"People Should Not Be Allowed to Eat Eggs"
By Monica @ 11:39 AM   
Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? It's not a huge step from a government saying "eggs are unwise" to "eggs should be banned." Yet this is the absurd reality of part of the British government's socialized healthcare program to fight what it views as unhealthy behaviors, according to an article by Paul Hsieh entitled "Universal Healthcare and the Waistline Police." Get a load of this:
Other countries with universal healthcare are already restricting individual freedoms in the name of controlling health costs. For example, the British government has banned some television ads for eggs on the grounds that they were promoting an unhealthy lifestyle. (my emphasis in italics added)
Believe it or not, even more terrible ideas have been proposed in the United States. What is worse is that the egg advice makes no sense whatsoever in the context of evolution or even in the context of good science. Many people now recognize that as far as diet is concerned, the government has made a good many wrong answers into almost inflexible dogma. Once public policy becomes set, reversing it becomes incredibly difficult.
I worry very much about an increasing nanny state with respect to our food. When the animal rights activists and environmentalists team up with nutritionists who have fallen down the "fat is evil" rabbit-hole, it's pretty clear that next they'll be coming after our steak. Even if this particular view was scientific it would be politically wrong from the standpoint of the proper purpose of government which is the protection of individual rights -- as Dr. Hsieh's article makes completely clear. But far too often, the proposed "public health" policies would actually be -- and have turned out to be -- a complete disaster to public health. Here is a good example. We don't need any more such wrongheaded ideas made into nutritional dogma through government policy that take literally decades to overturn, with millions of needless early deaths as the result.
Dr. Hsieh's article defending our right to eat as we choose, without advice or force from a government nanny, did not sit well with some members of the public -- particularly this commenter in the Ithaca Journal:
Health care column off mark
Where did the doctor who derided the nanny state go to medical school, and does he see patients ("Waistline police may come with universal health care," Jan. 12)? A doctor's training emphasizes the first responsibility is to do no harm. Paul Hsieh blasts medical and societal activism to promote health, instead leaving people to make choices based on free will rather than common sense and proven facts. A nanny state would totally outlaw tobacco, a known killer for 50 years. I have more sympathy for the opium growers in Afghanistan with limited choices than for tobacco growers and Philip Morris in America, who could have stopped killing us in the 1950's. Raising prices cuts down smoking, and taxing junk pop will cut down on obesity.
Rampant capitalism may stop this, despite near universal advice from nutritionists, epidemiologists, and sensible doctors, who know the relation between obesity and heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and the excess morbidity and mortality. Steps taken by doctors and an enlightened society should outweigh freewill and company profits.
I'm not a bean counter, but I'll bet the health costs for obesity, COPD, diabetes and other self-inflicted pathology costs more than the taxes on company profits of pop makers and tobacco companies pay our governments.
He stated that if one were only harming oneself, it is OK. No serious, chronic illness ever affects only the patient. It impacts family, friends and the health costs. Get real, doctor. Accept controls, either self-imposed or enforced.
Jud Kilgore
Ithaca
(my emphasis in italics added)
This comment sends chills down my spine.
First, there's little evidence that in the context of a nutrient dense diet that smoking poses any serious health hazard at all. This is discussed here with regard to the Masai warriors and in Weston A Price's work Nutrition and Physical Degeneration on his chapter discussing the Gaelics in the Outer Hebrides. Their houses were absolutely filled with smoke loaded with dioxins. I do some medical needs assessment on COPD so I happen to know a bit about the disease. Only about 15%-20% of smokers get COPD, and I don't have any hard evidence yet, but I strongly suspect that onset of the disease is probably multifactorial and linked to nutritional status. I believe that's why we see COPD rates continuing to rise with poorer and poorer vitamin D status, although smoking rates have been declining for decades. I think a strong case could be made that smoking is actually not problematic in the context of a nutrient dense diet -- the very nutrients that do-gooders like Jud Kilgore likely want to eliminate from our diet in the name of "public health" and "the common good."
The acceptance of the idea of forced control of others for "their own good" and the second-handed and blind acceptance of the advice of "doctors and an enlightened society" should strike fear into the heart of any individual who thinks even remotely independently. It is downright Orwellian. There is always more to learn, and that one major problem with public policy. Public policy is based on consensus. Science is not done by consensus!
Diana Hsieh, PhD candidate in philosophy, stated in a section of a personal email (reproduced with her permission):
What I find so interesting about it -- and I've seen this elsewhere -- is the open defense of the nanny state. Defenders of universal health care don't seem deny his central claim -- that universal health care would create a nanny state on steroids. Instead, they argue that such a nanny state is necessary and proper.
That's a sad indicator of our cultural decline -- but at least the choice between freedom and statism is more clear than ever.
In short, I'm optimistic that freedom to choose the food we like, as well our freedom to choose healthcare, will prevail over statism. However, I hope that such comments as Jud Kilgore's make it abundantly clear that a veritable army of arrogant and ignorant "do-gooders" -- definitely increasing in their numbers in the past 50 or so years -- could wreak absolute havoc on not only freedom, but the health of the American people if they are allowed to force their views on everyone else through law. And far too often their views are not thoughtful or objective but average fodder for non-thinkers, also known as "conventional wisdom," "proven facts," and "common sense."
Given our societal trends, I definitely don't think freedom is going to prevail by sitting back on our fannies and hoping for the best. Everyone concerned about their health and the future of food should ask themselves a critical question: "If you think it's good that the government is banning trans fats and taxing sugary drinks, do you accept the premise that it's also appropriate for them to take your hamburger, raw milk, and fois gras away in the name of "public health"?" Do you really trust self-appointed government dictators to make such decisions for you, or to make such decisions objectively? I certainly don't.
On that note, what are you doing to up your game with regard to making sure you remain free to eat what you want?Labels: Government Idiocy, Individual Rights, Meat Myths, Modern Ignorance, Nutritional Guidelines
|
2 Comments:
This mindset is, indeed, chilling. I just put up a rather tongue-in-cheek post, here, vis-a-vis, "questioning authority": http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/on-questioning-authority/
There is a certain human psychology at work here. What is it that would have someone feel comfortable in completely handing over control of their health to an anonymous "big brother"? For the life of me, I cannot fathom it, however, it does seem to be a pervasive human trait. I might even be able to understand it if the "big brother" had a proven track record, but -- well, no need to even get going down that path.
Anyway, great post, as usual.
You mention that science is not done by consensus, and that is absolutely true.
Also, much of the so-called nutrition science is very poorly done or very broadly interpreted. Indeed, much of it is nothing more than cherry picking data to come up with a conclusion that fits the "consensus."
And the measures used are often absurdly unscientific, such as the BMI.
Sometimes, in my more black helicopter moments, I wonder if the whole purpose of the diet regs for the nanny state are to keep us hungry and compliant.
I like my steak rare, thank you!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home