Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Diabetes Discussions' started by ladybird64, Mar 16, 2016.
My MP supports osborne, so no point going there,
We saw a change in cultural attitudes for drink driving, smoking, lowfat diet (under debate again) and seatbelts, texting at the wheel, and many other ways. It takes a lot of effort, time, and money to achieve, but has been done with some success. This levvy will not eradicate the chubbies from our classroom overnight, but its a start. Personally I think the revenue should have been used to fund education measures,
Congrats to UK for at least taking the right steps. Only time will tell how effective. Here in Ireland our Minister for Health lost a golden opportunity to take action in the 2015 Budget. Maybe one of the reasons his party lost a huge amounts of seats in the recent election. All I can say is watch this space and you'll soon know how effective the sugar tax will be. (I am type 2, taking 1 x 850mg, 3 times daily)
Slightly off topic but..
What I find unbelievable (not to mention very saddening) is that while there has been the massive hullabaloo and amount of publicity generated over the fact there is a possibility of an increase of less than 30p on soft drinks - people with disabilities face losing £30 per week from their benefits, with serious impacts on life as a result. No massive outcry from the general public over that one.
It's added sugar that they're targeting.
Well there was a Window Tax, and they are currently talking of monitoring car exhausts as we drive past, and charging pollution tax accordingly using number plate recognition which tech they now use for checking car tax and MOT and insurance status.
There was also a proposal for adding the space above your roof as being part of a properties value. Apparently there have been successful sales of access rights to this space, which attracted CGT. It was originally a plan to prevent unwanted development overhanging your property, but there are easier ways of legislating for that, I think it made the statute book since some sales went ahead, but not sure if it is still active.
Sadly the move to own the rights below your house did not get anywhere, and so they can frack as much as they like under you and you have no redress.
Quoted from internet, so may be urban myth.
There's nothing quite like the sugary rush that accompanies a cold glass of Coca-Cola — but did you know that the aptly named Coke used to deliver an even bigger kick? Until 1903, the world-famous soft drink contained a significant dose of cocaine.
While the Coca-Cola Company officially denies the presence of cocaine in any of its products — past or present — historical evidence suggests that the original Coca-Cola did, in fact, contain cocaine.
So all those sugar addicts here, it could have been worse. And would Osborne tax it?
That's not urban myth, it's fact. The guy who initially came up with Coke was addicted to morphine and Coke was what he came up with to help him get over that apparently:
I'm not sure that @JimRoden was saying that? I read it as a comment on the fact that children now play outside less than they did and that may affect children's weight aswell as what they eat and drink. The question of childhood obesity is certainly an interesting one and I doubt there's one answer or one simple solution.
That's why I'd prefer a multi-faceted approach rather than a sugar tax, which, in my opinion, is a blunt instrument to solve a complex problem.
Have to agree with "azure", it needs a multi-faceted approach, so we should look at the sugar tax as the first of many steps required. We shouldn't think that this is going to be an easy process, there's a very long way to go yet and it won't be resolved by government taxes or regulation alone. Society as a whole has a major contribution to make. We may never beat Diabetes completely but by educating ourselves and others, especially parents/teachers, we may well put a serious dent in the problem, hopefully.
My husband has been on Insulin 34 years and he relies on Lucozade if he needs to push his blood glucose up when he has a hypo as it acts very quickly so I believe it should be available to diabetics on Insulin but we will get hammered with the sugar tax. He also uses Jelly Babies. People on Insulin are between a rock and a hard place. You can try and control your blood glucose but there will always be an occasion when it may drop rapidly. He always takes a bottle in the car and when we go for walks, In fact he carries a bottle with him everywhere.
I agree , what about the fast food chains , they play a part in the obese children and parents eating too many take aways instead of cooking fresh food which is easy and less expensive. I don`t see the Government going after Macdonalds or KFC which I would never eat .YUCK!! Kids to day are lazy and their parents are to blame. Also its time to stop Fast Food Advertson T.V, there is nothing healthy about fast food although MacDonalds Advert would lead you to believe there is.
JDRF, a charity which supports type 1 diabetes research, said some people with type 1 diabetes have responded negatively to the sugar levy.
Sarah Johnson, JDRF’s director of policy and communication, said: “JDRF recognises the myriad pressures faced by the NHS and is generally supportive of measures to increase public health.
“However we appreciate concerns that a sugar tax might add to the burden of type 1 diabetes, where fast acting sugary drinks or snacks are a vital tool for combating hypoglycaemia.
“We would welcome a constructive dialogue with the Government about how to mitigate the impact of the sugar tax before it is imposed in two years’ time.”
Fruit juice is not included they said.
Rather than tax they need to make the manufactures stop putting sugar in everything......... and so much salt for that matter! Ridiculous levels in so many things. And I'm sorry, but with all the publicity and TV programmes you'd have to be pretty stupid not to realise that letting your child stuff on pizza and burgers whist spending hours watching TV or on a computer was going to make them fat! Parents need to take some responsibility for what they feed their children too!
With respect, isn't the use of "hammered" a bit over the top? Unless he's going through bottles every day, and once opened it can be kept for a day (it's the glucose that's needed, not the fizz), why the big fuss? And bags of Jelly Babies where just a few are needed at a time, are two for a quid in Pound shops. Seems like the big issues are being swept aside in the face of the outrage about this - and I seriously can't understand it.
This week, not sure what day, it was, a sugar tax debate was on Newsnight, a presenter showed bottles and cartons of drink. I was tired and had the sore eye too, but the presenter pointed out, 2 bottles that were high in sugar, milk drinks, though high in sugar, were not eligible because they contained milk and he also mentioned children's yogurts that have a high % of sugar, but these wouldn't count either, it's rather hit and miss. As for lucoazde I can't stand the stuff, never have liked it and trying to give me lucozade whilst having a low hypo, does me no favours at all or the person in charge of giving it to me !!
I found this clip with Mr Jeremy Paxman. The more I listen to The Head of Europe coke man, the more the more I want to shake the living daylights out of him, this clip is about obesity. Let him be Tangoed, I'm sure many would line up, sugar free of course.
My tuppence worth!
I know that the cost of the tax has been put on the industry but will they not put it on the the customer?
The line in what the difference is between the likes of lucozade and other soft or milk drinks is negligible. Ribena is supposed to be a healthy fruit drink but has more sugar in it than coke! So how do you define how or what the difference is I'm not sure, but the higher the concentration of any sugars, sucrose, dextrose, lactose, etc, should come into it including carbs, not forgetting the actual glucose drinks themselves.
Why don't T1s use glucose drinks instead of lucozade or coke baffles me, it can't be cost or convenience?
To finish, I remember I watched a programme and read up on what manufacturers are doing over in the States. They have all kinds of artificial sweeteners, that are sweeter and less harmful to us, than anything else they use but they can't use them because not enough tests have been done and not passed by the authorities over there. But the scientists on the programme insisted they are safer than the substitutes used now.
It's all down to education, it's a first step, but only the beginning!
Hopefully, some one will get there heads around the problem and actually do something about it, as people will not eat or drink poison once they realise how bad it is for us.
Tobacco, sugar, what's next?
Another example of why people think it is going to be something added to the cost of full fat drinks is the likes of this new article which doesn't correct the subjects misconceptions.
It should be a tax that causes a difference in the cost of full fat v diet drinks, and that is what everyone believes it will be.