Conflict of interest much?

[Indy51]

How can DiabetesUK be so proud to announce this "partnership" with a maker of sugar sweetened beverages???

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about-u...1118&utm_content=organic&utm_campaign=britvic

The fact that they're announcing it so proudly seems to indicate that they don't have a clue. Sheesh.

 

[HSSS]

In line with another thread ive just pinged off another email to them asking this very question. I’ll update if I get a reply

 

[Bluetit1802]

I wonder how many of the 2,000 Britvic employees in the UK that don't already have T2 will end up with it once Diabetes UK advisors have done their bit?

 

[bulkbiker]

Simply beggars belief... are they really so stupid.... ? I guess so.

 

[Muneeb]

Money talks...

 

[Deleted Account]

Whilst I don't totally agree with the partnership, I can see where both parties are coming from.
Britvic want to promote healthy living which is difficult with their usual drinks.
Diabetes UK want money to invest in research into diabetes.

It is easy to sit at our desks and say Diabetes UK should be more selective about where they get their money but there is limited money to go around and it is not easy to get investment - most healthy living organisations (e.g. sports and charities) are also looking for money so not likely to be able to share.

 

[bulkbiker]

Whilst I don't totally agree with the partnership, I can see where both parties are coming from.
Britvic want to promote healthy living which is difficult with their usual drinks.
Diabetes UK want money to invest in research into diabetes.

It is easy to sit at our desks and say Diabetes UK should be more selective about where they get their money but there is limited money to go around and it is not easy to get investment - most healthy living organisations (e.g. sports and charities) are also looking for money so not likely to be able to share.

Even so a manufacturer of sugar sweetened beverages for the UK"s "leading" Diabetes charity? And according to their twitter feed they are "thrilled" to announce it. They may as well get sponsorship from Tesco.... oh wait!

 

[Engineer88]

Does this mean their contract with Tesco is up?

 

[Rachox]

When I think of Britvic I immediately think of fruit juices, so on first impressions the partnership is so wrong. However on Googling Britvic they do produce bottled water and diet drinks. But it is first impressions that count, most people won’t investigate further, they’ll just see the cute little orange in their logo and assume fruit juice is ok

 

[Mbaker]

Diet Doctor take no money from industry and are growing. I am reasonably sure that if Diabetes UK were on message most of us would contribute. I know on message is broad as low carb, low calorie etc can mitigate diabetes, but they promote items such as Belvita and still toe the standard line. The first rule in medicine is do no harm, telling me that sugar is alright is.....

 

[NicoleC1971]

Even so a manufacturer of sugar sweetened beverages for the UK"s "leading" Diabetes charity? And according to their twitter feed they are "thrilled" to announce it. They may as well get sponsorship from Tesco.... oh wait!

O course they are thrilled !!!! And Tesco/Britvic get a health halo each. Unless we go back to food being sold in brown paper bags then processed junk brands/retailers will have a PR budget to spend. Diabetes UK seem to have a very liberal approach to food as long as you control portions and limit calories eating plenty of 'healthy wholegrains'. We can only hope that the sugar free versions get the attention and there is no mention of J2O as part of your 5 a day when Britvic will be working on some kind of kids; campaign(hopefully not those 7,000 juuvenile type 2s..)

 

[Brunneria]

Off topic: Goodness, Purdey's is Britvic? Had no idea they had sold out.
Used to drink that as an occasional treat back in the 90s.
That shows my age, doesn't it?

As for On Topic, I sympathise with any company/charity trying to drum up funding. They are on the horns of a dilemma. They can choose companies with lots of cash, regardless of the source of the cash (in this case sugar), or they can work 10x as hard to try and find companies without a vested interest, who therefore aren't really interested. Very difficult.

But as long as funding comes from companies who produce products that create profit out of food, drink, medications, weight loss or exercise, then DUK is open to criticism.

Mind you, can you imagine the furore if they announced funding from a Red Meat supplier? There would be public uproar from people who don't have enough knowledge to know better.

 

[Rustytypin]

Just looked for info on Purdey's drinks, unable to find anything on their website, but Sainsbury's are more helpful, gives 6.3gm sugar per 100ml, but 21gm sugar per bottle! Most of the Britvic drinks I looked at are between 8 - 11gm sugar per 100ml. 21gm of carb is more than I am currently consuming in a day.
From DUK policy on Working with Companies :

1. 5) No commercial partnership will be entered into with a company whose product or service is considered to be detrimental to people living with or at risk of diabetes
   

Hmm...

