Sugar Tax

SnooksNJ

mwpt wrote: »

No, of course not. Why would you think anyone supporting the sugar tax would think that?

And you know what I think by me asking a question to clarify a position?
Actually if anyone pro or con sugar tax made a comment about children costing the NHS tens of thousands of pounds I would ask(not think as you misrepresented) the same thing.

AirJoe

My comment about Lucozade was more of a jab at the perception that it's a 'healthy' drink that athletes use, which is a load of tosh. It should rightly be part of any sugar tax as this perception makes it doubly dangerous to the uninformed imho.

The reason they prescribe it for Type 1 Diabetes is simply because it's got the most sugar going and a sugar solution is quickly taken up by the bloodstream. You could very easily mix up a quick sugar/electolyte solution to have on hand and probably even save some money albeit for about a minute's work. It might not taste as nice (it wouldn't be that bad but you could flavour it with sugar free squash) but if your goal is to manage Diabetes then taste should be the secondary concern. You can of course pay a little extra to have it pre-mixed for you just as you always have but there is a choice.

As has been mentioned it slightly inconveniences some diabetics but may prevent others from becoming so.

CLAPTON

just curious
why ever do diabetic wast money buying sugary drinks when they can make their own so easily (OK I understand the situation in an emergency )

mind you, no worse that buying water

Mistermeaner

CLAPTON wrote: »

just curious

mind you, no worse that buying water

where do you get free water clapton?

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

where do you get free water clapton?

anyone with good will and a few brain cells will understand the substantial point

Mistermeaner

you are normally so succinct and precise in your posting and so keen to pick up on what others say I took you at literal face value.

I assume (if I may) that what you meant was no "no worse than buying relatively expensive bottled water rather than the much cheaper stuff which one can obtain from a tap which is not free"

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

you are normally so succinct and precise in your posting and so keen to pick up on what others say I took you at literal face value.

I assume (if I may) that what you meant was no "no worse than buying relatively expensive bottled water rather than the much cheaper stuff which one can obtain from a tap which is not free"

I am rarely precise, occasionally succinct, but usually people of good will and a few brain cells can understand the matter of substance in my posts.

purch

PasturesNew wrote: »

According to today's DM, the font of ALL genuine medical advice and information, you can "cure" diabetes simply by not scoffing for 8 weeks.

The general idea is that by reducing the amount of visceral fat around the Liver and Pancreas, you can get them to start working properly again, as they play the most important part in regulating Blood Sugar levels ( the Liver by storing and releasing Glucose and the Pancreas by releasing Insulin)

There are also other studies showing how very low calorie consumption, and intermittent fasting can also be effective in stem cell regeneration, which could also point to how this type of treatment is effective in regenerating Beta Cells in the pancreas that have died off due to the patient being overweight and becoming insulin resistant.

https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regeneration-of-damaged-old-immune-system/

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-and-autophagy-fasting-25/

Mistermeaner

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am rarely precise, occasionally succinct, but usually people of good will and a few brain cells can understand the matter of substance in my posts.

do you think it is the good will or few brain cells I am missing? Or perhaps both?

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

It looks like this is a tax squarely aimed at the poor and at changing the behaviour of the poor.

To be fair, if it turns out that people consuming value soft drinks are the most at risk of weight related health issues then I would hope the change had a notable impact on those consumers.

The taxes seem designed to push soft drink manufacturers into decreasing the sugar level to below the threshold. The costs and thresholds can be amended over time if it doesn't have the intended impact. Sure Coke and Pepsi could absorb the tax but I doubt they will want to for long, and if they do then our government is getting increased tax revenue with no real downside to customers.