Sugar Tax

[ladybird64]

But even though it is widely used as a treatment for hypos, it's not what it's marketed as - it's just a glucose drink available to the public at large. Isn't this where the water gets muddy? Not being argumentative, just it's how it appears to me?

 

[Jaylee]

Don't apologise, my point was exactly that, it is psychological. I'm not saying other alternatives don't work at all. I fully accept that it is the fear that makes me stick to my preferred hypo treatment. But I am scared of losing control of my body like I did when I had an episode of hypoglycaemic hemiplegia and it's not an experience I wish to repeat. Hypos can have a psychological impact and to dismiss that may miss a fairly signicant aspect of what being insulin dependant can be like, for some.

Your point was valid. I did not wish you felt "singled out." We all have a "contingency plan" in the event of a hypo.. No matter what I use? Although I know the layout of my own house. If I'm in a dark hotel room? The same bag is there. I have to undo a multitude of zips to get at what I need but the job gets calmly done.. I'm personally at ease with the hypo.

I feel in a little time this whole "sugar tax" thing will have no effect on us & it will all be forgotten about.

.... Until the tabloids "headline" a levy on the bags we carry our D **** about in.? Lol

 

[Jaylee]

But even though it is widely used as a treatment for hypos, it's not what it's marketed as - it's just a glucose drink available to the public at large. Isn't this where the water gets muddy? Not being argumentative, just it's how it appears to me?

I would concur.. Same as the Mars bars I personally "covet"..

& I don't even like the taste of em. Just summat I did for the last 40 years..

 

[catapillar]

But even though it is widely used as a treatment for hypos, it's not what it's marketed as - it's just a glucose drink available to the public at large. Isn't this where the water gets muddy? Not being argumentative, just it's how it appears to me?

Unfortunately I don't have an answer.

I mean ideally, it would be an exemption to the charge for certain specified products for insulin dependant diabetics. But I understand that would not be applicable the way this tax is levied.

So perhaps some sort of rebate refund on proof of purchase of certain products for insulin dependant diabetics? But then I imagine the administrative costs of such a system would far exceed any benefits.

So yes, no useful solutions. Doesn't mean I can't be dissatisfied with the position.

I can but hope JDRF has some better ideas!

 

[Oldvatr]

I accept your point & I accept that given the financial impact it is petty. But I'm not a saint! If I see a tax being imposed that looks like it will have an adverse impact on me should I welcome it with open arms?

I get the public health aims of the measure. But I would resent it (surely an understandable human reaction) if the impact of the measure designed to improve public health on the health of insulin dependant diabetics was not thought through. Again, it would be pennies, so perhaps there would be no impact in reality. But it would still feel like a punishment for going hypo, which would be a shame because I have quite enough diabetes guilt as it is! So I hope that JDRF can work with the government to establish some sort of exemption for hypo treatments in a way that doesn't undermine the (somewhat tenuous) public health aims.

At last we start a discussion on how to move forward with this. The BBC has just carried an article about this very fact, that T1D's and T2D(ID) need some form of exemption on medical grounds. I dont think any of us here would be against that, but it may be that it becomes a generic treatment rather than a commercial branded item. If they can get VAT removed off sanitary items then they should be able to organize something to cover this.

 

[ladybird64]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35831139

 

[Magisham]

Fruit juice is full of sugar though.

G

When I was in hospital, there is always a bottle of original lucozade on a bedside cabinet in the diabetic ward!
I just can't get my head around that!

Hypos were my best friend once!
But I would never go anywhere near any drink that has sugar in it.
Mind you I'm not T1!

I coach football and there is no benefit in sugary drinks at all.
I have researched this aspect of conditioning over the last few years.
Water is the only hydration method necessary for sports.

When my partner was in hospital they told him his blood sugar was sky high, then gave him mashed potatoes and boiled potato for a meal with a 1" cube of meat (no veg), lasagne with potato, tiramisu, trifle and rice pudding. So a bottle of Lucozade would not surprise me!