 

[bulkbiker]

Just looked for info on Purdey's drinks, unable to find anything on their website, but Sainsbury's are more helpful, gives 6.3gm sugar per 100ml, but 21gm sugar per bottle! Most of the Britvic drinks I looked at are between 8 - 11gm sugar per 100ml. 21gm of carb is more than I am currently consuming in a day.
From DUK policy on Working with Companies :

1. 
   
   
   • 5) No commercial partnership will be entered into with a company whose product or service is considered to be detrimental to people living with or at risk of diabetes

Hmm...

Unless they stump up enough money obviously...

 

[Guzzler]

You lay down with dogs you catch fleas. One point, if .org is taking funding from these companies and then using that money to fund what is basically research into a calorie restricted dietary approach (albeit with its attenndant white coats) then the status quo is quietly but not so subtly maintained.

 

[tim2000s]

As far as the press release goes, it says:

Through a combination of corporate donation and employee fundraising, Britvic will aim to raise £500,000 to directly improve the lives of children and families affected by diabetes [...over three years...].

This usually means that employees will raise money and Britvic will undertake matched giving (and everyone does well out of it). Half a million over three years is not a large contribution for a corporate sponsorship deal, so it seems that this is more likely what it going on. It doesn't usually mean "Britvic will stump up a ton of cash to have DUK promote their drinks".

And secondly:

we will be working closely with Britvic’s 2,000 employees based in Great Britain. We will help them and their families understand how to live healthier lives.

Employees at Britvic will also be encouraged to support our cause, by volunteering and raising money through a number of different activities to support the vital work that we do.

I don't know if anyone else has a "Charities of the year" programme at their place of employment, but this feels a lot more like that type of enterprise than what it is being portrayed to be by the anger in this thread.

And has anyone considered that by being involved with Britvic, it might give DUK the opportunity to influence branding, sugar content and other factors that affect the product they produce, both directly and indirectly through employee engagement?

Before we jump up and down and stamp our feet, perhaps we should take a minute to understand what this "agreement" really is? Just a thought.

 

[Guzzler]

As far as the press release goes, it says:



This usually means that employees will raise money and Britvic will undertake matched giving (and everyone does well out of it). Half a million over three years is not a large contribution for a corporate sponsorship deal, so it seems that this is more likely what it going on. It doesn't usually mean "Britvic will stump up a ton of cash to have DUK promote their drinks".

And secondly:


I don't know if anyone else has a "Charities of the year" programme at their place of employment, but this feels a lot more like that type of enterprise than what it is being portrayed to be by the anger in this thread.

And has anyone considered that by being involved with Britvic, it might give DUK the opportunity to influence branding, sugar content and other factors that affect the product they produce, both directly and indirectly through employee engagement?

Before we jump up and down and stamp our feet, perhaps we should take a minute to understand what this "agreement" really is? Just a thought.

You really feel that dotorg will have any influence on Britvic's sugar content? Call me cynical but this is no different from MaccyD sposoring the Olympics and Big Tobacco (formerly) sponsoring F1. It is advertising, cosying up to a charitable organisation to make a brand 'seem' acceptable.

 

[zand]

I don't see any conflict of interest at all. DUK seem intent on promoting an unhealthy diet for T2s and this will further their aim.

 

[tim2000s]

You really feel that dotorg will have any influence on Britvic's sugar content? Call me cynical but this is no different from MaccyD sposoring the Olympics and Big Tobacco (formerly) sponsoring F1. It is advertising, cosying up to a charitable organisation to make a brand 'seem' acceptable.

Okay - I'll call you cynical. There isn't only a single way to deal with things. A government dictated cease and desist is one, all be it very unfortunate, somewhat fascist, approach to dealing with soft drinks. There are others, or do we not consider the employee action that has resulted in a number of tech companies disengaging from defence projects a way of changing the business ethics of a company?

 

[bulkbiker]

You really feel that dotorg will have any influence on Britvic's sugar content? Call me cynical but this is no different from MaccyD sposoring the Olympics and Big Tobacco (formerly) sponsoring F1. It is advertising, cosying up to a charitable organisation to make a brand 'seem' acceptable.

more a realist...