ITV News: Misrepresentation of Diabetes

[mark4785]

I think it's just another angle the Gov't has seen to enable themselves to make more money and raise taxes. If they were really interested in our health, why not make healthier options cheaper ?

Its a good concept to try to make healthier things cheaper but the companies producing such healthy products would just make their products more unhealthy so they can increase their profits. The Government, pharmaceuticals and food companies are all about profits; they do not care about anybody but themselves.

 

[Totto]

Apparently there is some evidence for sugar causing type 1: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-015-3657-x

 

[Brunneria]

No mention of either Type 1 or 2 mentioned in the article or the video clip, just a generic mention of diabetes and a reference to 300,000 more cases expected.

Apparently there is some evidence for sugar causing type 1: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-015-3657-x

Fascinating @Totto
Thank you for that link.

 

[mrspuddleduck]

Call me an old cynic but wasn't coca cola one of the companies named in (the alleged) UK tax avoidance scandal?? Got to get the dosh back somehow..... ​

 

[phoenix]

Apparently there is some evidence for sugar causing type 1: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-015-3657-x

Sugar was not suggested to be causative.

Sugary drinks were associated with a faster development of T1 in those children who already had the highest genetic susceptibility and with sugar in those who had already developed antibodies. However, the development of antibodies which is the 'first stage' of type 1, wasn't associated with sugar or sugary drinks.

The researchers discuss possible reasons. Someone who has a declining insulin production caused by already declining beta cell function may not be able to respond with enough insulin for high sugar loads. The resulting temporary high glucose levels/glucose toxicity may cause further beta cell death.
The researchers also suggest an alternative explanation is that the increased sugar intake could be a result of rather than a cause of more rapidly developing T1(ie a craving because of reduced amounts of glucose getting into the cells)

 

[noblehead]

@mark4785, got the ITN on now and they are saying that a 40% cut in sugar could prevent 1,000,000 becoming obese and 300,000 instances of type 2 diabetes over 20 years.

 

[Jaylee]

It doesn't make any sense to tax something that is used to prevent hypoglycaemic symptoms and coma which is what a person like me uses sugar for.

In the same way someone would drive a "hybrid car" regarding lowering fuel costs..

One could always (for example.) tweak basal. Or carb count to bolus a little stricter..? Lowering the chances of hypoglycaemic events..
As a tax payer I already help pay for our test strips.. & your pump.

 

[Dark Horse]

I think it's just another angle the Gov't has seen to enable themselves to make more money and raise taxes. If they were really interested in our health, why not make healthier options cheaper ?

Actually, the government was initially resistant to the idea of a sugar tax http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-sugar-tax-idUKKCN0SG1E020151022 The call for a sugar tax came from Public Health England, their report is here:- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...9/Sugar_reduction_The_evidence_for_action.pdf

 

[Sid Bonkers]

It doesn't make any sense to tax something that is used to prevent hypoglycaemic symptoms and coma which is what a person like me uses sugar for.

You make a good point there it does seem unfair that products bought for emergency usage to bring bg levels back in range and prevent possible coma should be taxed.

I wonder if purchases bought for treating hypos could be exempted from the sugar tax for insulin dependant diabetics in the same way that test strips and meters are to all diabetics on medication?

 

[slip]

You make a good point there it does seem unfair that products bought for emergency usage to bring bg levels back in range and prevent possible coma should be taxed.

I wonder if purchases bought for treating hypos could be exempted from the sugar tax for insulin dependant diabetics in the same way that test strips and meters are to all diabetics on medication?

We could run a huge black market racket for high sugar foods - we could make millions!...........

I've got my medical exemption card, and now my Sugar Tax exemption card - think of all the new jobs it would create just managing the new card..........and the policing of it - by jove we've(Sid) cracked the Nations problems.

(Please take this in the humour that it is intended to be!)

 

[slip]

Going back to the original post, if all sugary food was removed from the nations diet today it is TRUE to say it would reduce the number of diagnosed Diabetes in the future. It doesn't matter whether they specified Type, the statement is true (well the number might not be but we all get the gist of it). Wrongly or rightly we are all lumped together at times - does it REALLY matter in this case?

 

[AndBreathe]

I have never had any form of medical exemptions (aside from when I was a child), and have thus managed to live my life without taking any medication whatsoever. Whilst I empathize with the fact that T1s could find themselves paying slightly more for their hypo treatments, at 20% (say, like VAT), what would that actually amount to each month? How many hypos does an average T1 have per month, and what is the actual, gross, cost of treating each hypo, in terms of additional drinks or eats?

I am enormously sympathetic to those with T1. I am very please to have been able to grasp my T2 quickly, and thus far, effectively, but I do question why I should be subsidizing all medication for those who happen to be diagnosed with (any type) of diabetes, rather than the life saving medication we all hear about.

That's not me being mean to anyone, it is stating my own feelings, and quite possibly those of other people, in similar positions to myself. To be honest I would far rather be able to remain healthy than to have a "right" to a medical exemption.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, I feel pretty certain that medical exemptions are handled as they are due to the complexity of policing them at a level any more granular than we have now. Perhaps over time, as more pharmacies are internet enabled, and systems develop, some form of electronic card (or the like) would cope with it, but for now, I think we are where we are.

 

[dannyw]

I agree, if you need a tax break on your hypo treatments, something in your diabetes management is going seriously wrong.

 

[letsy]

I wonder if the tax will encourage firms to produce more 'reduced sugar and salt' products. Is it only the consumer who will be affected by this tax or will producers be paying more for sugar as well? If producers pay more than it seems like a good thing to me as it may incentivise them to produce healthier products which will then mean more healthier products are available to us at lower prices.

 

[mrspuddleduck]

I wonder if the tax will encourage firms to produce more 'reduced sugar and salt' products. Is it only the consumer who will be affected by this tax or will producers be paying more for sugar as well? If producers pay more than it seems like a good thing to me as it may incentivise them to produce healthier products which will then mean more healthier products are available to us at lower prices.

Good point. What I think is there will be an increase in the use if artificial sweeteners in the production of these products as the company's try and keep their sweet toothed profits from falling. :-(

 

[AndBreathe]

I wonder if the tax will encourage firms to produce more 'reduced sugar and salt' products. Is it only the consumer who will be affected by this tax or will producers be paying more for sugar as well? If producers pay more than it seems like a good thing to me as it may incentivise them to produce healthier products which will then mean more healthier products are available to us at lower prices.

Most businesses will try to retain their profit margins, so if the price of sugar were to be raised to the manufacturer (by way of tax), it is highly likely that would simply be passed onto the customer.

 

[zand]

On the other hand, there will be some people with type 2 diabetes who have been told to cut down on fat and sugar intake to reduce their chances of acquiring diabetic retinopathy, kidney disease/failure, foot / full leg amputation and heart attack that respond by doing the exact opposite.

The advice to cut down on fat is bad advice. I wish I hadn't listened to it. I am much healthier since increasing my fat intake whilst reducing carbs

 

[Shar67]

I agree, if you need a tax break on your hypo treatments, something in your diabetes management is going seriously wrong.

Some type3c have brittle diabetes, so no matter how good your management is you will still get hypos/hypers.
Personally I know there is certain food that increase my BG so rather than treat with sugar I eat these foods (olives being one)

 

[Jaylee]

There are always those dried fruit snack things?! (My wife takes em to work to nibble on.) Though "natural". No need to mention they raise BS. Especially the dried banana!