Diabetes UK-Say goodbye to fad diets

[Member496333]

My only interest in Britvic is that I quite like a splash of their Robinsons Summer Fruit juice in my tap water, and I am not naive enough to take everything a major company says at face value, but I note in passing that in their commentary on the DUK partnership, they mention at the five bullet points near the foot of the page that, amongst other things, 99% of their advertising spend in GB was on no/low added sugar drinks, have a policy that they advertise nothing to under 12s, no higher sugar drinks to under 16s, since 2005 have only advertised sugar free cola, pulled added sugar Robinsons in 2014, and were the first to introduce a stevia sweetened drink in 2012.

Needless to say, I imagine none of that will be enough to satisfy the utopian keyboard warriors, but, speaking as a T1 who still recalls how foul the early diet drinks were when I was dx'd 30 yrs ago, which tasted of TCP, I am glad they are making those sort of efforts.

Some of what they are doing, in terms of advertising etc doesn't seem to be a million miles away from what some posters on this site have been calling for - introducing sugar free options and not firing high sugar options at youths.

They are a soft drinks manufacturer, and it is not their job to find a solution for insulin resistance.

DUK seems to have an active involvement in those sort of issues. Their projects page linked below lists the 114 projects they are currently funding.

I wouldn't be surprised if some posters were to now spend some time nit-picking and finding loopholes in the validity of those projects. I've looked at a few of them - there are descriptions of the docs behind them and the approach - and they seem to represent a wide array of things worth looking at: no-one knows where the answers to some questions are going to come from.

There are obvious differences in approach between DUK and this site. Each to their own - it's a free world, which is fortunate seeing as some posters have suggested their activities should be banned.

This site does its bit for promoting low carb Fair does. DUK does its bit in its own way, and I think it makes many posts on this site look juvenile to criticise DUK so relentlessly when that site has actively funded so much worthwhile research, and, from my point of view as a libre using T1, has also been very visible on the libre campaigning front, much more so than this site.

DUK, as you say, needs to raise money. They are operating in a world where that is not an easy thing to do and it is just far too easy to criticise the judgment calls they have made. I'm sure posters here will have lots of useful guidance on which particular companies they should have partnered with instead.

I am under no illusions here. I don't expect I will have convinced anyone here that the partnership is a good thing and Britvic are not the devil, but I would encourage posters to at least consider the tone of the language they use: the constant slagging of practically everything DUK does is, well, tiresome.

https://www.britvic.com/sustainable-business/healthier-people/diabetes-uk-partnership

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/research/our-research-projects

You are of course welcome to your opinion, but I suspect that if you were type 2 then you might have a rather different view of a diabetes charity that advises you to eat more of what caused your condition.

Also I don’t think anyone has a problem with Britvic, they are in the business of making money, and it’s expected that they should do their upmost to that end. I think most of us raise an eyebrow because it’s an inappropriate relationship for Diabetes UK. Then of course there’s the fact that they’ve been giving out dangerous advice to diabetics even before this controversy. It’s little wonder many of us have nothing but disparaging remarks for them. If we listened to them then most of us would be getting worse. Not all of us inject insulin to counter our meals.

 

[NicoleC1971]

My only interest in Britvic is that I quite like a splash of their Robinsons Summer Fruit juice in my tap water, and I am not naive enough to take everything a major company says at face value, but I note in passing that in their commentary on the DUK partnership, they mention at the five bullet points near the foot of the page that, amongst other things, 99% of their advertising spend in GB was on no/low added sugar drinks, have a policy that they advertise nothing to under 12s, no higher sugar drinks to under 16s, since 2005 have only advertised sugar free cola, pulled added sugar Robinsons in 2014, and were the first to introduce a stevia sweetened drink in 2012.

Needless to say, I imagine none of that will be enough to satisfy the utopian keyboard warriors, but, speaking as a T1 who still recalls how foul the early diet drinks were when I was dx'd 30 yrs ago, which tasted of TCP, I am glad they are making those sort of efforts.

Some of what they are doing, in terms of advertising etc doesn't seem to be a million miles away from what some posters on this site have been calling for - introducing sugar free options and not firing high sugar options at youths.

They are a soft drinks manufacturer, and it is not their job to find a solution for insulin resistance.

