I've noticed today two apparently separate calls for foodstuffs to be banned, from doctors.
Here's one:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100118/thl-butter-ban-would-save-lives-d831572.html
Here's the other:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/18/trans-fats-ban-health-faculty?CMP=AFCYAH
The two are similar, but apparently in contradiction. One is the call by a doctor from the University College London Hospital to ban butter, and the other is a call by Professor Alan Maryon-Davis of the UK Faculty of Public Health to ban artificial fats.
In that both the bans are being advocated to prevent heart disease, and both target kinds of fat, they are similar, but here is the difference, from the second article:
Trans fats, found in many cakes, pastries, pies, chips and fast foods, are chemically altered vegetable oils used to bulk up foods and increase their shelf life. They have no nutritional value and boost levels of "bad" cholesterol, thereby increasing the chances of a heart attack. Trans fats also occur naturally in meat and dairy products, but these pose no risk.
I don't even agree with the smoking ban that took effect in the UK in 2007, so I'm not the kind of person to immediately embrace the idea of banning a foodstuff. However, if a ban needs to be implemented, then clearly it would be preferable to ban artificial fats than to ban butter. Why? I'm not even going to go into the question of which is worse for you, although the second article suggests that the artificial trans fats are much worse, and I'm inclined to believe it. The question is one of choice. When you buy butter you are making a choice to buy butter. When you buy biscuits, ready meals and whatever else the artificial trans fats are added to, you are probably not making a conscious choice to buy and consume those fats. Therefore, I do see that there is case, at least, to be made there for a ban.
There is no case to be made for a ban of butter. Are we to live in a world where, for our 'own good', we are deprived of all sharp objects and all fatty substances? I have the feeling that some people believe you can legislate away death. You cannot. And I'm not even convinced that butter is bad for you.
I don't know why I'm even writing this. The world has gone mad, etc.
Saw the butter thing on the news this morning and thought waht next,maybe cheese and full fat milk so thats the dairy industry screwed,just what planet are these health fascists on.Oh and the Finnish gobernment are planning to make tobacco illegal so thats a few thousand more people out of a job.Then again we can all work in a Tofu processing factory
I find it absolutely peculiar. If these people were really so keen on eliminating death from the world, they should ban alcohol, cars, working too hard, swimming, poverty (which shortens the lifespan), and lots of other things I’m too lazy to list at the moment, up to and including procreation….Between then and now I’ve had a phone call and have completely forgotten the very witty thing I was going to say next.Oh, I think I remember. It wasn’t especially witty, and even if it had been, I’ve spoilt it now. I was just going to say, soon enough, if you go to a hospital the doctors will be saying, “I refuse to treat anyone who has something wrong with them. If you have a health problem, you must have been doing something wrong, and therefore don’t deserve treatment.”
You make an intelligent point. If people are given free choices, then particular choices shouldn’t be banned. As long as there are natural butter substitutes on the market, then there is no reason to ban butter. However, most ingredients in pre-made foods aren’t chosen in the same manner. There are some things that should be absolutely banned. If something has no nutritional value and causes harm, then it should be illegal for it to be inclued in a wide variety of products simply because it’s cheap for companies to add. The problem with many cheap ingredients is that they’re cheap because the market has been become dependent on them. Other healthier options could theoretically be made cheaply, but a company’s priority is making money and not improving the health of the public. It’s cheaper to continue producing food in the same manner. To shift the market towards other ingredients takes effort and investment, and so such a shift would only happen if the government enforces it.Also, the ideal of cheap is rather misleading. What is cheap in terms of production may not be cheap in other ways. If a food item is unhealth, then it will be very costly to society in treating the diseases it causes. This means that the company makes money off of the cheap production and the health industry makes money off treating the diseases, but the average person is on the losing end of the deal.
There are some things that should be absolutely banned. If something has no nutritional value and causes harm, then it should be illegal for it to be inclued in a wide variety of products simply because it’s cheap for companies to add. The problem with many cheap ingredients is that they’re cheap because the market has been become dependent on them.Actually, the case for the unchosen (by the consumer) artificial trans-fats being banned looked fairly strong in the bare bones of it. It’s not so much a matter of saying, “Stop selling that food!” as, “Stop putting that in the food!”This means that the company makes money off of the cheap production and the health industry makes money off treating the diseases, but the average person is on the losing end of the deal.I suppose one reason doctors complain in Britain is because of the strain on the NHS. I don’t know, but presumably the doctors who do complain are not making money off these particular diseases on a ‘commission’ basis. It just seems a bit niggardly to me to refuse to give medical treatment to unhealthy people. Actually, they don’t do that, but there is an implication that unhealthy people shouldn’t have the right to medical treatment. People, that is, with ‘unhealthy lifestyles’. A stressful job is unhealthy, too… Actually, banning them would be a good thing.I’m shooting myself in the foot here. (So I don’t deserve to have it bandaged.)Anyway, I simply refuse to believe that banning butter is a good idea. I haven’t read this, but it looks potentially interesting:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Cholesterol-Really-Causes-Disease/dp/1844543609
I’m often libertarian in wanting government interference as limited as possible, but I’m not a libertarian in that there are some choices that can’t be solved by capitalism. The problem is that individuals don’t tend to make good choices and neither do governments. However, I think if government listens to experts such as scientists they’re more likely to make wise choices for the public good. All in all, I trust everything more than I trust transnational mega-corporations. The government is necessary if only to keep the capitalists from taking over the world. Sadly, in the US, the government has merely been helping corporations ever since Reagan popularized deregulation.Ultimately, I think individuals should be trusted as much as possible. I do believe that humans make good choices when given good options. The failing of civilization is that good options aren’t usually given. Humans aren’t evolutionarily equipped for modern life. So, in the world as it is, I don’t think individuals will tend to make the best choices for themelves and others. However, there are ways to encourage better choices.We have good scientific data about what is healthy and what is unhealthy. So, tax unhealthy foods and ingredients and financially encourage the production of healthy foods and ingredients. If healthy foods are cheap and easily available, then people will eat healthy. As long as something isn’t toxic, there is no need to absolutely ban it. Like cigarettes, just tax them and give the tax money to support the appropriate health care. I think it’s fair to let people smoke, and the taxes they pay go to support smoking-related diseases. That way the person is supporting their own health care. It gives people the freedom to make choices and makes them personally responsible for the consequences.