Sign Jamie Olivers Petition to increase tax on sugary drinks

Multi-millionaire wants to increase the cost of simple pleasures on the common man.

**** off Jamie

21 teaspoons of sugar in his Chocolate Love Cake

There is no need to consume drinks with sugar in with all the diet options.

No problem with eating most things in moderation.

Problem is many people don't.  They (or more importantly their unfortunate) children need to be saved from themselves.

This is one portion of our Jamie's Chocolate Love Cake. With all the sugar in the cake and the chocolate and the sauce = about 21 teaspoons of sugar in this wonderful creation !

A lot of his sweets and dessert recipes have well over the recommended daily intake of sugar.  However, I do agree with his point about not having too much sugar, but going on about sugary drinks when some of his recipes are loaded with the stuff.....

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

Just an excuse to make a show. Probably couldn't make another show that consisted mainly of salad's and lemon juice and olive oil. Fair play to Jamie he's made a fortune out of doing the same thing over the last ten plus year's. 30 min meals became 15 min meals. Both show's where the same really probably less lemon juice and olive oil. Sugar is a problem as well as salt but this is not the solution. This is just an excuse to make another stupid tv show.

People need sugary drinks, in his restaurants, to make up the lack of energy from the miserable portions on the plates.

We weren't out for a gourmet evening, but just killing time till "Illuminating York".

I had a burger, with some sort of poncey name, which wasn't a patch on a £4.50 "Burger King" meal deal.

Two paper cups with a dozen, equally poncilley named chips, that were more than a fiver. My miserable offering was almost £14.00!!!!

James had Ravioli.....Five parcels, lost on a big plate that shouldn't have been more than £3.50 as a starter.
From memory now, it was almost £7.00.(he did get them to increase the portion, to somewhat more reasonable, but still not good.

The irony is that we didn't even want to be there, but where we wanted was flooded!

Good luck to Jamie, especially with the fizzy drink tax or whatever it was, but think he's up against it when one of our former health ministers went on to become an advisor and then nutritional advisor to Pepsi.

The tax would be  a knee-jerk reaction to wider food and drink issues.

In that sense, typical of the majority of laws passed in this country.

Did he also start a petition to increase tax on sugary foods

Oliver appears to have fallen for something called the Worstall fallacy.
That's where he moans something is bad, without taking into account the actions the government already does to make it less bad.
In this case we already have 20% VAT on most of these nice sugary things enjoyed by less educated and more impulsive poor people, and we have 0% VAT on all that green stuff including perfect air-freighted out of season veg on the shelves of Waitrose in March.

There's an apt quote from Kristian Niemietz, one of the more popular economists of today:
"Supporters of ( sin taxes ) should be prepared to explain to what extent they think the aim of cajoling
people into adopting healthier lifestyles justifies forcibly reducing people’s living standards"

Imv there's an even better quote from Back High Lay Low at the top of this thread "**** off, Jamie"

Never mind taxing sugary foods and drink, go straight to the source and force these food and drink companies to stop adding so much sugar, what the government lose in money from HFCS merchants they will gain back from NHS costs of treating less sick people, and never mind education too, we've had education on smoking for decades now and kids still smoke, you have to take away the choice for their own good and as someone previously said, if you are that desperate for sugar, add your own, most people will not be bothered.

Every show he makes is just mostly salads and a some meat cooked simply. I bet the the guy cant really cook. Just a chancer that lucky but fair play to him. But his shows are really an insult to peoples intelligence.

I'd support this in my country. It would in my view only be fair that heavy consumers pay a little extra into the health care system. (If I got to decide people not exercising at all would also pay a little extra tax / health insurance etc.) Don't want a higher level of taxation in general, so I would insist that some other tax was lowered at the same time. If you only have the odd fizzy drink you would not pay more tax overall. Many other things that also are bad for you, but that sugary drinks are bad fuel for your body is something that virtually everyone agree on, and sugary drinks  alone are a major factor behind many illnesses / health problems.

I'd also support plain packaging with warning labels, and banned or restricted advertising.

To those in favour of higher taxes, please consider that in the UK sugar beet production gets a taxpayer subsidy around 85 GBP per acre. Farm land is also exempt from inheritance tax, farm buildings are exempt from business rates, and farmers get cheap red diesel.
So if you want to tax sugar more because it's bad for you in large amounts, be aware that some of that taxation will go back to benefit the producer of the same stuff you disapprove of if consumed in large amounts.

It's a variant of the drug user being taxed to subsidise the drug pusher.