DUK seems to have an active involvement in those sort of issues. Their projects page linked below lists the 114 projects they are currently funding.

I wouldn't be surprised if some posters were to now spend some time nit-picking and finding loopholes in the validity of those projects. I've looked at a few of them - there are descriptions of the docs behind them and the approach - and they seem to represent a wide array of things worth looking at: no-one knows where the answers to some questions are going to come from.

There are obvious differences in approach between DUK and this site. Each to their own - it's a free world, which is fortunate seeing as some posters have suggested their activities should be banned.

This site does its bit for promoting low carb Fair does. DUK does its bit in its own way, and I think it makes many posts on this site look juvenile to criticise DUK so relentlessly when that site has actively funded so much worthwhile research, and, from my point of view as a libre using T1, has also been very visible on the libre campaigning front, much more so than this site.

DUK, as you say, needs to raise money. They are operating in a world where that is not an easy thing to do and it is just far too easy to criticise the judgment calls they have made. I'm sure posters here will have lots of useful guidance on which particular companies they should have partnered with instead.

I am under no illusions here. I don't expect I will have convinced anyone here that the partnership is a good thing and Britvic are not the devil, but I would encourage posters to at least consider the tone of the language they use: the constant slagging of practically everything DUK does is, well, tiresome.

https://www.britvic.com/sustainable-business/healthier-people/diabetes-uk-partnership

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/research/our-research-projects

I volunteer for DuK and as a t1 certainly agree that they are not all bad e.g. involvement in sugar tax and their campaign on FSL seemed to have pushed things along. They also funded the research into the Newcastle diet which has established the principle that type 2 can be reversed. But when I talk to people at public events, I can't in all conscience promote their dietary advice.
As you say we can't exepect Britvic to do anything other than promote their brands within whatever legal and ethical boundaries they can. I do not blame big food who we would expect to lobby and influence charities and government but those institutions should try and be objective in the face of a continuing public health crisis that isn't getting fixed by the current approach to preventable diseases like type 2.
My frustration is that as the official diabetes charity their hands are cleared tied to current government policy which promotes a high carb, low fat diet where diabetes is best managed by weight loss on a calorie controlled diet. They acknowledge low carb but tend to sideline it as faddy, potentially dangerous and not backed up by scientific research (not a fair discussion of the history and evidence for this approach IMO).
This is perhaps because they cannot afford to rock the boat too much given that big food/drink has an obvious interest in maintaining the status quo where the calorie is what matters and individuals in this highly processed food environment have all the responsibility to control their intake. To this end DuK want all food manufacturers to adopt standard traffic light labels emphasising the carb and cal count of typical portion sizes which IMO is missing the point for non type 1 diabetics.
So I am glad that this forum exists to challenge that status quo and think we can still be grateful for what DuK does but still critique it's approach in what I hope is a polite debate! This place can be an echo chamber so let's all keep posting alternate points of view.

 

[Scott-C]

I think most of us raise an eyebrow because it’s an inappropriate relationship for Diabetes UK.

I'm still struggling to understand why.

It seems the thinking is a knee-jerk reaction that because Britvic's portfolio contains some items with sugar in them therefore it must be bad.

But that seems to entirely ignore the fact that, according to the statement I linked to, (subject to the caveat that, sure, it's just some text on a website, but let's take it at face value for present purposes) those items are the smaller part of the portfolio, whilst the overwhelmingly major part is made up of no sugar items, along with advertising policies and development efforts, such as the stevia one, which seem to be ones which posters on this site advocate.

Against that background, one could just as reasonably argue that, far from DUK being tarnished by the relationship, it is Britvic's proactive policies re advertising and of producing low/no carb drinks which is being tarnished by associating itself with the notorious carb promoting DUK!

It seems to be counselling a perfection which simply doesn't exist in the real world.

I expect if DUK were to announce a partnership with a farmer's collective which had won awards for green agriculture, equal pay policies, etc etc and predominantly grew "above ground" vegetables and greens, and raspberries, it would still be shot down in flames because it also happened to grow some "below ground" vegetables.

 

[bulkbiker]

I expect if DUK were to announce a partnership with a farmer's collective which had won awards for green agriculture, equal pay policies, etc etc and predominantly grew "above ground" vegetables and greens, and raspberries, it would still be shot down in flames because it also happened to grow some "below ground" vegetables.

