Conflict of interest much?

[Guzzler]

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?

Top down may raise your hackles but it gets the job done faster.

It may, in .orgs case, be a matter of 'OK, we'll take your cash but do with it what we will' but somehow I doubt the small print will allow that. The logo will appear and appear quickly. Expect Britvic's lurid, road safety orange coloured liquids to show up somewhere in .orgs banner soon.

 

[Daibell]

Am I surprised - no. I resigned from DUK a few years back due to their harmful diet advice and lack of understanding that late onset T1 exists. As for needing money for research, some of it goes to Newcastle University to fund things like the ND which is a load of nonsense focussing on Calorie reduction which shows no understanding of the effects carbs and the irrelevance of 'calories' for food intake.

 

[Rustytypin]

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.

I'm afraid that these days I am very cynical, the days of Lord Leverhulme building model villages for his workers are long gone. I may be wrong, indeed I hope so, but I can only see commercial interests in this. If this relationship turns out beneficial for DUK then I will be very pleased -- and perhaps it will be a ray of "sunlight"

 

[bulkbiker]

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?

Thought about that for 5 seconds then remembered how the world works...

Maybe Britvic are going to give out free hypo cures to T1's so they can at least have the appearance of being the good guys?

I have often thought that DUK are far better at supporting T1's, possibly down to them being more "deserving" , than the "self inflicted" T2's. I have a sneaking suspicion that their ethos is geared that way hence a lot of their rubbish advice for T2's .... they're just trying to kill us all off that bit quicker.

 

[tim2000s]

Thought about that for 5 seconds then remembered how the world works...

Maybe Britvic are going to give out free hypo cures to T1's so they can at least have the appearance of being the good guys?

I have often thought that DUK are far better at supporting T1's, possibly down to them being more "deserving" , than the "self inflicted" T2's. I have a sneaking suspicion that their ethos is geared that way hence a lot of their rubbish advice for T2's .... they're just trying to kill us all off that bit quicker.

Many families of T1s take exactly the opposite view and think that DUK focuses on T2 to the detriment of T1. I've heard senior bods in DUK pretty much admit that they have over the last decade too. Let's remember, their advice for T2s only follows what Governments say.... the "known" wisdom on nutrition...!

 

[Oldvatr]

As an aside I note the following for Public Health England (Alison Tedstone et al = Eatwell) about this topic
https://campaignresources.phe.gov.uk/resources/partners/national-partners
Its another ball to bat around with.

And I know someone has to have the final words - BHF are sponsored by Dignity and The Sofa Workshop for their couch potatoes and sofa surfers.

 

[Oldvatr]

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.

Or London Rubber Company cosying up to Planned Parenthood charity

 

[zand]

Many families of T1s take exactly the opposite view and think that DUK focuses on T2 to the detriment of T1. I've heard senior bods in DUK pretty much admit that they have over the last decade too. Let's remember, their advice for T2s only follows what Governments say.... the "known" wisdom on nutrition...!

Well as a T2 I would be quite happy for DUK to leave us alone and focus on T1. We really don't need their daft advice making us more sick. I often hear people criticizing the US websites that don't let you leave the page without 'forcing you to part with your money' . Well years back i paid my
£100 or so and in exchange got some great advice. I didnt know where else to turn at the time. Was this a rip off? Ok its all there on the web for free...trouble is i didn't know where to look. I am so glad i didn't go to DUK. That £100 was money well spent for me. Which is worse...for a company to charge money for good advice or for a charity to give harmful advice for free?

 

[kev-w]

Maybe Britvic are going to give out free hypo cures to T1's so they can at least have the appearance of being the good guys?.

Interesting, a hypo cure or a hypo treatment, without removing the need for a T1 to need insulin you'll not cure hypos, but a hypo can be treated with Britvic.

If you don't want to spike from a small fruit juice, drink it with food, that's for T1's of course, and as far as web sites and charities go, none focus on T1s, as there's 10 of us to every 90 or so T2s so we're a little un fashionable.

 

[Robinredbreast]

Interesting, a hypo cure or a hypo treatment, without removing the need for a T1 to need insulin you'll not cure hypos, but a hypo can be treated with Britvic.

If you don't want to spike from a small fruit juice, drink it with food, that's for T1's of course, and as far as web sites and charities go, none focus on T1s, as there's 10 of us to every 90 or so T2s so we're a little un fashionable.

Hi Kev, I have never drunk Britvic, either socially or as a hypo treatment, as I am not a lover of fruit juices, but if I had to drink it as hypo treatment ( and not a hypo cure ) then of course I would.

we're a little un fashionable.[/QUOTE] invisible at times

 

[Oldvatr]

Am I surprised - no. I resigned from DUK a few years back due to their harmful diet advice and lack of understanding that late onset T1 exists. As for needing money for research, some of it goes to Newcastle University to fund things like the ND which is a load of nonsense focussing on Calorie reduction which shows no understanding of the effects carbs and the irrelevance of 'calories' for food intake.

