5 ms·

"...plans to cut the sales of sugary drinks sold in hospitals"

by SandB0x 10y ago

tim333 10y ago
Plans to cut the sales elsewhere would be interesting. Maybe a ban on ads and a health campaign? I'm sure the likes of Coca Cola would lobby hard against though.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  As a normal citizen who doesn't even work in that sector, I'd be against it as well.
- bitwize 10y ago
  How about mandatory packaging requirements: all soda must be sold in puke-green bottles and cans, with large color photos of rotten teeth and cirrhosed livers on them and "THIS STUFF IS BAD FOR YOU" in huge Impact font.
- DanBC 10y ago
  I think government has plans to introduce a SSB tax, on top of the 20% VAT, sometime in 2018. This is to encourage the industry to self regulate. I hope it doesn't go the way of minimum unit pricing for alcohol, which was announced and then withdrawn.
  - tolien 10y ago
    It's at least still going ahead in Scotland, despite the objections of the Scotch Whisky Association: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37725251 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37725251
tomjen3 10y ago
It seems odd to sell sugary drinks in hospitals in the first place. I have been sick enough that my parents offered me all the chocolate I could eat, so I can see a reason for selling that in a hospital, but suger water has absolutely no benefits.
- zeroer 10y ago
  What about the orphans?
- guitarbill 10y ago
  This is going to have 0% impact for patients, except for making hospitals an even more depressing place. I can easily imagine I'd enjoy a sugary beverage to wash down the horrible hospital food. It isn't a huge stretch (no pun intended) that that might contribute to a more positive attitude and therefore faster recovery - especially if I was used to drinking it at home. Whilst it isn't healthy, I doubt a ban in hospitals would change my mind. Finally, before implementing this they'd better be 100% sure drinks sweetened "artificially" (i.e. not sugar) are actually better for your health that the sugar-sweetened drinks. I think the jury is still out on that one.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    >I think the jury is still out on that one. No, the jury is very clear that SSBs are harmful, and very much more harmful than artificially sweetened drinks. No one credible suggests that artificially sweetened drinks are harmless.
    - guitarbill 10y ago
      > No, the jury is very clear that SSBs are harmful One SSB is pretty harmless. Two is not harmful, etc. Two cans a day for several years? Probably. Worse than eating bigger portions for two years? Depends. So if we're ignoring nuance, you could say "the jury is very clear that food is harmful", or at least some amount of some foods are equally harmful as SSBs. > and very much more harmful than artificially sweetened drinks I know this isn't how science works, but e.g. I found this one meta-study [0] which suggests that "both artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice were unlikely to be healthy alternatives to sugar sweetened beverages for the prevention of type 2 diabetes". So again, it's not so clear cut at all. If anything, it's an example of how diverse human metabolism is and/or what a shit-show dietary "science" is. [0] http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3576 http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3576
    - 10y ago
sctb 10y ago
Thanks, we've updated the submission title to clarify.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gaius 10y ago
The NHS would grind to a halt without Lucozade.

"...plans to cut the sales of sugary drinks sold in hospitals"

by SandB0x 10y ago

"...plans to cut the sales of sugary drinks sold in hospitals"

Plans to cut the sales elsewhere would be interesting. Maybe a ban on ads and a health campaign? I'm sure the likes of Coca Cola would lobby hard against though.

Karunamon 10y ago
As a normal citizen who doesn't even work in that sector, I'd be against it as well.
bitwize 10y ago
How about mandatory packaging requirements: all soda must be sold in puke-green bottles and cans, with large color photos of rotten teeth and cirrhosed livers on them and "THIS STUFF IS BAD FOR YOU" in huge Impact font.
DanBC 10y ago
I think government has plans to introduce a SSB tax, on top of the 20% VAT, sometime in 2018. This is to encourage the industry to self regulate. I hope it doesn't go the way of minimum unit pricing for alcohol, which was announced and then withdrawn.
- tolien 10y ago
  It's at least still going ahead in Scotland, despite the objections of the Scotch Whisky Association: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37725251 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37725251

tomjen3 10y ago

It seems odd to sell sugary drinks in hospitals in the first place. I have been sick enough that my parents offered me all the chocolate I could eat, so I can see a reason for selling that in a hospital, but suger water has absolutely no benefits.

zeroer 10y ago
What about the orphans?
guitarbill 10y ago
This is going to have 0% impact for patients, except for making hospitals an even more depressing place. I can easily imagine I'd enjoy a sugary beverage to wash down the horrible hospital food. It isn't a huge stretch (no pun intended) that that might contribute to a more positive attitude and therefore faster recovery - especially if I was used to drinking it at home. Whilst it isn't healthy, I doubt a ban in hospitals would change my mind. Finally, before implementing this they'd better be 100% sure drinks sweetened "artificially" (i.e. not sugar) are actually better for your health that the sugar-sweetened drinks. I think the jury is still out on that one.
- DanBC 10y ago
  >I think the jury is still out on that one. No, the jury is very clear that SSBs are harmful, and very much more harmful than artificially sweetened drinks. No one credible suggests that artificially sweetened drinks are harmless.
  - guitarbill 10y ago
    > No, the jury is very clear that SSBs are harmful One SSB is pretty harmless. Two is not harmful, etc. Two cans a day for several years? Probably. Worse than eating bigger portions for two years? Depends. So if we're ignoring nuance, you could say "the jury is very clear that food is harmful", or at least some amount of some foods are equally harmful as SSBs. > and very much more harmful than artificially sweetened drinks I know this isn't how science works, but e.g. I found this one meta-study [0] which suggests that "both artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice were unlikely to be healthy alternatives to sugar sweetened beverages for the prevention of type 2 diabetes". So again, it's not so clear cut at all. If anything, it's an example of how diverse human metabolism is and/or what a shit-show dietary "science" is. [0] http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3576 http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3576
  - 10y ago

sctb 10y ago

Thanks, we've updated the submission title to clarify.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gaius 10y ago

The NHS would grind to a halt without Lucozade.