Are you seriously suggesting that a manufacturer of virtually nutrient free soft drinks can be in any way compared to a grower of food? Soft drinks are completely unnecessary for life.. food is a slightly different story.

 

[Scott-C]

Are you seriously suggesting that a manufacturer of virtually nutrient free soft drinks can be in any way compared to a grower of food? Soft drinks are completely unnecessary for life.. food is a slightly different story.

Well, to be fair, the paragraph which you have selectively quoted from a longer post was only meant to illustrate the broader point that when it comes to a charity deciding on funding, they can't expect their funders to be perfect in every respect.

The point you make is an entirely different one focusing on an issue unrelated to the one I thought was being discussed.

If, though, I were to answer it, I would say that I wasn't drawing any direct comparisons. It's nothing to do with whether soft drinks are necessary for life. You don't need to look very far on this site for it to be abundantly clear that people regularly ask questions about what they can or cannot drink. I imagine that they get fed up with tap water. Soft drinks play a part in catering for the psychosocial aspects of life.

 

[Scott-C]

I volunteer for DuK and as a t1 certainly agree that they are not all bad e.g. involvement in sugar tax and their campaign on FSL seemed to have pushed things along. They also funded the research into the Newcastle diet which has established the principle that type 2 can be reversed. But when I talk to people at public events, I can't in all conscience promote their dietary advice.
As you say we can't exepect Britvic to do anything other than promote their brands within whatever legal and ethical boundaries they can. I do not blame big food who we would expect to lobby and influence charities and government but those institutions should try and be objective in the face of a continuing public health crisis that isn't getting fixed by the current approach to preventable diseases like type 2.
My frustration is that as the official diabetes charity their hands are cleared tied to current government policy which promotes a high carb, low fat diet where diabetes is best managed by weight loss on a calorie controlled diet. They acknowledge low carb but tend to sideline it as faddy, potentially dangerous and not backed up by scientific research (not a fair discussion of the history and evidence for this approach IMO).
This is perhaps because they cannot afford to rock the boat too much given that big food/drink has an obvious interest in maintaining the status quo where the calorie is what matters and individuals in this highly processed food environment have all the responsibility to control their intake. To this end DuK want all food manufacturers to adopt standard traffic light labels emphasising the carb and cal count of typical portion sizes which IMO is missing the point for non type 1 diabetics.
So I am glad that this forum exists to challenge that status quo and think we can still be grateful for what DuK does but still critique it's approach in what I hope is a polite debate! This place can be an echo chamber so let's all keep posting alternate points of view.

Thanks, Nicole, that's thoughtful insight from your close involvement with DUK.

I wonder what would happen if this site decided to fund some of DUK's research activities. It would turn out as either the Garden of Eden, or a John le Carriere Cold War novel!

 

[bulkbiker]

Thanks, Nicole, that's thoughtful insight from your close involvement with DUK.

I wonder what would happen if this site decided to fund some of DUK's research activities. It would turn out as either the Garden of Eden, or a John le Carriere Cold War novel!

The site is a commercial enterprise not a charity.. why would they fund out of their post tax profits a charity that has far more money, pays no tax and pleads for funding at every opportunity. The fact that they graciously provide this forum free of charge is I think the biggest gift possible.
In 2017 DUK received over £33 mio pounds in donations and legacies and another £4.5 mio from other sources like the Britvic deal. Their chief exec earned between £130 and 140k per year in the same year. Do they spend that money well?

 

[Scott-C]

The site is a commercial enterprise not a charity.. why would they fund out of their post tax profits a charity that has far more money, pays no tax and pleads for funding at every opportunity. The fact that they graciously provide this forum free of charge is I think the biggest gift possible.
In 2017 DUK received over £33 mio pounds in donations and legacies and another £4.5 mio from other sources like the Britvic deal. Their chief exec earned between £130 and 140k per year in the same year. Do they spend that money well?

Erm, that post was me thanking Nicole for her useful input, and then a bit of joshing about an imaginary speculative situation, and you then decide to take it literally and turn it into another bit of anti-DUK hate.

It's impossible to reach any common ground with you.

It's no wonder Partha Kar ignores you on twitter.