 

[TomGreen101]

Pure insanity! Almost everything has sugar or carbs. What happened to personal responsibility!

 

[Marley99]

I'm yet to see a tax go where it is intended.

There are several types of sugars and they are trying to impact obesity. High use intake of synthetic sugar alternatives including stevia has showen to be unhealthy and addictive. If they are targeting cane sugar companies will use corn syrup or some other alternative.

Anyway isn't VAT/GST a tax already on soft drinks and just about anything we buy? I bet this is not removed so it will be a tax on tax. It is more socially acceptable to tax sugar and claim it will go to schools than increase VAT/GST and use this to increase funding to schools. How about removing the taxes on bottled drinking water?

If the government is serious about obesity they could look at things holistically. I have 2 girls (now adult) both did sport and after school activities and ate the same diet. One was in range, the other still fights obesity. It is not as easy as cutting down sugar (I doubt the tax will do this) and encouraging activity. Cigarettes are a prime example. Increasing the cost of cigarettes does not have a significant impact on the reduction in sales. The same with alcohol.

It won't work and the money won't impact on schools. It is a revenue raiser and the government will be SEEN to be doing something positive .... I wonder where the proposed introduction sits with elections and if too unpopular it will be dropped.

 

[RoseofSharon]

Is there a reason why T1s can't add powdered glucose to a small bottle of water, replace the lid, shake, and leave it on their bedside table or in their bag until needed?

If the flavour is an issue there are plenty of concentrated squashes to use.

Much cheaper than a fancy brand name like lucozade - and with the added bonus that the glucose content can be personally tailored.

I'm not t1 and I can't say I have had a hypo(although it wouldn't surprise me) but I can talk from my experience of suffering dreadful nausea, light headed was and dizziness (no the latter two are not the same thing, although fairly similar in their effect). When I am like that and I'm struggling not to end up kissing the ground anything that is fiddly or complicated goes out of the window! Those are the times when I will do anything just to remain in my seat, not can I not concentrate on anything but not meeting the floor, but the mere thought of discerning food labels is gone - at those times you could give me the things I'm allergic to and I'd be stupid enough to take them.

Each person here has at some time or another worked out that which works for them. This is not a place where we should be attacking each other, but rather we should be supporting each other into better choices. If something works, even if it's not what you yourself would choose leave it alone. I too am concerned favour this tax for many reasons, but it is time for us as a community to pull together and support each other's choices.

 

[Jaylee]

Each person here has at some time or another worked out that which works for them. This is not a place where we should be attacking each other, but rather we should be supporting each other into better choices. If something works, even if it's not what you yourself would choose leave it alone. I too am concerned favour this tax for many reasons, but it is time for us as a community to pull together and support each other's choices.

Interesting.. I only saw @Brunneria 's kind response as a suggestion to "boycott" the products that may fall under the "sugar tax"...

 

[zand]

Well I'm sure if anyone has enough money to buy Lucozade in the first place then they can afford the extra tax. It's such a small amount it's not worth stressing about. My son who is buying a house will be clobbered with thousands in stamp duty simply because his fiancée has a house already and won't be selling until after they are married. That's penalising youngsters who are trying to provide for themselves. I realise this thread is about the sugar tax, but let's get some perspective here. As others have said if you are having so many hypos that the extra cost really matters then you need to sort your regime out.

 

[RoseofSharon]

I'm yet to see a tax go where it is intended.

There are several types of sugars and they are trying to impact obesity. High use intake of synthetic sugar alternatives including stevia has showen to be unhealthy and addictive. If they are targeting cane sugar companies will use corn syrup or some other alternative.

Anyway isn't VAT/GST a tax already on soft drinks and just about anything we buy? I bet this is not removed so it will be a tax on tax. It is more socially acceptable to tax sugar and claim it will go to schools than increase VAT/GST and use this to increase funding to schools. How about removing the taxes on bottled drinking water?

