
NHS England proposed action to cut sales of sugary drinks in hospitals - DanBC
https://www.engage.england.nhs.uk/consultation/sugary-drinks/
======
maxxxxx
I don't know how it is in Britain but in the US I always find it interesting
that it's almost impossible to get any decent food in a hospital. The stuff
they sell is the worst kind of fast food and the vending machines are full of
junk.

~~~
jonwachob91
It honestly depends on the hospital system.

Florida Hospital - Orlando (the largest hospital in the U.S. by bed count and
revenue) has been doing a lot in recent years to address this concern. They
started by making the largest soda you could buy a 16oz (bottled or fountain),
and have slowly phased out some food groups (such as fried foods) and have
introduced entire cafeterias that only serve fresh vegetarian dishes. They
have brought in community coffee shops that only serve fair trade coffee, and
are working on setting up a food court type area that will house local
restaurants that serve only healthy foods.

Florida Hospital Orlando is the Flagship hospital for Adventist Health, which
operates 46 hospitals in the US and 26 hospitals/67 clinics in another 21
countries. It is a model that is being scaled to this other institutions.

FH Orlando isn't a hospital that is known for it's innovative care like the
Mayo Clinic or MassGen, but it's size makes it a model for operations that
these leading institutions follow.

~~~
NTripleOne
> by bed count and revenue

Someone please back me up here, it is fundamentally sick to rank hospitals by
revenue, right?

~~~
dogma1138
That's a pretty standard practice even in countries with single payer systems.

Some hospitals do get higher funding, raise considerably more donations, and
since even in the most "socialist" EU and other SPS countries state hospitals
are still allowed to provide private healthcare services some also higher
revenue through the private route simply by having better administration and
more prestigious alumni and or patrons.

There is nothing sick about it, a hospital with better funding and revenue
usually can provide better treatment, even the most bureaucratic healthcare
systems are not immune to market forces, if nothing else than some hospitals
will be better at attracting higher ranking doctors and surgeons and every
country, region or large city has the "best" hospital for a specific
condition.

At the end even the most equalized healthcare systems are still operating in a
finite resource environment, even if the only finite resource is the
availability of the best doctor in the country or region, this means that some
will be better than the rest, ranking them by revenue usually is an easy way
to find out which one it is simply because it's usually directly tied to the
quality of the medical staff they can employ.

~~~
NTripleOne
Standard practice or not, it still just seems _wrong_ to me - maybe that's
just the part of me that believes that healthcare shouldn't be treated as a
business.

~~~
dogma1138
Healthcare should very much be treated as a business since we have limited
resources, you need to focus your resources where they would do the most good
if not you will not like the results as everyone will walk around with perfect
boobs and teeth but will die at 40.

You are more than welcomed to go and check into the lowest ranked hospitals in
your country when you'll get ill, if not then it's a pointless argument at the
end regardless of how well you think you equalize your system it will always
have better and lesser hospitals.

In fact centralization of talent and resources has a positive outcome rather
than a negative one since it doesn't have a major downside but a huge upside.

It's considerably better to have 90 average hospitals and 10 great ones than
to have 100 average hospitals since in the 10% of the cases when a great
hospital, doctor or surgeon is needed you will still have a place to go.

There is no real way of assembling an all star surgical team in every hospital
in the city, not to mention a nation, so even if you would want to forcibly
spread doctors (and there were a few countries that tried) and prevent private
funds the only thing you get is a worse healthcare system not a better one.

------
elevensies
I think there is a time and a place to nag people about changing their habits,
and it is absolutely not when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable.

~~~
reflexive
Which is why smoking in hospitals is OK?

~~~
SilasX
That's restricted because it ruins the air of random bystanders, many of whom
are in sensitive condition. The case for smoking bans in hospitals would be a
lot weaker if people confined their smoking to a scuba apparatus (sorry,
redundant). And the case for food restrictions would be a lot stronger if my
consumption of soda at a hospital caused sugar to be injected into random
bystanders' bloodstreams.

~~~
reflexive
_the case for food restrictions would be a lot stronger if my consumption of
soda at a hospital caused sugar to be injected_

There's no proposal here to restrict consumption. It's the hospital's choice
what they want to sell at their own concessions. They can't sell every
possible beverage, so it doesn't make sense to sell sugary ones at the expense
of healthier alternatives.

Just like you need to bring your own cigarettes to the hospital if you want to
smoke - don't expect the staff to provide them.

~~~
SilasX
Sorry, I should have said "hospital menu policy restrictions".

(It seems like a pedantic point anyway; the fact that you're under no
obligation to provide X does not imply that you don't have a policy
restricting your provision of X. Plus, the comparison was to hospital smoking
_bans_ not e.g. cigarette vending)

~~~
reflexive
Last time I was at a hospital and wanted to buy a snack from the cafeteria,
nearly all the options were loaded with sugar (coke, ice cream, etc). I'd say
that non-sugary options are being subject to "hospital menu policy
restrictions" at this point.

~~~
SilasX
Hah! Very true!

There are probably several factors that influence what foods they offer and
which results in their current general policies about what to stock. It
probably makes more sense to first audit what those factors are and why they
exist; otherwise, additional restrictions are more likely to force them into
more expensive options since they'd have to obey the existing (probably
ridiculous) constraints.

------
based2
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_tax)

~~~
alecco
Yes, and not just that. All the industries raking billions every year while
leaving the health system overwhelmed should be taxed.

