BeauV wrote:
Gerry,
The really sad thing is that most of the "bad science" didn't come from the government - it came from self-serving doctors. For example, my understanding is that it was the guy who invented the Cholesterol test who then popularized the use of it for predicting heart disease. He had no evidence that there was actually a correlation, but he needed to sell his test kids before the patent ran out. This is PURE SNAKE OIL stuff going on.
Then, when Senator McGovern was going to publish his first recommendations on what to eat, the various lobbies for Dairy, Beef, etc... all waded into the "discussion" (again without any science to back them up) and negotiated their "position" in the food pyramid. The Senator was a dupe of the food manufacturers.
Beau,
Well said -- and I think we're saying the same thing here, though I was perhaps not clear in my post -- I wasn't so much meaning to fault the government for doing the bad science, as to fault it for failing to properly vet, and/ or objectively present, the conclusions that science has to offer.
In my perfect world, I see the government as a credible aggregator and disseminator of information -- a government of and by and for the people, if you will. Since the government is not "for profit" - ie, the snake oil selling cholesterol tester -- "we" should be able to trust what it says as in our best interest. Sadly, as you have pointed out, it fails at that for any number of reasons.
The "follow the money" part is exactly the kind of thing that you're speaking to in the Food Pyramid example. It's not possible for all legislators to know all things, so there is a role for "private" experts to play -- ie, lobbyists. The idea that folks from the private sector, who work in a particular field, would give input to law/ policy makers is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It should, in fact, be a very productive part of the process.
Back when I was occasionally wearing a tie, I found myself appointed to the Oregon State Treasurer's Retirement Security Task Force after providing input on (my company's opinion as to) the role of financial planning and investment education in the achieving of financial security in retirement. I also testified in Washington DC about the need to require employers to provide some amount of education to self-directed (ie, 401(k)) retirement plan participants if they were going to be absolved of fiduciary responsibility in the disintermediation of traditional pension fund assets and the transfer of those assets, and the responsibility of properly investing those assets, to the plan participants in self-directed plans. In both instances, my employer would have benefited by having financial education mandated or promoted; at the same time, I am pretty comfortable in saying that that the testimony I gave was in the best interest of the general public.
Unfortunately, personal interest seems too often to trump (or is that "Trump"?
) public good in such testimony/ lobbying and we end up with things like the corrupted food pyramid you mentioned, and worse.
BeauV wrote:The bad guys here aren't the governments as much as it's private enterprise trying to make a buck off of selling us stuff we like to eat that is really bad for us - Oreo cookies for example; combined with the medical guys being in cahoots with the pharm and device businesses. What our government does do is subsidize industries like growing corn and sugar beets which are really terribly for us to eat. That is despicable. I love corn - really love it - but based on what I know now, I don't eat it anymore.
I may part ways with you here on saying the bad guys are the private enterprise guys selling bad stuff. Private enterprise should not be held accountable for the personal choices of consumers. That's simply not private enterprise. While I agree completely that they are selling bad stuff (and are in fact, immoral in doing so in some cases), if consumers put in the effort to take care of themselves and made educated, healthy choices, the Oreo industry would fade away of its own accord.
That said, if you really like Oreos and can eat them in moderation, I don't see a whole lot wrong with you having them available. I agree wholeheartedly though, that it is 100% wrong for the government to be subsidizing unhealthy industries -- be they corn or beets or tobacco or any number of other things. 100%. Those Oreos should cost you
BeauV wrote:Sadly, the government hasn't been very good at defending us against all this.
+100!
BeauV wrote:I didn't mention it earlier, because I rambling on about the book, but the absolute best think you can do for your health is exercise. Two 20 minute periods of accelerated heart rate exercise will do more good than any other thing known to science. As usual, it's the "get off your ass" cure that wins.
I am always amazed at how well my body responds to exercise, in any number of ways; how I look and feel, but also what I hunger for -- the more healthy (moving and vigorous) my habits, the more I simply lose the desire to eat unhealthy things. Pretty cool self-regulating system. I sometimes wonder why people who eat so poorly, and obviously are not healthy, don't motivate themselves to change their habits?
