• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Sugar Tax

ladybird64 said:
Wow. Please keep it together people? I think we kind of lost sight of the bigger picture a few pages back.
Coca-cola, Irn Bru, Vimto etc is what springs to mind, Lucozade just happens to be marketed as an energy giving soft drink. When I was a kid, I spent a lot of time in hospital and a bottle of Lucozade and some fruit were seen as "gifts" to aid recovery. It's just been swept along in the tide, I dont (if I'm honest) think that a thought has been given to those that use it for diabetes..so it's everyone who drinks fizzies that are being targeted, not a particular group.

Fighting between ourselves changes nothing.
Click to expand...

o_O:D;)

image.png
 
Oldvatr said:
I am copying your post because I like it so much, I think it is relevant to the discussion here, It correlates to my experiences among my T1 friends.

BTW what is a Kendal tablet? Is this the same as Kendal Mint cake that climbers and survivalists use? My mum used that for her hypos. I used to munch on her dextrose tabs as a kid but I wasn't allowed near the kendal mint.....
Click to expand...

Yes its kindle mint... I actually get annoyed that it is so effective on such a tiny, tiny piece as I love it.

Ref exercise. Having been a fit gardener and also previously gym user and a T1 one I cannot understand why people exercising are going through hypo's.

I admit my walking dogs and then driving did almost cost my licence 6 years ago... It was my fault though... Totally mine..

Its getting food and basal/bolus right pre exercise.
Yep, I know I am going to annoy T1's but if you do this regime of exercise regularly then its analysing and sorting it out.. Believe me it is possible. If I could dig and garden for 6 hours then go to the gym then its not impossible..

Have I ever had to buy lucozade.. No.
 
Oldvatr said:
Interesting approach, but not much help for hypo's.
Click to expand...
This thread isn't about hypo's it is about the sugar tax so @zand 's post is perfectly on topic and worthy of debate. Whereas, I think lucozade chat has somewhat killed it.

A reverse sugar tax is never going to be introduced by the government. It doesnt actually have the power to implement it due to EU and world trade organization rules. For me where it all went wrong is when they removed all of those lovely fresh water drinking fountains and allowed companies to charge a fortune for water. Why buy water when you can get coke for the same price!
 
Andrew Colvin said:
This thread isn't about hypo's it is about the sugar tax so @zand 's post is perfectly on topic and worthy of debate. Whereas, I think lucozade chat has somewhat killed it.

A reverse sugar tax is never going to be introduced by the government. It doesnt actually have the power to implement it due to EU and world trade organization rules. For me where it all went wrong is when they removed all of those lovely fresh water drinking fountains and allowed companies to charge a fortune for water. Why buy water when you can get coke for the same price!
Click to expand...
Or petrol cheaper than either
 
Andrew Colvin said:
This thread isn't about hypo's it is about the sugar tax so @zand 's post is perfectly on topic and worthy of debate. Whereas, I think lucozade chat has somewhat killed it.

A reverse sugar tax is never going to be introduced by the government. It doesnt actually have the power to implement it due to EU and world trade organization rules. For me where it all went wrong is when they removed all of those lovely fresh water drinking fountains and allowed companies to charge a fortune for water. Why buy water when you can get coke for the same price!
Click to expand...
Lucozade chat as you put it, is actually relevant in that it raises the question of whether diabetics should get exemption from the levvy charge due to a perceived medical use specific to the condition, Should we be lobbying for this or not? It has become a discussion on whether this constitutes a medical use or not, and this is the bog up as you put it. However,the subject of possible exemption or alleviation is relevant, but cannot proceed until a consensus on whether Lucozade has medical use has been reached.

We are not there yet. As a newly elected moderator you should not try to redirect a discussion unless it crosses the site regulations, and I don't think that has happened yet, You and I are also both T2, and should not try to stifle what is essentially a T1 D discussion. I support the right of T1s to raise this issue with the 'tax'
/
EDIT By T1D please read Insulin Dependant since it is not limited to one type.
 
Oldvatr said:
Lucozade chat as you put it, is actually relevant in that it raises the question of whether diabetics should get exemption from the levvy charge due to a perceived medical use specific to the condition, Should we be lobbying for this or not? It has become a discussion on whether this constitutes a medical use or not, and this is the bog up as you put it. However,the subject of possible exemption or alleviation is relevant, but cannot proceed until a consensus on whether Lucozade has medical use has been reached.