If the government is serious about obesity they could look at things holistically. I have 2 girls (now adult) both did sport and after school activities and ate the same diet. One was in range, the other still fights obesity. It is not as easy as cutting down sugar (I doubt the tax will do this) and encouraging activity. Cigarettes are a prime example. Increasing the cost of cigarettes does not have a significant impact on the reduction in sales. The same with alcohol.

It won't work and the money won't impact on schools. It is a revenue raiser and the government will be SEEN to be doing something positive .... I wonder where the proposed introduction sits with elections and if too unpopular it will be dropped.

Yes I agree. Obesity like t2 and other health conditions has many causes. Having read The Diet Delusion (Gary Taubes) and other health books over the years (including Pure, White and Deadly by John Yudkin) I don't blame the individuals who are mistakenly buying what has been cleverly marketed and indirectly (sometimes actually directly) endorsed by the gov't as healthy, included here is low-fat anything etc.. You see gross mistakes have been made over the years which has left people either directly confused or so filled with propaganda and hype that they no longer understand what a healthy choice meal actually is. The 'five a day' for example is so broad that five different types of smoothy could be used and all the person would actually be getting is excess concentrated sugars and no goodness. Low fat has resulted in foods so tasteless that without added sweetener (whether artificial or actual sugar/honey etc) they would not actually sell. This is not to mention that were we to go back to the Regency times or Victorian times we would find most of the foods and drinks that we eat today, but the actual sugar content of them would not even result in 1/4 of what we consume today. That is not to say that they weren't corpulent or sick, but rather a) their sickness rates were different to ours as other conditons were more prevalent, and our long-term conditions were known as old age diseases b) they knew much more about good food than we do. A look back at rationing when again people lives off the food they could produce in their own back yards and the food they got on rations shows that we can easily survive without the so called 'staples' that are pushed at us today, and generally be more healthy on it too.

My point here is that history has a lot to teach is that has actually been withheld from us. However for those of us who are already sick, all we can do is manage the best we can and teach those around us (family friends etc) to make better choices. Whether or not they will is another matter entirely.

 

[AndBreathe]

Unfortunately I don't have an answer.

I mean ideally, it would be an exemption to the charge for certain specified products for insulin dependant diabetics. But I understand that would not be applicable the way this tax is levied.

So perhaps some sort of rebate refund on proof of purchase of certain products for insulin dependant diabetics? But then I imagine the administrative costs of such a system would far exceed any benefits.

So yes, no useful solutions. Doesn't mean I can't be dissatisfied with the position.

I can but hope JDRF has some better ideas!

Can you imagine the administrative cost of exempting this for T1s, given how widely available these drinks are? Every garage, Tesco checkout person, corner newsagent, to name a handful, would have to be trained to assess the suitability of a person to pay for something, with or without sugar tax (ST). I guess they make some form of judgements already when it comes to tobacco sales, but then such vendors would be required to account for why some sugar laden sugary drinks (how many variants are there likely to be on your average Tesco shelf?) we sold inc ST or exempt ST. That aspect would be much more complex than, say current VAT legislation, which can accommodate the modern EPOS pricing and accounting systems noting which products attract or are exempt VAT.

Can any of the T1s suggesting (quite fairly) that in a hypo situation they need something quickly, they would be comfortable going into their nearest WH Smiths, then be required to show some form of laminated exemption card to receive the lower priced item? Maybe fizzy drinks would become only dispensable in certain places? If they were, that could impact the same people who need to get their hands on something quickly.

Of course that last comment is throwaway and nonsensical, but the practical aspects of exemptions on the fly are huge. If the manufacturers didn't increase the costs to consumer, then the retailer certainly would. Businesses are in business to make profit. Few are there for altruistic reasons, and when they are, they're often labelled charities.

(OK, I'm out of this one again.)

