Regulation for food a perfectly valid option

I am listening to Morning Report about the discussion on government moves to improve food quality, which is also on Stuff today.

Where we face major social problems we often use regulation to change the behaviour of firms. There are numerous examples, many of which have been in the spotlight recently with safety of various products.

Dealing with obesity and diabetes is arguably the same thing. Government moves to ensure that food is better labelled and to educate consumers are both good. The former is quite reasonably implemented either by industry agreement, or by mandated labelling standards through regulation.

The health of New Zealanders is more important than National's ideological hatred of regulation. If companies won't cooperate voluntarily with making our food safer, then they must be forced to do so. The community's interest in that happening entirely and massively outweights companies' interests in not being regulated.

Comments

[rjs131]

Why shoudl companies be regulated to provide information on the product? Surely most people out there arent that moronic to konw that eating 13 packets of biscuts a day without doing exercise is not recommended.

They shoudl be encouraged to do this by market forces. Surely if it is that important to consumers, they would buy the products which provides the information and not buy those which doesnt provide it

[tim barclay]

Labour's failed education system has many people unable to read or understand the food they eat. So the Labour Party as usual comes forward with bossy regulations and they will invent some new taxes and there will be much bullying from the Beehive about the food people eat including threats being made that people who are fat will not get healthcare and much else. I just lerrrrrve the Labour Party.

[Craig D]

Fatty food isn't "unsafe".

Over-consumption of unhealthy food is unsafe for an individuals' health, but then again, overconsumption of most things is unsafe.

It is not the governments' place to police everyone's consumption. You're also stuck in a loop - the more your nanny state babies its citizens, the less self-reliant they are, which makes you want to nanny them more. You might like the idea of the government tucking everyone in at night and making sure they're doing everything right, but keep that to yourself - don't impose it on people who want to live their own individual lives.

No-one is stupid enough to be ignorant of what food is bad for you. Your infantile little "traffic lights" just dumb down the population further.

Oh, and who made you boss of what interests outweigh other interests and who gave you the right to impose on privately owned entities because you feel they're being naughty?

[Spam]

Sue Kedgley is worried about advertising "undermining parents", but apparently has no problem with legislation undermining them.

[Paul]

"Labour's failed education system"

Holly crap Tim, you are the strangest being in the whole of the political blogosphere in NZ.

Why is it that the political parties that believe the most in personal freedoms, always want to hind the individuals in making choices. or put it another way, why would National want to hold back information from people about the food they consume. I want as much information about my food as possible. I want place of origin, I want nutritional information etc etc. This is a freedom I expect from food companies, regrettably the companies with the most to hide also have the deepest pockets and will fight this tooth and nail.

Craig D, no it's not the govts role to monitor consumption, but then is it's the govts role to stop us driving too fast (greater amounts of people die from poor diet related illness than the road toll), or is it the govts role to tell us not to do any number of things.

These do not dumb down the population as suggested by Craig, because yes there are some people out there that do honestly believe that some food any food such a s macdonalds or fish and chips 5-6 nights a week is good for you.

Craig, the right comes from the mandate to govern the country, remember it's called Democracy, jezz a little Social Studies introduction to the political system is needed here.

You self righteous twats that don't want the govt telling you this and that. I hope you all ignore the warnings on the fag packets whilst driving over the speed limit under the influence, because I sure as hell don't want your so called freedoms infringing mine.

Put up some decent political debate on the topic instead of this mindless "big brother" crap, it's the saddest form of political discourse and illustrates one's predilection to naval gazing.

You moronic bastards, the facts and figures speak for themselves, and if you are as intelligent as you protest, then of course you aren't eating the crap, those who need the help might just get it, all the while not bothering you one single minute (unless you count the waste of time responses on this blog that is). And if you are still intelligent enough to know that the crap you are eating is bad for you and you still persist, well..

[tim barclay]

Regulation will beget regulation. So the laws get tougher and the threats start up regarding access to health care. The Labour Party just cannot stay out of people's lives. PISS OFF.

[Paul]

Further to that, if you people need a greater example of the failure of the freedoms system that you all so dearly love and behold, spend one day at Disneyland as I have just recently.

The fattest bastards in the entire world all come from the country with the so called freedoms that are associated with the economic and political right.

It was all I could do every single day to stop myself from breaking into spontaneous turrets like announcements "you fat bastards stop freaking eating this crap".

Holly shit, they were shoveling the nastiest crap into their enormous bodies at a greater rate than the fireman on the old Kingston Flier would fuel that beautiful train. They were big repulsive and for fucks sake if you are so fat that you need a double sized wheel chair with all manner of ventilators hanging off your carriage as you make your way from one food outlet to another (as I saw often), well good fucking luck to you and your freedoms.

I was starting to think maybe I had a thing against fat unhealthy people, but really when there are more fat late middle aged adults on wheels than kids in buggies, then you have a problem. Then there were the really sad sights of mr and mrs fat bastard with their two fat kids all shoveling the biggest portions of pizza with extra cheese washed down with 2 litre soda drinks, all just wasting the worlds resources.

Turns out that one of the least fav destinations for Vancouverites (where I am living for the next 6 months) is Disneyland for the plain and simple fact that fat freakin americans are just too repugnant. Canucks will go to Euro disney over La La land's version.

When the childrens portions we ordered were bigger than anything we'd buy back in NZ as an adult meal...

But these are freedoms that we aspire too people. We don't want the public educated in the way to avoid such a disgusting way to live. We'd be so wrapped up in our "hand off me big brother govt" self absorbed fantasy rater than stop us heading down that path. And if you think what I am saying is bollocks, go to Disneyland, observe and then head off to Rainbows end.

