Vince Cable and jam : Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:31 am
I see the Invincible Cable now has that vital topic of Jam in his sights.Now that they've sorted out the economy, the deficit and the debt and unemployment is but a distant memory, they have a bit of time on their hands so he's wanting to change the rules about Jam.
At the moment, to be called Jam, it has to have a minimum 60% sugar content.
He wants to call it Jam even if it has as low as 50% sugar content.
OK, it's not top priority but what does this forum think about it?
Personally, I can see that all products traded in a trade agreement area need a definition, hence why the EU has a definition for Jam.
I can see that Jam is (and has long been) at least 60% sugar ... the sugar is the preservative.
To me, if I have to keep it in the fridge, it ain't Jam.
I do not in any way believe that changing the definition of Jam will boost sales of low-sugar fruit-spreads, conserves, etc etc. in the slightest ... Why? Because people already buy them regardless of them not saying JAM on the label.