Aibu to think jamie oliver can't win??

[MOTU]

You'd think this would be his key demographic what with people vociferously shaming people who dare give their child squash or a sprinkle of sugar on their weetabix; but every time he speaks out about public health, people seem to erupt with indignation that he dare criticise our diets and accuse him of patronising poor people.

The latest one being that his suggestion of a sugar tax on sugary drinks is penalising poor people but allowing wealthy people choice.
Actually I think the tax would mostly just differentiate between the sugar added drinks and others, making it a more obvious choice across the socio economic spectrum and if you're so poor this would price you out of the market then you really couldn't have been afording these drinks to start with, their not exactly the cheapest option.....

It's such a horrible generalisation that only poor people give their dc fizzy drinks. Poor doesn't equal being stupid.

A tax on sugary drinks isn't aimed at the poor. It's to make anyone think twice about buying it. I'm sure there are lots of tarquinns out there who like fizzy drinks as well as olives.

Basically he's not allowed a viewpoint because he's rich. Jack Monroe, fine - Jamie Oliver, not fine. And I'll tell you who will make more of a difference in the long run, and it's not Jack Monroe. Fifteen anyone?

I get the feeling he doesn't give a shite about people's health.

I think he just can't accept that's he's just a telly cook and tries to make himself into some kind of health crusader. He comes across as quite narcissistic.

He reminds me of Bono. A narcissistic hypocrite.

The thing I really don't get, is why don't they just ban sugar in drinks? That way it doesn't have any impact on cost.

Maybe I'm missing something or being naive. Is it just if the government think they'll get more money out of it, they'll do something?

He's perfectly entitled to his opinion. Exactly as entitled as I am. He's a twat.

Jac monroe is just as patronising imo but as I said i dont care if he is a celeb chef with a tonne of money i just think he utilises his crusades to his advantage

he is a normal guy from Essex that has done very well for himself. he could sit there making even more money but he actually genuinely cares about children, and nutrition. I approve (am not a fan, just in general approve of his message)

He is not a posh twat, not even close. Stupid people think wealth equals posh twat and don't seem able to differentiate between people like Cameron (posh twat) and JO (worked pretty hard for his wealth starting from not very much).

I admire him. He has a conscience and is very aware of where he came from and how his life could have gone. He tries to be a force for good in society.

No YANBU I agree with Bakeoff dh is fat while eating a "healthy diet" it's quite possible.

I have a lot of respect for J.O. He tries and has the guts to say what others just think. Agree with the PP who said that it is the giant businesses who are responsible for pushing all the shit foods and drinks (TV advertising has a lot to answer for).

I don't like chillis and pork though . Oh and I hate ANY vinegar including balsamic (arthritis forming foods IMO and E).

Can someone point out where JO has said that he's doing this for "poor people"?

I don't think he's mentioned the amount of money the parents have, he's just talking about making sure ALL parents know how much sugar is in a drink?

Oh gawd yes he is like Bono not quite there yet but ...

Posh? With his estuary accent? As for poor people being victimised over sugary drinks - surely that's wasting money? If people are that poor, water is a great option, and not full of crap either. Win-win!

Irritating or not he is willing to stand up for things he believes in. He's the only one to give a damn about children's health and obesity. He is using his position to fight the government and big business who are in cahoots and give plenty lip service but honestly couldn't care less about these issues.

He really doesn't need to do any of this to further his career or make more money. Ok some people find him annoying, smug and hate his restaurants but what has that has got nothing to do with his sugar tax campaign.

Whether you like him or not, he has the ability to raise the profile on issues and get them on the agenda. I remember feeling a bit irritated by the school dinners thing as I knew that people like Jeanette Orrey had been working on and talking about healthier school dinners for a while. But you know what, JO achieved a lot by publicising that issue and I guess that's what he brings to it.

There are plenty of TV chefs who make their millions and sit back and enjoy it all. At least he is trying to make a difference.

And we do have a problem with sugar. Even our vegetables have more sugar in than they did 50 years ago. How scary is that?

Quite apart from the moral implications re children's health of ignoring this issue, in bald economic terms we can't afford to ignore this - we cannot afford the impending NHS bill if we do.

He's absolutely right, there's no denying it.

But he just has a way about him. Can't quite put my finger on it. He's not a bad person, he just has a quality. Bit like Anne Hathaway. Stunning woman, and I doubt she has a bad bone in her body, but again she just has this quality that makes her unaccountably annoying.

