• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Should Lucozade be exempted from the sugar tax?

traceylill1 said:
Lucozade has saved my life so yes it should be exempt. It acts quickly
Click to expand...

Yes it does act quickly and I have been in that situation, but I practically had it forced on me to drink it, because I find it so vile ( but having a bad hypo made me even worse !!)
 
No, Lucozade should not, IMO, be excluded, as there are plenty of other hypo treatments readily available.
 
Hi. It shouldn't be exempt. Although some people use Lucozade for hypos I can see little advantage of this over glucose tablets which are cheap, store well, are small and dissolve very quickly. Yes, if you've taken a large insulin overdose then a big swig of L might be the best solution but normally a few tablets would do the job. Lucozade has been vastly oversold as the cure for illness, fatigue and whatever which it doesn't do. It does risk a large increase in blood sugar.
 
So Lucozade has 21.8g of sugar per 250ml and original coca cola has 26.5g of sugar per 250ml you could equally use either for a hypo but would need less cola than lucozade for the required amount of sugar
 
If Lucozade was essential for diabetics I am sure it would be on prescription so no it should not be exempt
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This one is tricky. The way the Levy works is that by decreasing the sugar content of the drink, the Levy is reduced. We want the sugar content to remain where it is. In that sense we'd like the levy not to apply.

The question is whether the manufacturer of Lucozade will try and reduce the sugar content of it in order to reduce the levy they pay? In the UK, Lucozade is probably the brand leader in terms of energy drinks and they stand to be one of the heaviest hit by it.

So we come back to the question. If what the government is trying to do is to reduce the amount of sugar consumed by people via soft drinks (and my brother and sister in law consume at least 2l of regular coke daily) then really, no it shouldn't. The question then becomes, "What could be done to provide properly high glucose drinks for treating hypos?" and it starts to look as if you need to make them over the counter pharmaceuticals in some way.
 
Daibell said:
Hi. It shouldn't be exempt. Although some people use Lucozade for hypos I can see little advantage of this over glucose tablets which are cheap, store well, are small and dissolve very quickly. Yes, if you've taken a large insulin overdose then a big swig of L might be the best solution but normally a few tablets would do the job. Lucozade has been vastly oversold as the cure for illness, fatigue and whatever which it doesn't do. It does risk a large increase in blood sugar.
Click to expand...

For some people Lucozade does have an advantage. It works significantly quicker than glucose tablets and can be the difference between staying conscious and passing out.

People don't need to have had an "insulin overdose" to suffer a hypo. Some people are prone to them, and certain conditions mean that those people can't prevent everyone. Although the cause for most 'normal' hypos can often be determined, sometimes there is no obvious cause, or, at least nothing the person 'did wrong'.

I think an exemption would be hard to manage, although I suppose it could just apply to one kind of Lucozade. To me, the easier solution is not to have a sugar tax at all but invest in education. I also think something like showing how many teaspoons of sugar are in a can or bottle of drink might help. I would include a wider range of drinks in this eg some of the very sweet milkshake drinks.
 
I'm not sure people want to be educated. We've known since the 60s (at least) that sugar is bad for us. Every time my children went to the dentist when they were under 16 they were told how much sugar was in drinks, foods, - even flavoured crisps contain it! The majority seem happy to carry on consuming sugar regardless. I suppose that's why manufacturers have been targeted.
 
A teaspoon with the amount of sugar in it would be easy to identify and understand on the can or carton.
teaspoon.jpg
x 6 x 12 x 24, but on a smaller scale than the picture shown.
In an ideal non corrupt world, many centuries from now :rolleyes: we could have a Food Value instead of nutritional value. Plus the green, amber or red colour symbols. People will either educate themselves and then stop and think about the content or they may not bother, because getting medical conditions, will never happen to
them :wideyed::wideyed: Edited to say, not sure if lucozade will still be around then :yuck: but, I am hoping diabetes wont be :)
 
You can get hypostop gel or similar preparations on prescription already. I personally prefer glucose powder or refreshers sweets. Lucozade is far too gassy
 
Wasn't it said on here a while ago that Lucozade had changed and now has not got the amount of glucose it used to have
 
azure said:
To me, the easier solution is not to have a sugar tax at all but invest in education. I also think something like showing how many teaspoons of sugar are in a can or bottle of drink might help. I would include a wider range of drinks in this eg some of the very sweet milkshake drinks.
Click to expand...
We already know that education doesn't work, as there has been plenty of it. Given the effect that sugar has on endorphines, this is no surprise. It means that we're in a position where an alternative has to be done.
 