We are not there yet. As a newly elected moderator you should not try to redirect a discussion unless it crosses the site regulations, and I don't think that has happened yet, You and I are also both T2, and should not try to stifle what is essentially a T1 D discussion. I support the right of T1s to raise this issue with the 'tax'
/
EDIT By T1D please read Insulin Dependant since it is not limited to one type.
Click to expand...

This thread is about the sugar tax - not about whether lucozade is a medical prescription! I have no opinion either way. If you want to discuss this topic and it is worthy of it then create a new specific one.

You should also not try to tell me whether I can suggest whether the thread has wavered from its topic of sugar tax. In my view it has and as you point out as a moderator I would like to point you to the following rules:
Entering a discussion to belittle or discredit someone
Thread hijacking.
Moderator decisions are final and not up for discussion. Criticism of moderators and forum monitors will not be tolerated. Things may be discussed via PM, but members will be suspended for personal attacks. Please include Giverny and Administrator in your PM.

please read the rules here http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/ethos-forum-rules-updated-24-10-15.50278/
 
If it is like the rest of the budget, it is probably going to go belly up, anyway.
Anyone remember the pasty tax and caravan tax debacle of a few years ago?
 
britishpub said:
Apparently the large soft drink manufacturers are about to launch a legal challenge against the Levy, so it probably won't happen, or at least be heavily revised anyway.
Click to expand...

Didnt the drinks industry just lose a similar case on alcohol minimum charge in Scotland? I hope they lose again and it costs them far more in lawyer's fees than any monies they would have to pay out
 
Oldvatr, as much as I've grown to respect your input & realy enjoy our banter.. :cool:
This thread has focused mainly on the possibility of a nominal price increase on a "beverage" that tastes like toilet cleaner which the core defence being it the only convenient way to treat a hypo..

Us insulin dependant have many other options to treat hypos. Many slip under the sugar tax radar. Lucopop is not the only one..


Quote removed by Moderator as has been deleted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jaylee said:
Oldvatr, as much as I've grown to respect your input & realy enjoy our banter.. :cool:
This thread has focused mainly on the possibility of a nominal price increase on a "beverage" that tastes like toilet cleaner which the core defence being it the only convenient way to treat a hypo..

Us insulin dependant have many other options to treat hypos. Many slip under the sugar tax radar. Lucopop is not the only one..


Quote removed by Moderator as has been deleted.
Click to expand...
Yes, at primary school my diabetic friend was just given a sugar cube to chomp on.
Worked fine.
 
lessci said:
A bottle of Frijj contains twice the amount of sugar of a can of coke
Click to expand...
Actually the Frijj chocolate milk shake and a can of coke have about the same according to the nutritional info.
100ml Frijj having 11gm of carbs of which sugars 10.8gm coke having 10.6gm of carbs of which sugars 10.6gm .

Of course the bottle of Frijj will have somewhat more as it contains 471ml and a can of coke only 330ml.

That's if you can trust the info given.
 
Pipp said:
Yes, at primary school my diabetic friend was just given a sugar cube to chomp on.
Worked fine.
Click to expand...

I've mentioned this before a long time ago... When I went back to junior school after diagnosis my "care plan" was souly in the hands of an 8 year old. I was loaded with "emergencies". (quick acting carbs) I was the only D in the village.

Unfortunately at the same time I went back to school (1976) there was a healthy eating, embryonic "Jamie Oliver" style "initiative" happening.. So.. It was all in contradiction to the bovine insulin regime, "snack on a biscuit to feed the beast" I was told by the hospital?
At that time I may as well have been carrying "class As" in my pocket, the guilt tripping was that bad. Thank the force for bananas.... The circle of bad food for the NHS at that time. But not at the school...!
 
JohnEGreen said:
Actually the Frijj chocolate milk shake and a can of coke have about the same according to the nutritional info.
100ml Frijj having 11gm of carbs of which sugars 10.8gm coke having 10.6gm of carbs of which sugars 10.6gm .

Of course the bottle of Frijj will have somewhat more as it contains 471ml and a can of coke only 330ml.

That's if you can trust the info given.
Click to expand...
But who drinks 2/3rds of a bottle?
 
Back
Top