|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 08/06/2010 : 07:02:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
For example, Ban high fructose corn syrup. Ban MSG. Ban alcohol. Ban high mercury fish. Ban MSG (oops, I already said that). Ban butter and make people eat margarine. Ban ... oh, well, anything I don't like. Ban anything that inconveniences me. I love being the king of the world!
|
Great idea. Let's ONLY concentrate on the problem that is MOST critical. Of course, then we'd have to fight about what that problem actually is and I can guarantee that there would always be someone who is "skeptical". |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 07:22:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
More laws, more people to provide enforcement. Will these people stop checking for fish in mercury? Will these be new people be hired at tax payer's expense? If so, could we hire people to enforce out heavy metal anti-pollution laws instead please? |
Why "instead?" Why not "also?"| By unintended consequences, I meant unintended by the original people who made the proposals. |
Yes, I know. My point is that because inaction can have unintended consequences, also, pointing to unintended consequences as a reason for doing (or not doing) something is a non-starter. We can't base policy on them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 08:46:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
More laws, more people to provide enforcement. Will these people stop checking for fish in mercury? Will these be new people be hired at tax payer's expense? If so, could we hire people to enforce out heavy metal anti-pollution laws instead please? |
Why "instead?" Why not "also?" |
Since we can not do everything at once, it is a matter priorities. You have very correctly pointed out that we have laws now that are important, such as the anit-heavy metal poisoning laws, that are not being enforced. In my opinion, there is an epidemic of historical proportions happening with cancer rate increases, diabetes, autism, CVD and such. So, the question for me is, what should we do to get the most return on our effort? Enforcing existing laws seems like a good start.
I would not stand in the way of sodium reduction laws, but regulating human behavior is a challenge. As you said, prohibition is a good example. Now we tax alcohol. So, do not tax salt, just tax processed foods that contain bad stuff. In Ontario, snack foods are taxed 13%. All restaurant and fast foods are also taxed 13%. I suppose indirectly this helps fund the diabetes clinics.
[Edited to fix quoting - Dave W.] |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 15:40:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
Since we can not do everything at once, it is a matter priorities. You have very correctly pointed out that we have laws now that are important, such as the anit-heavy metal poisoning laws, that are not being enforced. In my opinion, there is an epidemic of historical proportions happening with cancer rate increases, diabetes, autism, CVD and such. So, the question for me is, what should we do to get the most return on our effort? Enforcing existing laws seems like a good start. |
Is there good evidence that heavy-metal poisoning is a large contributor to these diseases? Or is it just your opinion? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 18:43:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
Since we can not do everything at once, it is a matter priorities. |
But we also can't ignore everything that isn't highest on our priorities list. Plus, your priorities may not match mine.| You have very correctly pointed out that we have laws now that are important, such as the anit-heavy metal poisoning laws, that are not being enforced. |
Wait a minute. How are those particular laws not being enforced?| In my opinion, there is an epidemic of historical proportions happening with cancer rate increases, diabetes, autism, CVD and such. So, the question for me is, what should we do to get the most return on our effort? |
Killing everyone over 34 would be a great start.  | Enforcing existing laws seems like a good start. |
Sometimes, existing laws (like the DSHEA) are the problem.| I would not stand in the way of sodium reduction laws, but regulating human behavior is a challenge. As you said, prohibition is a good example. Now we tax alcohol. |
The salt-reduction isn't an attempt to regulate human behavior, but instead an attempt to take advantage of it. You mentioned people who salt their food without tasting it first. Do you think they'll actually change that behavior? Some of them may not actually notice that their food is less salty, and so the hypothetical law will have done its work. There will also be a bunch of people who find out why their food tastes different, realize that lower salt is a good idea, and go even father than the law requires by getting away from the salt-filled processed foods (and maybe even take more potassium), and again, the law will have done some good. Excepting a very few contrarians, the rest will go on salting their food to taste, and thus wind up running out of Morton's a little more often than they used to (all salt prices being equal, their extra salt purchases ought to be balanced by cheaper, less salty foods).| So, do not tax salt, just tax processed foods that contain bad stuff. In Ontario, snack foods are taxed 13%. All restaurant and fast foods are also taxed 13%. I suppose indirectly this helps fund the diabetes clinics. |
Do the taxes actually reduce consumption? If not, and the taxes just go into health care, then the laws aren't actually preventing disease. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 18:46:50 [Permalink]
|
| Is there good evidence that heavy-metal poisoning is a large contributor to these diseases? Or is it just your opinion? |
We do not know definitively why autism rates are souring. We do not not for sure why adult onset diabetes rates are soaring. We do not know the causes of Alzheimer's, Parkinsons's, etc. We do know some correlations and there are more theories than solutions.
We definity know lead, mercury, cadmium and other heavy metals affect our health, cause birth defects and will lead to all kinds of problems. The government has passed laws about how much mercury , lead and so forth can be in our food, pain and environment. We took lead out of gasoline because of the health consequences.