No.
I have been a type 1 for 33years and lucozade probably saved my life several times during my childhood and teens. Nowadays I carry little cartons of pure orange juice, it works just as fast as lucozade and I can only drink what's in it which is 20carbs. I often over treated with lucozade resulting in a big high after the hypo which really ruined the day.
Don't let anyone tell you lucozade gets into your system quicker it's not true, fruit juice is perfect and has no silly chemicals. This was confrimed for me by the professionals delivering the DAFNE course I attended. Oh and it's really cheap in Lidl :-) where the cartons are a little larger than most, 25 carbs each.
 
tim2000s said:
We already know that education doesn't work, as there has been plenty of it. Given the effect that sugar has on endorphines, this is no surprise. It means that we're in a position where an alternative has to be done.
Click to expand...

But not targeted or effective clearly. The education on smoking worked. Yes, people still smoke but is there anyone who doesn't know its harmful now? People disregard drinks and are usually shocked when they find out how much sugar is in them, hence that recent article on the sugar in coffee shop drinks. There'll always be some people who ignore advice, but I think more can be done. There are still many, many people who believe fat is the enemy, as one example.

By education I also mean cookery lessons, as I mentioned elsewhere.

I don't believe in a 'nanny state' and I believe people should make their own choices - but I believe that should be an informed choice. I still have faith in education to help. I appreciate the change won't happen overnight and that it'll be a long haul, but there is plenty of room for more education, in my opinion.

I wonder whether an advert ban would help counteract the money of large drinks companies? I believe there's alraedy one in place during children's TV?
 
azure said:
But not targeted or effective clearly. The education on smoking worked. Yes, people still smoke but is there anyone who doesn't know its harmful now? People disregard drinks and are usually shocked when they find out how much sugar is in them, hence that recent article on the sugar in coffee shop drinks. There'll always be some people who ignore advice, but I think more can be done. There are still many, many people who believe fat is the enemy, as one example.

By education I also mean cookery lessons, as I mentioned elsewhere.

I don't believe in a 'nanny state' and I believe people should make their own choices - but I believe that should be an informed choice. I still have faith in education to help. I appreciate the change won't happen overnight and that it'll be a long haul, but there is plenty of room for more education, in my opinion.

I wonder whether an advert ban would help counteract the money of large drinks companies? I believe there's alraedy one in place during children's TV?
Click to expand...

I don't actually think this levy will be effective in its objective, unless that is raising money for sport, but my other comment would be that I don't either consider education was pivotal in smoking reduction. My understanding or more aligned to the smoking ban in enclosed public spaces was more effective.

I'm very happy to be corrected on that as I haven't Googled before responding. :)
 
JohnEGreen said:
As has been said time and time again Lucozade is not the only remedy for a hypo my brother in law carries a Mars bar with him at all times as that is his choice of preference one of the wife's cousins carries sugar cubes and another carries a small bottle of Lucozade as their choices of preference so why should Lucozade be given preferential treatment over other products which also could be used to treat hypoglycaemia..
Click to expand...
Not everyone can carry Mars bars as a quick fix or drink a fizzy drink. I have a dairy allergy which causes life threatening asthma attacks and fizzy drinks are a definite no no as I have fibromyalgia and they cause awful flares. It's very hard to control the condition with 18 other illnesses. Everyone uses different ways as a quick fix. Is there really a right or wrong way as we are all different and use different ways to control diabetes.
 
I am on record as being against the sugar tax since tax has not worked in other cases. Lucozade tax makes about as much sense to me as beer and fags tax. We all know how successful they are.
 
azure said:
For some people Lucozade does have an advantage. It works significantly quicker than glucose tablets and can be the difference between staying conscious and passing out.

People don't need to have had an "insulin overdose" to suffer a hypo. Some people are prone to them, and certain conditions mean that those people can't prevent everyone. Although the cause for most 'normal' hypos can often be determined, sometimes there is no obvious cause, or, at least nothing the person 'did wrong'.

I think an exemption would be hard to manage, although I suppose it could just apply to one kind of Lucozade. To me, the easier solution is not to have a sugar tax at all but invest in education. I also think something like showing how many teaspoons of sugar are in a can or bottle of drink might help. I would include a wider range of drinks in this eg some of the very sweet milkshake drinks.
Click to expand...
Hi. I accept that a hypo can occur at any time unexpectedly but the point I was making was about the quantity of glucose typically needed. Yes, with a serious hypo Lucozade may be a little faster than tablets and the best solution, but I still maintain that in many situations the tablets are OK as they do dissolve very fast and once in the stomach are just another form of glucose? Anyway each to their own solution and when you need a solution the cost is not important.
 
Back
Top