Eat, drink and be merry

Here we go again. The food police, in the guise of insufferable sanctimonious pseudo-celebrity and 15-minute-meal-fraudster Jamie Oliver, and war criminal Tony Blair, are headlined in the Times, pushing for salt and sugar (S&S) taxes to solve the health crisis.

The obvious objection to the proposals is that they come from two egomaniacs with no democratic mandate or sufficient knowledge about diet and economics. Oliver is only a celebrity chef, and a failed restauranteur, not a busy housewife, dietician or economist. Blair’s just Blah. Oliver’s recipes rely on too many ingredients, most not that popular with many UK households, and too many steps. I’m a wham-bam-thank-you-man kinda cook. And delicious with it: the meals that is, not me. Oliver’s never going to get people to cook from scratch if they’ve got to get used to lots of unfamiliar ingredients. 

The other thing he overlooks is that taxing S&S will have minimal impact on most households except for the poorest, who will struggle. It’s morally wrong to reframe a cup of sweet tea and a chocolate biscuit as yet another source of angst. It’s not as if there are affordable healthy alternatives people can switch to. Sugar-substitutes like aspartame are artificial chemicals. I don’t care if an official study just said there was limited evidence it causes cancer; limited doesn’t mean zero. And it’s still ‘artificial’ and tastes yukky. Further, I have cooked with it, which resulted in substandard cakes. It won’t caramelise either. The most popular salt-substitute contains potassium, which is not good if you have dodgy kidneys.

Healthy eating doesn’t just start and finish with a moderate (not zero) intake of S&S. There’s fats, cholesterol and processed carbs to consider as well. So, my money is on the punitive taxes not stopping at S&S. Headlining these two now is a crafty toe-in-the-door strategy, the first stage of an insidious creep (Tony Blair again) of taxes, regulations and Nanny-Stateism. There would soon be taxes on honey and ‘fatty’ foods, plus white flour and their products, white rice and pasta. Then the climate change warriors would get in on the act and demand taxes on meat and dairy, regardless of the fact that locally sourced, British-standard animal products are far friendlier to the environment than pesticide-, fertiliser-, water-hungry fart-foods.

If nothing else, to effectively cancel roast beef and Yorkshire pud, sausages and buttery mash, pork and crackling, crumble and custard, my home-made plum jam and quince jelly, is cultural genocide. The French have the right idea - no, not rioting - but enshrining their food-heritage in law: “Foie gras belongs to the protected cultural and gastronomical heritage of France.” Personally I think the stuff is unethical, but all power to the French for enshrining their unique unethicality in law. Come on, Suella, you can do it!

Why is it unwise to tax ‘unhealthy foods’ including, say, cheese and white flour? Because some people can’t eat anything else. Sis is staying with us after a gruelling 12 hours on the operating table. Her diet is very restricted and she can’t afford to lose too much more weight. She has been instructed to stick to low fibre foods, explicitly white bread and white-flour cakes and pastry, white rice, jam and marmalade. She also sugars her tea for energy, and salts her food because her blood pressure is stubbornly low. Strictly speaking, the diet sheet suggests only a small amount of fat, yet her favourite lunch choices are chicken-mayo sarnie (on white bread) and cheese and (white-flour) crackers. That’s what she fancies, there have been no ill effects, so all power to her instincts. Again, the no/low-fat alternatives taste yukky and contain too many chemicals. She’s already swallowing enough pills to keep Pfizer in business; she doesn’t need anymore unnatural molecules coursing through her veins. She’s also been told to steer clear of beans and pulses, which means her only source of protein is animal products. Read it and weep, animal wrongists. And some plastic products are indispensable for her, which wouldn’t be available if Just Stop Oil and ‘ethical investors’ had their way. What’s ethical about penalising the sick?

Some argue that the obesity epidemic trumps all other considerations. Taxing S&S still isn’t the answer. Obesity is about poor mental health, laziness or ignorance and the reliance on ready meals, takeaways and alcohol, exacerbated by lack of exercise.

I once stumbled across a US TV show, My 600lb Life, and was fascinated and appalled in equal measure. A grotesquely obese person is filmed stuffing her face with pizzas (plural) and a whole tray of brownies, crying that she needs help to lose weight. She somehow gets herself to Texas where a doctor says he’ll only consider her for weight-loss surgery if she loses 200lbs – that’s much more than I weigh and I’m not skinny. After some obligatory setbacks, akin to Grand Designs running overbudget and finding an unexploded WWII bomb underneath the patio, she loses 200lbs and has the surgery. Get that? She loses 200lbs without penalising everyone else. Cut their benefits to focus minds and spend the saved cash on education and counselling instead. In any event, they won’t be spending as much money on food, will they? A cabbage is cheaper than a brownie. Steam with leeks and tarragon and pop a slice or two of roast chicken breast on top. Oh my days!

Just seen the time. Need to prepare supper for one hungry Mamil and one poorly sister (and me). How about poached smoked haddock flaked into cooked white basmati rice and well-steamed, fresh mixed veg. Serve Sis first then stir a jar of Thai curry sauce into the remainder for me and Hubby.

Don’t forget the wine, and screw the liver police.