Just like tobacco.

~~~
osidfjsodifj
Meat eating diets(especially red meat) show increased risk of heart disease in
so many studies it's a definite fact. Should we tax that as well?

The reality is that obesity is the cause of all of these food related
diseases. Playing politics with which foods get taxed and which do not doesn't
strike me as a winning game and will likely evolve into a battleground of
special interest groups attempting to get their competition taxed.

~~~
reflexive
_Meat eating diets(especially red meat) show increased risk of heart disease
in so many studies it 's a definite fact._

You have a rather naive definition of "fact" my friend.

~~~
jonwachob91
Cleveland Clinic seems to think that red meat diets lead to increased risk of
heart disease [1]... And in a prior post someone else shared with you the Mayo
Clinic article that also says red meats lead to increased risk of heart
disease...

If two of the top hospitals in the world for cardiac care say it I'm willing
to bet it's fact.

[1][https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/your-diet-and-
hea...](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/your-diet-and-heart-
disease-rethinking-butter-beef-and-bacon/)

~~~
reflexive
Studies indicating fat contributes to heart disease have been discredited
because the effect actually comes from excess sugar intake.

[http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullart...](http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1819573)

------
abraae
I loved in the UK for many years and loved it.

But I did not love the stuffy language occasionally found, such as the quote
below from the"consultation document":

> Given due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and
> victimisation, to advance equality of opportunity, and to foster good
> relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic (as
> cited under the Equality Act 2010) and those who do not share it; and

To quote Samuel Jackson:

> English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?

~~~
jackweirdy
You'll enjoy Gyles Brandreth's speech in Parliament about language:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpiCuSW3lrE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpiCuSW3lrE)

And potentially this discussion about the role of language in politics:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ha-
PuJlgi0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ha-PuJlgi0)

~~~
quirkafleeg
> You'll enjoy Gyles Brandreth's speech in Parliament about language:
> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpiCuSW3lrE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpiCuSW3lrE)

LOL Three minutes in, Dennis Skinner: "Have you read Maastricht?"

~~~
abraae
Brilliant.

------
aaron695
It's interesting.

You'd imagine if a cancer patient throwing up all the time wanted a
Coke/Fanta, It'd great emotionally and health wise.

This, might be a small percent of patients and could be catered to in theory.
If patients could chose their meals.

But certainly the hypocrisy you often see at cancer walks where they have
sublet the catering to junk food providers can wear a bit thin.

------
StreamBright
Never too late. I am wondering what other projects are out there like this one
that a corporate lobby products and mass poison a large part of humanity for
decades.

~~~
pixl97
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-
ind...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-
shifted-blame-to-fat.html)

------
armenarmen
God forbid that a mother and father drink empty calories as their child is on
death's doorstep

------
SandB0x
"...plans to cut the sales of sugary drinks _sold in hospitals_ "

~~~
tim333
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.

~~~
DanBC
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
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)

------
colinramsay
"In hospitals" it seems. Title could be amended.

------
helpfile123321
Sugar consumption within normal population values is not a health risk given
available evidence. We also don't know what consumers will substitute for
sugary drinks if they are unavailable.

~~~
GavinMcG
What made you post exactly the same content as a similarly-named, also new
account? Is this some sort of sugar industry automated astroturfing gone awry?

~~~
bluejekyll
Could it be a bot?

------
filehelp123
Sugar consumption within normal population values is not a health risk given
available evidence. We also don't know what consumers will substitute for
sugary drinks if they are unavailable.

~~~
filehelp123
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27001643](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27001643)

t The effects of added sugars on various chronic conditions are highly
controversial. Some investigators have argued that added sugars increase the
risk of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. However, few randomized
controlled trials are available to support these assertions. The literature is
further complicated by animal studies, as well as studies which compare pure
fructose to pure glucose (neither of which is consumed to any appreciable
degree in the human diet) and studies where large doses of added sugars beyond
normal levels of human consumption have been administered. Various scientific
and public health organizations have offered disparate recommendations for
upper limits of added sugar. In this article, we will review recent randomized
controlled trials and prospective cohort studies. We conclude that the normal
added sugars in the human diet (for example, sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup
and isoglucose) when consumed within the normal range of normal human
consumption or substituted isoenergetically for other carbohydrates, do not
appear to cause a unique risk of obesity, diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

~~~
bitwize
Now, do your real research and find out who funded this study, and what their
sugar-industry connections are.

~~~
grzm
Actually, I think that part's on you. I attempted to do so, and got bored,
realizing that it wasn't worth the effort for this particular thread. One
thought I did have regarding the abstract was regarding the conclusion
statement:

 _We conclude that the normal added sugars in the human diet (for example,
sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup and isoglucose) when consumed within the
normal range of normal human consumption or substituted isoenergetically for
other carbohydrates, do not appear to cause a unique risk of obesity, diabetes
or cardiovascular disease._

Which I believe can be interpreted as saying that looking at what's happening
in the normal population doesn't show that _added_ sugars cause unique risk.
This, I think, says nothing about the level of sugars that are being consumed
as contributing to the increased levels of obesity, diabetes, and
cardiovascular disease we're seeing. I don't think it says anything about
cutting back on sugar wrt reducing health risk. Subtle point, and perhaps one
that's contradicted in the article text itself, but I didn't read the article.

