Tuesday, 4 March 2014

The Extermination Of Personal Choice For Sugar

It might be about time the title of Chief Medical Officer was changed to something more in tune with the burblings of the most recent incumbents. I suggest Panic-monger General.

The last CMO - a clinically obese guy called Liam Donaldson - left for a cushy job at the WHO after predicting up to 750,000 deaths from bird flu, and 65,000 deaths from swine flu in 2009 which persuaded government to order 110 million doses of the vaccine Tamiflu (a nice little earner for his friends in Pharma HQ), the Department of Health to order 32 million face masks, and the Home Office to make plans to dig mass graves.

That's a tough act to follow, but it looks like current post-holder Dame Sally Davies is going to try her damnedest.
Speaking to the Health Select Committee Dame Sally said: "We have normalised being overweight. I do fear this generation of children will live less than my parents' generation."
Yes, in an age where life expectancy is soaring and the Office of National Statistics predict that a third of kids born today will live to 100, she is instead using a sound bite picked up from Jamie Oliver.

Note, too, the use of the term 'normalise' because it is an indicator of what kind of cranks (apart from jerk-off Jamie) she has been listening to.
She said she believes "the research will find sugar is addictive" and that "we may need to introduce a sugar tax".
Again, the language - in particular the emphasis on addiction - is straight out of the tobacco control template so can only have been whispered in her ear by an anti-sugar pressure group who want to place their own snouts in the same tax trough so successfully gorged on by anti-smokers.

It's nonsense, of course, as Simon Cooke explains.
I'm sorry but it simply is not true - not even a tiny little bit - that sugar is addictive. Except in the 'it's very nice and we like to eat it' sense of addiction. 
The idea - commonplace amongst the purveyors of New Puritan junk science - is that, because sugar stimulates the brain to produce dopamine in the same way as cocaine therefore it is addictive.
But this is to miss the crucial point, which is to redefine the way the public look at sugar. Junk science it may be - and Simon quotes a proper definition of addiction in his piece - but it has worked brilliantly before.

Some may remember this famous exchange from a US Committee hearing in 1994, which was publicised gleefully by anti-smoking activists at the time.

Now, you can argue till the cows come home about whether you believe nicotine is addictive or not, and you can debate at length if the tobacco industry executives were lying or truly believed in their testimony. But it's widely accepted, even by anti-smokers, that the tobacco industry is not daft and understands how to defend itself.

They knew very well at the time that to admit tobacco is addictive would completely eliminate their ability - and, by extension, the public's right - to object to taxes, restrictions and bans on the basis of personal choice. You only have to look at what has happened since 1994 to see how that panned out

This is precisely the same tactic now being used to 'denormalise' sugar.
"Hey, how dare you tax my Mars Bar, I enjoy it!"
"Well you would say that - wouldn't you - because you're addicted. You don't choose to eat a Mars Bar, you are compelled to by Big Sugar. You lost the dog in this fight so a 15% tax it is ... for starters!"
And Dame Sally isn't erring on the side of caution when it comes to your personal choice, either, she has made her mind up.
She said she believes "the research will find sugar is addictive"
Of course it will. They are already working on producing it in the tried-and-trusted manner of paying for a pre-conceived result from start to finish.

We've seen it all before because it's all in the tobacco template - pretend a product is addictive instead of enjoyable and all objections can be safely ignored. Just get that addiction thing embedded in the minds of the bovine and, voilĂ ! The extermination of personal choice as a barrier to government over-reach is your new weapon, and opposition-free legislation your prize.

Who cares if it is a fraudulently-manufactured moral panic? Jamie is selling books, Action on Sugar are seeking rent like a MoFo, and Dame Sally gets to emulate her predecessor by walking into a WHO position after aiding and abetting their latest initiative.

Now repeat after me ... there is no safe level of cup cake consumption.


BenPal said...

I repeat ... there is no sane level of rent seeeking. Woops

Tony said...

