This morning on the TV1 Breakfast show they covered the story of the recently released list of foods we “needn’t” eat (i.e. those which are “non-essential, energy-dense and nutritionally deficient.”). This list has been released by researchers from the University of Otago who are concerned that there is a lot of confusion about foods and wanted to create a list of foods one “needn’t eat” particularly if one wants to lose weight. A list of these foods can be found here.
During the interview of Dr Jane Elmslie, she was asked by Petra Bagust if this list wasn’t an example of nanny state thinking.
This type of question really irritates me. Here we have a researcher pointing out foods which we NEEDN’T eat, because they are calorie rich and nutrient deficient. She isn’t saying don’t eat them, she isn’t pushing for regulation, she has simply provided information.*
It will be interesting to see how food manufacturers, particularly of so-called “healthy” muesli bars will respond to this list. For too long they have actively promoted food with silly claims on them (i.e. marshmallows sold as 98% fat free, as if this means they are a healthy option).
* Homeopaths and other “alternative” medicine practitioners will sometimes take a similar approach when their trade is criticised. They like to imply that somehow critics are attempting to ban their product or therapy, when in fact what they are truly afraid of is that once the public truly understand what their product is all about, that it will be rejected.
Petra Bagust’s question was an ignorant one. First I don’t think she knows what Nanny state is (which is a very simple concept).
I have no problem with educating people. I do have problem with regulations. As I have mentioned on the other thread that this is how a progressives try to push social engineering issues into the public. Harmful education (as first claimed), then when the public gets used to the idea, then BOOM! The next you know is that politicians is pushing/debating that very same issue in Parliament because lobbyists have succeeded in convincing them to do something about it.
Smoking is bad, there is no doubt about it. Some anecdotal evidence were presented to the public about certain non-smoking individuals who died of lung cancer because of second hand smoking. A few lobbyists started pushing this issue into the psyche of the general public via TV & Newspaper interviews. The movement became organized and they lobbied politicians into banning of smoking in work places including restaurants & bars. It’s been 5 years on now since this anti-smoking legislation came into effect.
These so called public places is simply misleading and they are not public at all. They are private properties which belong to the business owners. They are not owned by the taxpayers nor the workers who work for them. My point is, the Govt uses force, ie, legalized coercion (as if it is morally right which is not).
There is no doubt that some business owners will make their premises smoke free by their own volition or otherwise the pressure of the market to adopt such policies is so strong that they had no choice but to do so (otherwise they would lose their business to competitors who decide to adopt smoke free bars/restaurants , etc), but that is their decision to make and not mine (nor other busy-body lobbyists & politicians) to decide for them via legislation.
The sad thing about this is that lobbyists are not entirely satisfied with banning of smoking in private places as bars, restaurants, work places, etc,… (oops, I mean in public places).
Now here is the nanny state part of this whole notion of educating people about food Michael. The Herald article (front page today) mentioned one of those busy-body lobbyist (I think it is the Anti-obesity Food Nazi Robyn Toomath ) came out and suggested that the Govt needs to tax the food items in that list much higher. Well Michael, if that is not nanny-state then I don’t know what is? It is pure state interventionist & social engineering.
As I’ve already stated above, that there is nothing wrong with educating the public about nutrition, it is what comes after when the educators realize that their soft message in their campaign about healthy eating/nutrition is not being taken seriously by the public. It is always, the nanny at the end.