 

[Jaylee]

Yes I agree. Obesity like t2 and other health conditions has many causes. Having read The Diet Delusion (Gary Taubes) and other health books over the years (including Pure, White and Deadly by John Yudkin) I don't blame the individuals who are mistakenly buying what has been cleverly marketed and indirectly (sometimes actually directly) endorsed by the gov't as healthy, included here is low-fat anything etc.. You see gross mistakes have been made over the years which has left people either directly confused or so filled with propaganda and hype that they no longer understand what a healthy choice meal actually is. The 'five a day' for example is so broad that five different types of smoothy could be used and all the person would actually be getting is excess concentrated sugars and no goodness. Low fat has resulted in foods so tasteless that without added sweetener (whether artificial or actual sugar/honey etc) they would not actually sell. This is not to mention that were we to go back to the Regency times or Victorian times we would find most of the foods and drinks that we eat today, but the actual sugar content of them would not even result in 1/4 of what we consume today. That is not to say that they weren't corpulent or sick, but rather a) their sickness rates were different to ours as other conditons were more prevalent, and our long-term conditions were known as old age diseases b) they knew much more about good food than we do. A look back at rationing when again people lives off the food they could produce in their own back yards and the food they got on rations shows that we can easily survive without the so called 'staples' that are pushed at us today, and generally be more healthy on it too.

My point here is that history has a lot to teach is that has actually been withheld from us. However for those of us who are already sick, all we can do is manage the best we can and teach those around us (family friends etc) to make better choices. Whether or not they will is another matter entirely.

Hang on.. Stuff like milk & bread in the highlighted era was commonly "adulterated".. Sometimes with toxic substances?
Bread was pretty much the only "staple" on the table for the poor & destitute in the "workhouse." That's putting aside the poor/non existent "food hygiene standards" also contributing to fail the masses..

History repeats.. But with better "marketing" from my perspective!

 

[catapillar]

Can you imagine the administrative cost of exempting this for T1s, given how widely available these drinks are?

I thought my post, that you are quoting, was quite candid that I thought the administrative costs would far exceed any potential benefit and therefore I didn't see that as a viable option. Sorry if that was lost.

As I said, I'm not sure what solution/exemption might be workable but I understand JDRF intend on working with the government to see if there is a workable solution. Better minds than me might have an idea and if there isn't a solution, I can be dissatisfied with essentially being collateral damage of the sugar tax, can't I?

 

[chris lowe]

Ok, sorry if I'm missing the obvious here but I'm still failing to see the fuss about Lucozade? Quite happy to be corrected though. I'm not suggesting that T1's shouldn't have Lucozade as their means to deal with a hypo, of course not. But unless a full bottle is needed daily (or more) which isn't the case, then why the big deal? I'm focusing on Lucozade as the thread seems to have taken that turn?
Regarding the tax itself, and how it will affect the general population, well, I dunno. But I do know that the present government (and I'm not saying others would do differently) will push through legislation without caring what people think, or how they will be affected. So I guess only time will tell on this one.

By the way, St Jamie Oliver has now started on about breastfeeding. Methinks he should give it a rest now

Wish he would! He really gets on my nerves telling us what we should & shouldn't be doing. If he does happen to read any posts can I just say to him "mind your own *€$%#>¥ business"

 

[Jaylee]

 

[catherinecherub]

As Jamie Oliver likes to take the credit for the sugar tax being approved, we could all email him and ask about an exemption being acceptable for medical reasons.
I am sure that he will be able to come up with a solution, even if it means taking a break from creating his sugar laden desserts.

 

[Robinredbreast]

Hang on.. Stuff like milk & bread in the highlighted era was commonly "adulterated".. Sometimes with toxic substances?
Bread was pretty much the only "staple" on the table for the poor & destitute in the "workhouse." That's putting aside the poor/non existent "food hygiene standards" also contributing to fail the masses..

History repeats.. But with better "marketing" from my perspective!

Bread certainly was. A programme on BBC 2 recently, taking today's bakers back in time to different era's was an eye opener, for the bakers and for the viewer too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/f...taste-like-new-BBC2-series-goes-time-out.html.