase price. They have also done this with petrol and cigarettes. This is what Jamie Oliver is suggesting they do to curb sugar consumption.