Unfortunate, really. Though I'm sure neither of them are too bothered. :)

His parents ran a pub-not exactly an empire, he wasn't privately educated and in fact left school with 2 GCSEs due to poor effort mixed with dyslexia. Apart from working in his dad's pub his first real job was working for Antonio carluccio after going to college to get his nvq. I've never heard him process to be a "poor boy done good" if anything when talking about child health he's pointed out how lucky and blessed his upbringing was and believes that there's no reason why as a society we shouldn't ensure all children have as a minimum a good level of education and good diet available to them. I find it amazing how many people hate him (admittedly his speech can be irritating but that's hardly a reason for such bile!) I can only assume some of the vitriol stems from envy based on the amount of people referencing his financial success.........

I think we will get to a point of controlling sugar a lot more closely, taxing it, banning certain types of drinks in certain settings etc. It takes time because of government resistance to being a "nanny state" and pressure from business, but it will happen IMO. Just as happened with smoking. The smoking ban in public places has actually happened for example, despite all the opposition and cries of "nanny state" - and the result? - most people are really happy about it and don't moan about the nanny state at all.

I agree sweeteners aren't very helpful - there needs to be a different message about getting used to less sweetness and being able to listen to your body, and there's a long way to go on that.

Another problem we have at the moment is poor understanding about nutrition so things like lunchbox police in schools, freaking out about a bit of chocolate or string cheese which may be fine in moderation, thinking that everything should be low-fat or sugar free, and not understanding the bigger picture, that we need to reduce sugar overall and change attitudes to food, and that fat is not the enemy (especially for small children). Then schools will happily preside over the endless handing out of vast amounts of sugar in the form of birthday sweets and cake sales.

I think Jamie is going in the right direction, but what he says in a big public way doesn't always translate very clearly and so you get these incorrect messages coming out of it in schools etc.

Plus, I always noticed that while Jamie spouted about healthy lunches in schools and tried to educate the poor, he had many cookbooks out that were absolutely stuffed with high-sugar, high-calorie cakes etc. Like those things are somehow OK for the middle classes who buy his books, but poor people can't be trusted to know how to eat. His focus on poor people is what makes him seem a bit patronising IMO.

(Though I do see that he now has healthy cookbooks out to try to address that)

It should be a message of moderation for everyone, and it has to be reinforced by taxation and legal controls etc. It's really hard for people to eat healthily when there are so many mixed messages and so much sugary food available and being pushed at every opportunity.

I think the difference between an unhealthy school dinner and an unhealthy JO recipe though is that the JO recipe is fine once in a while as part of an overall balanced diet but probably shouldn't be an every day thing. Feeding kids crap 5 days a week at school is pretty hard to defend, especially when some of those families can't afford (or at least would find it very difficult) to opt out.

As an aside the much loved Jack Monroe is now married/engaged to Allegra McEvedy who is privately educated and posh and they live a lovely life in a lovely London house so will she soon fall from grace just because she now has a comfortable life??!

No he can't win. He has never been poor or struggled to feed his family nutritiously on very little. He may have valid points but I cannot bear to look at or listen to him. He would carry more weight if his preaching was based on personal experience. Also he comes across as very smug.

Jamie Oliver has always couched his arguments in terms of 'poor people are bad parents and can't be trusted'. He banged on about 'poor people say they can't feed their kids healthy food but they all have plasma TV' and 'Sicilian peasants make wonderful healthy seafood pasta so British people are just lazy and need to visit Italy'.

Ditto the parents who supposedly passed their kids burgers rather than have them eat healthy food, which was BS. I live close to that school. What happened was at the same time Jamie came the school instituted a ban on pupils leaving school at breaks and changed break times from two fifteen and one 45 minute break to two half an hour breaks. It was badly organised and they hadn't planned for the longer queues caused by more pupils being in at lunch. Because of the queues some children weren't being served until five minutes before the end of break and didn't have time to eat their dinners. Plus they didn't put a system in place to record which children had eaten so because dinners were served at both breaks, some children were eating two dinners while others got nothing at all. The parents were passing food through the railings because otherwise their children would have nothing at all to eat, not because they didn't want them to eat healthy food. But hey, that doesn't make good promotional material for a TV show.

Everything he does is always couched in terms of 'let's force these feckless poor people into doing what they're told'.

I think he puts people's backs up because he's like the kid in 'The Emperor's New Clothes' who won't shut up about an obvious reality.

Most people know deep down he's right but he's trying to stop the fun at the Sugar Party.

I love Allegra she is very head girl sorry total derailment,

I'm happy for him to make money - I just get very turned off by his posturing as a moral crusader. I don't think he has much grasp of the issues at stake when he pontificates

For a moment I thought you were talking about Cameron's speech at the Tory party conference

Incidentally, he has always been wealthy. He grew up in a family where his parents owned a pub, restaurant and hotel. He's never, ever had any experience of what it's like to be poor except anecdotal evidence about going in a council flat for a TV show.