Jam!

It must be the silly season – jam’s in the news.

If you are, like me, an aficionado of the work of the great Eddie of Izzard, jam is indeed special. If you follow Mr Izzard’s example and use the internet to research your subject, you’ll probably know that jam was invented by Mr and Mrs Jam, who live in a toilet somewhere...and that the premise of jam is to get some stuff – strawberries, plums, chicken, mustard, whatever – and jam it into a jar.

That’s why it’s called a jam jar. It was originally made for 1950’s schoolboys to capture and imprison tadpoles so they can either wait for them to turn into frogs and die because they are all jammed together in the jam jar and can’t breathe, or to pour over their sisters to scare them.

Once the frogs have been scraped out though, the other stuff can be jammed in.

I think there is some culinary process involved too, by which you have to boil it in a saucepan, add yeast, let it rise and then prove it – which essentially means making sure it is jam because it is actually illegal to put one of those sticky labels on the jam jar saying ‘Strawberry Jam’ if the stuff inside isn’t.

Once you have proved it is really strawberry jam (best way, I think, is to taste a spoonful of it – but try not to do that just after it’s boiled unless you think a blistered tongue is a good look) then you can jam it in the jar!

As I understand it, apart from the jam jar, two things are needed to make jam: some foodstuff – and in this conservative country we tend to use fruit-based stuff – and sugar. Lots and lots of sugar. As much as you can jam into the jar.

And this seems to be the problem at the moment – some health-conscious officials want us to take the sugar out of the jam – or at least put less in.

So we have to ask ourselves why the sugar is there in the first place? Why not just jam a load of strawberries into a jar and spread it on your toast?

Because fruit goes off, that’s why! And who wants mould on toast for their breakfast?

So some clever person had the idea of adding sugar as a preservative – it used up the huge glut of fruit which would otherwise go off before you could eat it, it meant you could have fruit-based food for the next year – and it tastes good! All round winner.

You could spread it on bread or toast, on cakes, or get playing cards to make tarts with it – the obvious drawback with that being a male playing card would inevitably run off with the tarts, but that’s men for you – always on the lookout for a spare tart to cop off with!

Now, hundreds of years later, they want us to put less sugar in it to make it a healthier food. In the process, they admit, it will be a dull colour and taste awful.

Why not just ban jam totally – you might as well if you are going to enforce a dull, pale imitation of it.
Or – here’s a thought! Make ‘Reduced Sugar Jam’ and sell it alongside the real stuff – and see which one is more popular with the general public!

Oh – you’ve already tried that, and people prefer the sugary jam.

OK, why not advise everyone take to take 20 minutes’ exercise 3 times a week to use up the extra calories?
Oh, you’ve done that too. Well, it’s the nanny state then....... No sense in giving people the freedom to choose, is there?

Meanwhile, if you want me, I’ll be in the kitchen, tucking into homemade plum jam – because they can’t stand in your kitchen and tell you how much sugar to put in homemade jam....

...can they??