"He told the BBC's Sunday AM show it would probably kill about 50,000 people in the UK, but the epicentre of any new strain was likely to be in East Asia."

hahahah what a load of old bollocks!! How many did die? Wasn't it around 40 with 39 of them having underlying health issues?

These people are utterly insane.

Junican said...

I think that she is as much a captive of the health zealots as successive health ministers have been. What choice does she have? She personally knows bugger all about the matter and repeats what she has been told to repeat.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Mr. Puddlecote,

What you and the other SSS (Slavering Sugar Slaves) fail to understand is that:


This is a simple fact. It cannot be denied. Just listen to the first 15 seconds of the renowned Dr. Robert Lustig and see the agreement nods from his colleagues at the prestigious UCSF (Glantz's domain, by pure coincidence of course):


Over one billion children alive today will die needlessly premature deaths due to sugar-associated diseases -- and yet you have the brazen temerity to treat this Crystalline Holocaust lightly.

Just how much Sugar is Big Sweets paying you to support mass murder Mr. Puddlecote?


PJHH said...

Regarding swine flu, for those who haven't seen it yet, I present: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims-swine-flu-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572

JonathanBagley said...

Governments tax addictions precisely because it won't have any effect, and they can raise large amounts of money - not to alter people's behaviour.

truckerlyn said...

The problem with all 'sugar free' products is that they contain synthetic sweeteners and some, such as aspartin, are actually harmful, far more so than sugar! Just like Champex, that doctors are still pushing to try and get people to quit smoking!

truckerlyn said...

Don't suppose it has occurred to these idiots that there are likely to be a lot more people with weight issues since the pressure to quit smoking racked up several notches with and since the smoking ban!

The most addictive part of smoking, I believe, is the hand to mouth action and the main reason quitters put on weight is they continue the hand to mouth action, replacing the cigarette with sweets! Yes, some turn to ecigs, but that doesn't make up for a proper smoke to some.

Year, and years ago I did try to give up and replaced smoking with polo mints and my weight ballooned and it took many years and an illness, despite returning to smoking within 6 weeks, to get the weight off!

Of course, we shouldn't forget the diet pushers; as is agreed by many, diets DO NOT WORK. Yes, if you follow a diet plan you will lose weight, but the minute you come off the diet it will all go back on, plus some. The only way to get weight off and keep it off is a complete change of lifestyle. In the meantime, how many billions do these diet companies make, not to mention the magic weight loss pill pushers?

Ivan_Denisovich said...

I agree that there are concerns but based on the evidence I have no real personal issues with sugar free products and my point is that Coca Cola is not "pushing obesity" as is claimed by the activists. Great point on weight gain and quitting smoking. In the USA, the decline in smoking is practically mirrored by the rise in obesity. The ideologues and their acolytes don't do joined up thinking. They prefer to chant moronic slogans.

truckerlyn said...

It wouldn't surprise me if the rise in obesity in the UK didn't mirror the fanatical nanny state in general, but mostly regarding smoking. As you say, they don't do joined up thinking. Nor, it seems do they or the politicians, do common sense!

Dragonmum said...

Now don't you be a-knocking Champex, it works just fine. You can't smoke if you've killed yourself!!!

nisakiman said...

Heh! I got accused of being in the pay of Big Tobacco just a day or so ago on a forum I frequent because I was posting comments (with links) that were really upsetting the comfort-zone of many of the regulars.

Stuff like "anyone who says that smoking aids the cognitive functions / SHS isn't a killer / isn't more addictive than heroin, has got to be mad or in the pay of the tobacco companies". And this despite several links to original research results that backed up my comments.

Unfortunately, so many people have been so comprehensively indoctrinated that when presented with evidence that contradicts their belief system, all they can do in response is to put their fingers in their ears and chant "Na-na-nana-na, I can't hear you".

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Crikey! Well done Liam, you 'tard.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Makes me laugh when I see comments like that. They read something in a newspaper and throw insults around about how stupid everyone else is for not believing it without realising that they're displaying their ignorance to the world. :)