Jamie Oliver, Sue Kedgely and all those fighting this problem should be thanked not ridiculed in the hope that your so called freedoms aren't impinged upon.

Perhaps if we were to explain in terms that you type understand. How many of your heard earned (perhaps stolen) taxes are wasted on Type 2 diabetes each year that could so easily be prevented. I know my freedom is impinged upon there and I'm none to happy about that.

[Paul]

And no I don't want govt telling me what to do.

I just want companies telling me what's in their products, it's not for me to take up a PhD in food science to decode what sodium benzoate is. I just want to know if the food I am about to eat is Ok not, it's not a freaking state secret.

But hands off business, it's the sacred cow that must not be questioned.

[Paul]

"The Labour Party just cannot stay out of people's lives."

Tim I look forward to National Party announcement that Marijuana will be freely available to the public come next year. We'd hate the govt telling us what we can and can't do now would we. I mean after all we all know that thousands (roughly 5000) people die each year from putting something to their lips and inhaling. Whops that's right that's a big business (freedom loving) product that does that not soft drugs.

But nice come back buddie, nice to see you came here for an argument (whops which door were you looking for?)

[tim barclay]

Cannabis and other drugs will stay illegal under National I am quite sure of that. One day I hope we will be able to fight drugs with other drugs to neutralise their effects so they become pointless. But in the immediate term the prohibition policies will remain. I know they do not count for much for the rich nor the criminal welfare class. But the law abiding middle class respect the law so the prohibition policies have some use.

[Paul]

"But the law abiding middle class respect the law"

Are you taking the piss? I am about as middle class as one could demographically be, as are my white middle class buddies, and apart from a dammed fine chardonay Weed is the Drug du-jour, it's making a comeback baby.

So it's ok to regulate Dope but not tobacco and not bad food? So the things that are killing Kiwis in the greatest numbers are out of bounds for the political right. Cool, glad we establish that one.

Can national please eliminate the speeding laws Tim. We'd hate regulation to get in the way of a dam good jaunt across the best roads in the country The Machenzie Basin. Why is it when I drive from Alberta (limit 110km) to British Columbia (limit 100km) the regulations are different. Surely if we are to believe the officals in NZ speeding at 110km causes more crashes?

All govt regulate (and steal your taxes Tim), it's just a shame that those on the right don't choose to fight for those who can't for the sake of so called freedoms of others. We already have food labeling, adding some sort of health indication that is easy for those to understand is not a bad thing.

To further rebut Craig's arguments against dumbing down. One of the fundamental tasks of the information designer is to make seemingly inaccessible information (such as the scientific names on the food labels) and make it understandable. We don't class the London Underground Map as dumbing down the traveller, on the contrary, we praise it for increasing our understanding. As we do GUI interface that saves us from the world of the bits and bytes that run the modern PC.

Simple clear and accurate food labelling is not dumbing down the population, it's empowering and creating freedoms for the individual, freedoms to keep putting the crap in or reducing the rubbish intake.

[Craig D]

Paul,

Sorry, I don't buy it. If someone doesn't know that crap food is bad for them, they need more help than a simplistic traffic light.

The problem isn't that having a little traffic light on your food is a huge deal of itself. The problem is the belief than there is no problem the government shouldn't be solving, no private agreement that can't be interfered in.

You keep looking for ways the great and good government can make everyone's life "better", making it ever larger, ever more invasive, ever more expensive and makes life harder for the people who actually provide all the money your government squanders on policy analysts and "no functional classification."

People obviously don't care that their foods isn't split into three categories, based on some policy analyst's idea of what is healthy (don't pretend that everyone agrees). They're not demanding it. People who are interested in their food content subscribe to programs like Weight Watchers (can't get much simpler than points) or learn what "grams of fat" means (not too difficult).

As to your aside, of course the government shouldn't ban marijuana. It has two drugs of choice it likes (alcohol and caffiene) and shuns all others (many of which are less harmful). Same principle - if you take responsibility for your actions [pay for your healthcare] you have the right to do what you want to your own body [eat crap food, smoke].

To counter the point that we are all currently paying for healthcare, drug-related harm happens regardless of legality (it's not like govt enforcement makes drugs hard to get). Maybe if fat people had greater consequences for their crap eating [higher health insurance, levies for healthcare] there would be an incentive. Something makes me think the average fat family you described a la Disneyland wouldn't go "oh WOW! This Mc Ds is bad for us! That's why we're so fat! Let's go get some celery, it has a green light..."

I certainly don't need to sit through social studies drivel. I just don't accept that because you have a media-driven counting of support for whichever party offers the most baubles every 3 years means you get to own my body and regulate my every move.

[tim barclay]

Health food indications will be as much use as the child smacking legislation will stop child abuse. The recent awful case in Rotorua happened AFTER that law was passed, what does the Labour Party say about that. And microchipping dogs did not stop little children from being mauled. I am sick of the Labour Party proposing some new draconian law that bashes the law abiding middle class but achieves stuff all.

[PaulL]

Where are the examples of poor outcomes from this regulation not existing? What are we fixing here? Is this the only way, the lowest cost way (for the consumer), the most effective way? Where is the analysis?

[Monty]

will you do a flip flop once this proves an unpopular policy Jordan?

[Spam]

Yes Paul, exactly. Show us some analysis before inflicting more knee-jerk regulation. The burden should be to demonstrate that these regulations will be effective before they get implemented.