But ND is working for many so it is NOT nonsense. If you look at how ND started, it began as an experiment to mimic bariatric surgery which is currently the only official way to reverse T2D, only they were looking for a non invasive way to do it without using knives and without the accompanying risks to life and limb. By mimicing the effects of this surgery they discovered that as a side effect it seemed to be more successful than they had originally expected, so they expanded the protocol to see if it could be reproduced in the GP surgery maybe under the NHS. There are several success stories attesting to it being effective, but sadly it does not seem to be as effective as surgery, and is reversible which surgery is not.

It is aimed at T2D who are primarily not ID, so it is not really applicable to anyone using insulin except maybe to extend a honeymoon phase or if the ID is due to insulin resistance which is predominately a T2D characteristic. What ND has really done is establish a link between adipose fat buildup with insulin resistance and has also shown that reduction in the first can also lead to a reduction of the other. In summary ND provides us with another tool that we can used. It is simple, formulaic and repeatable so will be easier to roll out to the larger diabetic community and requires minimal GP support, WIN WIN,

 

[rhubarb73]

I wrote a blog for my Facebook contacts on this subject. Apologies it’s a bit long but welcome your thoughts as fellow diabetics:

YOU KNOW WHEN YOU’VE BEEN TANGOED

Brexit aside, another terrible one sided deal is provoking outrage today. Diabetes UK, one of two main diabetes charities in the UK, has partnered with drinks manufacturer Britvic in a deal worth a reported £500,000. Their joint vision is of “A world where diabetes can do no harm.”

So what’s wrong with that? Here are my personal views and observations:

There is no question that the increased prevalence of sugary soft drinks has contributed to the obesity and diabetes crisis that is growing in the UK, in particular the worrying growth in both diabetes and obesity in children and young adults. Britvic, whose labels include Pepsi, Tango, 7UP, Robinsons and Mountain Dew are one of the major manufacturers whose products feed that market.

A standard 330ml can of Pepsi contains 36g of sugar. That is 144% of the recommended daily intake for a 10 year old in one single can. At KFC you can by a large Pepsi containing 44g of sugar. The demands that a drink like this places on your insulin levels and blood sugar in a short space of time is staggering.

For Britvic, this is a great deal. Their marketing team should be congratulated – they’ve played a blinder. Make no mistake, they are not themselves putting up £500k to support diabetes research and charities. They have not committed to that. They will “aim to raise” that much from corporate and personal donations. They will also educate and encourage their own workforce (c 2000) to lead healthier lives (which as a responsible employer they should be doing anyway) and to join in the fundraising (which within limits they will match).

What they get in return is to do a load of virtue signalling joint marketing alongside Diabetes UK, promoting themselves as some sort of healthy brand. They have already started.

Diabetes UK have exercised very poor judgement in entering this deal which makes it very hard for them to challenge the likes of Britvic, Coca Cola and others to genuinely make steps to tackle the Diabetic crisis.

Imagine if Cancer Research allowed their campaign to be sponsored by Rothmans or Malboro?

SHOW YOU ARE SERIOUS PLEASE..

If Britvic genuninely have a vision of “a world where diabetes can do no harm” then I’m happy to welcome them into the tent: but they have to show REAL commitment to that, not just hollow marketing.

Here are 5 things they could do:
1 – Stop allowing their sugary drinks to be sold or served in hospitals, schools or health centres.
2 – Place a health warning on the front of their sugary drinks making clear that a single serving exceeds the RDA for sugar for a child.
3. – Require supermarkets selling their drinks to provide as much shelf space and stock availability of their sugar free equivalents.
4. – Commit to reducing the sugar content of their drinks by half within 3 years so that no standard can carries more than 20g of sugar
5. – Lobby government to regulate 1-4 into becoming the industry standard.

When they are prepared to do the above I will start taking seriously their commitment to the vision of preventing diabetes. Until then they remain a company whose mission it is to sell lots of drinks to the public, and to make a profit.

As for Diabetes UK, it is hard to take them seriously for this and other reasons. Fortunately there is another diabetes charity (diabetes.co. uk) which is significantly more credible.

 

[Daibell]

But ND is working for many so it is NOT nonsense. If you look at how ND started, it began as an experiment to mimic bariatric surgery which is currently the only official way to reverse T2D, only they were looking for a non invasive way to do it without using knives and without the accompanying risks to life and limb. By mimicing the effects of this surgery they discovered that as a side effect it seemed to be more successful than they had originally expected, so they expanded the protocol to see if it could be reproduced in the GP surgery maybe under the NHS. There are several success stories attesting to it being effective, but sadly it does not seem to be as effective as surgery, and is reversible which surgery is not.

