I read this on David Farrar’s blog so  have block quoted here. Original piece from Danyl’s Dim-post blog on the current political debate about government funding of nutrition initiatives {… maybe I should have a conversation with myself about the current folate debate … hmmm…}.  Anyway there’s some good satirical writing here if you are into that …

Conversation with myself about obesity

Left Wing Danyl: Corporations that sell high-fat and high sugar products are getting rich by selling people slow acting poisons. And they’re deliberately marketing these toxic food substitutes at children! Shouldn’t we at least pass laws to protect minors from these products? After all, we don’t let them buy cigerettes or alcohol.

Libertarian Danyl: Well that’s your answer to everything isn’t it? Just pass another law, take away a little bit more of our freedom, expand the power of the state. Charge people more taxes so you can furthur limit their choices. People should be free to eat whatever kind of food they want. We have enough problems with the nanny state in this country without politicians telling us what we can and can’t eat for dinner.

Economist Danyl: Hang on a minute there – I agree that people should be allowed to choose what foods to eat – but you have to admit that products like soft drinks and potato chips have massive negative externalities. They contribute to chronic illness like diabetes and heart disease and those have a cost to the public health system that other people end up paying for through their taxes.

Libertarian Danyl: Tax is theft!

Left Wing Danyl: Tax is the price you pay for living in a civilised society.

Libertarian Danyl: Civilised? Ha! To quote Ron Paul . . .

Moderate Danyl: Oh shut up, idiot. So Economist Danyl, are you saying there should be an excise on junk food?

Economist Danyl: Why not? That’s what we do with other products that have negative externalities, like tobacco and alcohol.

Left Wing Danyl: The problem there is that obesity is closely correlated with poverty. A tax on junk food would be a highly regressive tax.

Economist Danyl: Then poor people will act like rational maximisers and respond to the changing conditions of the market by switching to cheaper, healthier options.

Sarcastic Danyl: Right, the way they have with tobacco?

Realist Danyl: There are also huge political barriers to an excise – the food companies aren’t just going to lie back and let you devalue their product. They’ll claim that the science around obesity and nutrition is ‘deeply disputed’, that there is real controversy over whether or not french fries are bad for you . . .

Moderate Danyl: Okay, so regulation of food might be too complicated . . .

Libertarian Danyl: Hallelujah.

Moderate Danyl: How about encouraging exercise?

Libertarian Danyl: How about laws governing bed time?

Selfish Danyl: No wait, I think that’s a good idea. The government could subsidise my gym membership!

Realist Danyl: Sponsored exercise programs have repeatedly failed every time they’ve been trialed. The only people who benefit are those already using a gym, who tend to be disproportionately wealthy. Besides which, obesity is about diet not exercise – the best the gym will do is prevent you from gaining more weight.

Selfish Danyl: I don’t think that’s true – the science around obesity and weight loss is deeply disputed . . .

Moderate Danyl: What about before our wedding? We lost twenty kgs in a couple of months.

Realist Danyl: We were running for two hours almost every morning – that’s not very practical for most people. And we put most of the weight back on when we stopped. You have to change your diet, tubby.

Left Wing Danyl: So what? There’s no solution? It’s hopeless?

Moderate Danyl: Thatcher once said that the problem with being middle class is that you understand everyone’s point of view but have none of your own.

Left Wing Danyl: You’re quoting Thatcher now? What kind of bourgeoisie sell out are you? You’ve changed, man. You used to be so cool.

Realist Danyl: No you didn’t.

Go here to read full post and comments {both are a good read if you have a sense of humour!}

Here are some excerpt choice comments …

Comment by Carlos: Remember when eggs were considered the one way ticket to a heart attack? Ooops no, not as bad as 1st thought.  Remember when the answer was low fat diets, so out with olive oil and in with Nutragrain? Turns out that was a bad idea. Remember when red meat and dairy were declared evil? Only later did we ponder the serious consequences of iron and calcium deficiency. Nutritionists have a poor track record only economists can compete with. And we want to let them loose on our tax system?

{Cindy says: I could defend my profession and blame the media for sensationalising our messages. But it’s true; sometimes we get it wrong – especially when we follow the latest ‘studies’ and forget to use our common sense!}

Comment by Gareth: I am fundamentally against subsidising the public mental health services that clearly you will be availing yourself of…

Comment by Matt: I wish more people would force themselves to represent both sides of an argument. Aligning yourself with the “left” or “right” is counter-productive, like Bob Dylan once said “I don’t know left and right, I just know up and down”.