Mecky Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Not a jam fan to be honest though I don't mind a bit on a plain scone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 It all depends what they'd have to replace the sugar with. Fruit or, as Nagel says, gelling agents and chemical rubbish. I was watching a programme the other week & a woman had made a new "jam", but because it had less than 60% sugar she wasn't allowed to call it jam. Apparently for it to be called jam, it has to have 60% sugar content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Well we can't afford the NHS as it is, so anything that helps make people healthier and hence needing less intervention, is potentially a good investment for the future. This isn't the 70s, people aren't chubbing up because they load up on jam. People load up on pizzas, fried stuff, crisps, kebabs, snacks, take aways and other crap. The days of problem jam eaters are over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Since I don't just sit and spoon feed myself jam, I honestly don't think I'd be able to tell. Can't remember last time I had it actually, on a scone in summer probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daid Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 How much less sugar is in a jar of reduced sugar jam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Well the answer is simple ....just make your own....its easy.. the anarchist universal jam recipe usually a pound of fruit to a pound of sugar.. cook the fruit, add the sugar boil it for a bit (10 - 15 mins usually enough), allow to cool for a few mins, put into warmed jars with airtight lids, store until you want to eat it. OMG will I be arrested now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I was watching a programme the other week & a woman had made a new "jam", but because it had less than 60% sugar she wasn't allowed to call it jam. Apparently for it to be called jam, it has to have 60% sugar content It's quite right that it needs a 60% sugar content. It needs it because it's a way of preserving fruit, anything less and it will go off. The producers know this and the product they want to sell with a reduced sugar content will also have a reduced life once opened. More will have to be thrown away once it's passed its expiry date which will increase the jam company's profits. I find it depressing that it's all about company profits rather than about the quality of the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Apparently the government hired 'consultants' to look at whether the minimum sugar content in British jam should be reduced from the current 60%. The consultants (what qualifications one needs to become a jam consultant I can't imagine) have, controversially it appears, recommended the minimum level be reduced to 50%. Am I alone in thinking that there are perhaps more pressing concerns this country faces, which the government would do well to address, before it tackles such thorny issues as the make up of UK jam? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24738171 I suspect it's part of the government's cunning plan to stockpile the saved sugar and use it to sweeten future government policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 The consultants (what qualifications one needs to become a jam consultant I can't imagine) Highways Department of The Sheffield City Council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.