> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > There's a huge difference between legislating
> against
> > McDonald's hamburgers and keeping kids from going
> > blind, Debbi.
>
> But, the example that Debbie gave was
>
> " folate enrichment of various cereal/grain
> products".
And nowhere have I advocated 'going after McDonald's'
-- I *did* say (in a prior post) that stopping tobacco
use, increasing physical activity, and reducing
caloric intake would drop the chronic disease burden
of atherosclerosis, diabetes, hypertension and stroke
by 50% (I believe that a recent article actually
attributed 60% of these chronic illnesses to obesity,
along with certain cancers). I further advocated a
massive education program to inform people of this --
and then to hold them accountable for their bad
choices.
> I'd argue that this is closer to preventing
> blindness than legislating
> against McDonald's hamburgers. I'll agree its not
> nearly as important as
> the examples you gave, but it is an easy means to
> improve nutrition without
> restricting free choices of people.
While the numbers are smaller, the result of folate
supplementation is reduction of spina bifida and other
neural tube defects (SB frequently results in
paralysis). And the lack of iodine is potentially
devastating, with mental retardation of varying
degrees the result of prenatal/infantile deficiency.
[I believe that "cretinism" was the former term for
these unfortunate children; don't have the time right
now but ought to look that up.]
But if you want big numbers of lives saved or kept
'intact', look at sewage/water treatment and
vaccination programs -- these latter _were not_
entirely voluntary as schools required certain
vaccinations for attendance. (Aside: I think the
50-year anniversary of the Salk polio vaccine was last
month.) That *is* state nannyism, as indeed most
public health programs are, and millions have been
saved thereby.
> It seems to me that the third world examples you
> gave are critical and
> important; the McDonalds example is foolish, and
> Debbie's example is a
> fairly easy change like iodized salt. I would guess
> Debbie would agree
> with this, and I'd be curious to see if/why you
> might conder enrichment as
> an example of a "nanny state."
The 'state nannyism' came up in a discussion of taking
a pill vs. actually getting off one's tushie and
getting some exercise WRT coronary artery disease -
the latter position mine, the former Gautam's. I'm
not sure how 'an educational program' morphed into
'state nannyism' as exemplified by the examples
above.
Perhaps I am a bit piqued at what I see as an
underlying assumption Gautam makes when he attributes
bad intentions or stupidity to those who disagree with
him on certain issues -- You've assumed that people
I've never heard of, or at best marginally so
(Chomsky, frex, or that Karen person), represent *my*
viewpoints and thoughts. I think I'll contemplate
things a bit before responding further in this thread.
Debbi
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
