Saturday, 9 June 2012

Health, wealth and happiness.

Uh-oh! Another title with three items.
The Three Stooges in 1938's Healthy, Wealthy and Dumb. L to R: Moe Howard, Curly Howard, Larry Fine
Which of the three things in the title is the most important?

I run a health blog, so you don't need to be a rocket scientist to guess my opinion. Health. As I mentioned in "The Diet Debacle" debacle, you are what you eat i.e. if you eat/drink rubbish, you get a rubbish body. Therefore, what people eat/drink is important in order to maximise their health.

Should "food" manufacturers (whose prime objective is to maximise their profits) have the right to unduly influence people's food choices (which results in them experiencing deteriorating health) by using cunning marketing methods? I say "No".

Should "food" manufacturers have the right to unduly influence politicians into subsidising the raw ingredients of their "food" by bribery lobbying? I say "No".

It's been argued that "food" manufacturers should have the right to free speech. I disagree, as the motives of a "food" manufacturer are completely different from the motives of an individual.

I'm not asking for a ban on the marketing of non-food items or a ban on government subsidies for non-food items. Am I really asking so much?

The above are moot points, as "food" manufacturers and governments are very powerful, and nobody wants to give up power. Therefore, nothing much will change unless you people out there can persuade other people to do what you are doing by leading by example, and so on. If enough people stop buying "food" (and I'm using quotes deliberately, as a lot of "food" isn't fit for pig-swill, let alone human consumption) and start buying, cooking & eating real food, some "food" manufacturers might experience such a large drop in profits that they go out of business.


garymar said...

Diet, Nutrition, and Blog.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Ha, ha, and ha!

Kate Ground said...

Is lying free speech?

Nigel Kinbrum said...

I don't think that truth/lies is a criterion for deciding what is/isn't allowed as free speech, so I can't answer your question.

According to Wikipedia, causing harm (also offence) is a criterion.

I therefore argue that CIAB marketing (which influences people to consume products instead of produce, which can cause harm in the long-term) should not be allowed.