It is aimed at T2D who are primarily not ID, so it is not really applicable to anyone using insulin except maybe to extend a honeymoon phase or if the ID is due to insulin resistance which is predominately a T2D characteristic. What ND has really done is establish a link between adipose fat buildup with insulin resistance and has also shown that reduction in the first can also lead to a reduction of the other. In summary ND provides us with another tool that we can used. It is simple, formulaic and repeatable so will be easier to roll out to the larger diabetic community and requires minimal GP support, WIN WIN,

My point is that ND may work but focusses, wrongly I feel, on calories. Focussing on lowering the carbs is likely to do an even better job as 'fat doesn't make you fat' and focussing on calorie reduction will tend to make people lower fat intake rather than carbs. The ND science is weak and where did the famous '800 calorie' figure come from. Perhaps if the focus was on carb reduction there would be even less surgical intervention. Don't forget PHE mantra is to reduce fat intake so the NHS is likely anyway to steer away (wrongly) from carb reduction.

 

[Bluetit1802]

As for Diabetes UK, it is hard to take them seriously for this and other reasons. Fortunately there is another diabetes charity (diabetes.co. uk) which is significantly more credible.

diabetes.co.uk is not a charity. It is a fully fledged commercial business.

 

[rhubarb73]

diabetes.co.uk is not a charity. It is a fully fledged commercial business.

Thanks - I’ll amend my post

 

[Scott-C]

The slagging which .org is getting is really tiresome.

Here's a link to the research projects which they're currently funding:

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Research/Our-research-projects?search=&page=0

I've only clicked on a few which are of interest to me as a T1, but having flicked through the pages, they seem to be willing to fund a wide variety of projects across all T types.

It's that sort of multi-pronged approach which often ends up getting results from unexpected places, so I say good on them for having a go.

As a T1 with an interest in cgm, I've found .org to be much more visible on the libre campaigning front than this site, for example, making submissions to policy makers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking .co, it's got its uses, but so has .org, so I think it's being unfairly criticised.

 

[Oldvatr]

My point is that ND may work but focusses, wrongly I feel, on calories. Focussing on lowering the carbs is likely to do an even better job as 'fat doesn't make you fat' and focussing on calorie reduction will tend to make people lower fat intake rather than carbs. The ND science is weak and where did the famous '800 calorie' figure come from. Perhaps if the focus was on carb reduction there would be even less surgical intervention. Don't forget PHE mantra is to reduce fat intake so the NHS is likely anyway to steer away (wrongly) from carb reduction.

The 800 cal figure comes from the need to standardise the intake, which they do by using an industry standard slimmers meal replacement plan that is readily available in supermarkets and chemists. This gives some freedom to choose in future and reduces obsolescence by multi sourcing supplies, As I said this is eventually aimd at an NHS rollout at minimum cost to the NHS.

On a technical note: Since this mimics bariatric surrgery as the primary design philosophy, I have to ask if those having the surgery are carb limited or told to increase fat intake after the op? I suspect not, so I am not sure that the point you seem to be striving to make is actually relevant to the ND study. It is no question that bariatric surgery is now being used for tackling both obesity and T2D and is being successful at both. Having said that I know which I would elect to use in my case.

 

[Bluetit1802]

In today's Daily Mail the association between Britvic and DUK.org has been slammed

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...500-000-blood-money-deal-Pepsi-producers.html

 

[bulkbiker]

The slagging which .org is getting is really tiresome.

So you think its a good idea for the UK's leading Diabetes charity to link up with a sugar sweetened beverages maker..?

Whatever they are achieving you can't see any problem with that association or that it may annoy one or two people?

They may well do some good things but does that really excuse them from such stupidity?

 

[Scott-C]

So you think its a good idea for the UK's leading Diabetes charity to link up with a sugar sweetened beverages maker..?

Whatever they are achieving you can't see any problem with that association or that it may annoy one or two people?

They may well do some good things but does that really excuse them from such stupidity?

Britvic's press release adds some context:

https://www.britvic.com/media-centr...d-diabetes-uk-announce-three-year-partnership

"94% of Britvic’s owned brands (72% total portfolio including PepsiCo brands) in GB are no/low sugar and are below or exempt from the soft drinks industry levy (SDIL). This is because of bold decisions taken years ago to cut sugar and focus innovation on low/no sugar drinks to help consumers make healthier choices."​

It also says it's a two pronged approach, one dealing with T2 (I have no views on that as I am not T2), the other dealing with a T1 project in schools:

"Britvic will aim to raise £500,000 to directly improve the lives of children and families affected by diabetes, helping to ensure children with Type 1 diabetes can get the most out of every part of school life. The funding will be invested in Diabetes UK’s Make the Grade school packs and in increasing the number of schools achieving Diabetes UK’s Good Diabetes Care in Schools award. Britvic will be the sole corporate funder for these activities."​

The Make the Grade campaign seems thoroughly worthwhile:

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/get_involved/campaigning/type-1-diabetes-make-the-grade

All in all, I think this is a lot more nuanced than first appears from the headlines.