So, I am not sure how to answer your question. We know heavy metals are bad, we know enforcement is a problem, we know that we have polluted some of our rivers so much that the fish in them can not be eaten. If we do not enforce our existing laws, what is the point in writing some more laws?
My point is, there is only so much government money available. We have laws regarding mercury. Lets enforce them (did you some makeup has mercury in it?).
As we do not know the causes of the epidemics we are having, I can not point to "proof" that heavy metals may be behind it.
|
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 19:48:31 [Permalink]
|
| Do the taxes actually reduce consumption? If not, and the taxes just go into health care, then the laws aren't actually preventing disease. |
Of course they do. For every person, there is a "tipping point" as to how much tax is required to change behavior. To take an extreme to illustrate a point, if processed meats were taxed until is was cheaper to buy porterhouse steak, I predict that many people would buy the less expensive steak.
Things do not sit alone. For example, I can buy beer in a store at a dollar a bottle. At my local pub, it's $5.00. At a fancy restaurant, it's $8.00. I have bought all three of those ways. But I buy less at the restaurant. In fact, I have eaten at the restaurant, had a beer or two, then went to the pub. Met some friends, went home and we watched the hockey game while drinking $1 a bottle beer.
If the restaurant beer had been $4.00, I may not have gone to the pub.
My point is, when the tax on a food gets high enough, some people will make different food choices. How many? I do not know, but as you mentioned earlier, the pop bottlers fought tooth and nail to prevent a minor tax on soda. They believed it would lower their sales. Coke in my home town is taxed 13%. I am sure Coke knows if their sales when down as a result.
And if the money collected is used to educated people who have been told by doctors they they are pre-diabetic (for example, at a free clinic, or a free web site, or via a free book), then it is reasonable to assume some lives will be saved.
How about we ban trans fats? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 21:07:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
We do not know definitively why autism rates are souring. |
We do know that autism diagnosis isn't increasing because of certain heavy metals.| We do not not for sure why adult onset diabetes rates are soaring. |
Increases in obesity explain that pretty well.| We do not know the causes of Alzheimer's, Parkinsons's, etc. We do know some correlations and there are more theories than solutions. |
Arguing from ignorance never works well.
In another message:| Do the taxes actually reduce consumption? |
Of course they do. |
I'm not willing to take "of course" as evidence. A 13% tax isn't anywhere close to the line where porterhouse becomes cheaper than hot dogs.
When I visited Canada for work, many years ago, a pack of smokes was five bucks (on sale!), which (even given the exchange rate) must have been over three bucks in taxes (well over 100% tax). Yet people were still smoking. They'd complain about the prices, but kept on feeding the monkey. Taxes didn't seem to be driving the right behavior. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 21:26:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
We do not know definitively why autism rates are souring.
|
The autism spectrum has widened to include even mild cases of Asperger's Disorder which had often gone undiagnosed in the past. Also, autism diagnosis is being better recognized for what it is and it's being diagnosed at earlier ages now. Given those things, you would expect a fairly dramatic rise in autism diagnosis. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 10:21:28 [Permalink]
|
| We do not not for sure why adult onset diabetes rates are soaring. |
Increases in obesity explain that pretty well. |
We know there is a correlation. We do not know the cause, as there are also plenty of skinny diabetics. At least, there were at the clinic I attended.
Also, that just begs the question, why the dramatic increase in obesity.
One theory is a chromium deficiency. Another is high fructose corn syrup. Another is lack of fiber, as most processed foods have relatively little fiber.
There we are again, processed foods.
Alzheimer and diabetes seem to be linked. "Neurobiology of Aging, Schubert conducted an experiment proving that Type 2 diabetes predisposes animals to Alzheimer's".
WE have also learned that the brain produces insulin. I was taught it was only the pancreas. So, we learn more every day.
My point is, we do not understand how all this hangs together. From basic chemistry, we learn that many metals are catalysts. It is plausible to form a hypothesis that the many heavy metals in our environment affect us, even if the metals do not directly show up as an altered chemical.
Is anyone arguing that heavy metals are not toxic? Dare we say we know all the significant ways these metals affect us? Is it not worrisome that they accumulate in the food chain, and such will have long term effects.
But my main point was, the evidence convinced enough people to pass laws. If, as you suggested, we do not enforce those laws (through testing, punishment, etc) then what is the point of more laws?
|
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 13:59:15 [Permalink]
|
Mercury may be a risk factor in CVD.
The following study showed its effect on children's cholesterol.
J Prev Med Public Health. 2005 Nov;38(4):401-7.
Woops
after I typed the above I had to go to the emergency dep at the hospital
I have an iv needle in my left arm and a cast on my right. I am typing with the fingers on me left hand...slowly.
so, I do not wish to offend anyone who may feel ignored, but I will be very limited for the next 10 days.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 19:44:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
after I typed the above I had to go to the emergency dep at the hospital
I have an iv needle in my left arm and a cast on my right. I am typing with the fingers on me left hand...slowly.
so, I do not wish to offend anyone who may feel ignored, but I will be very limited for the next 10 days. |
Wow. I hope your recovery goes well. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
So it starts
