UK Telegraph columnist Allison
Pearson reckons the celebrity chef’s idea of taxing sugar a good one:
Why Jamie Oliver's sugar
tax is a good idea
The Government should
forget about industry lobbying and act on the national scandal of sugary food
and drink …
Pearson joins a long line of MSM journos
who love pushing the line of wowserism, which serves none of us well. Below is
the comment I posted to Pearson’s thread.
I'm so over this food fascism.
Questions on the State attempting to change our diets
via the tax surveillance state - one of the most ruthless surveillance states
in our history - are not a matter of science (even if the science was certain,
which it's not: for example, the same people who would tax sugar would tax some
forms of fat which are good for us). These are questions of philosophy.
A tax on food choice is a tax on choice, period; it's an
atta(x)k on our individual freedom. I love Jamie, but I'm angry with him on
this one. And the author of this piece can jackboot herself off the scene too,
please.
One of the biggest threats to our liberty, in the
details of the minutiae of our lives, is wowserism. Every time you find
yourself about to voice an idea, or write an article, that would have the state
force an individual who is doing you no harm to live according to your own
(selfish) edicts … stop. Don't do it. Because you're being a prick.
And let me end on this point.
Jamie was aired on New Zealand TV over the last week: I
noticed he's much 'bigger' than he used to be, especially around his neck and
jowls.
I put it to Jamie one of the issues with his obvious
weight gain may be all the (lovely, sumptuous) pasta in his cookery books (and
his restaurants), which is fattening. So be careful going down this route,
Jamie, you don't end up on a hellishy boring diet, thus reduced quality of
life, served up on your own petard.
Proof?
Thin Jamie with chin:
Plump pasta’ed Up Jamie:
Addendum:
Further comments on this thread
& my reponse:
Well if you demand total freedom
of choice, the so be it. You can then also be responsible for the costs of the
consequences of your free choice, not the rest of your community. Is it not
reasonable for the community to encourage good behaviour for the benefit of all
of the community, especially the young?
A long range Dutch study proves the obese and
smokers cost public health systems less as they tend to die quickly, and
younger, whereas the lingering long lived - who still die - use health services
longer. So cost is not an argument for sugar taxes.
But yes, speaking as someone who eats healthily,
hasn't had a soft drink for over 30 years - but loves alcohol - and is the
correct weight for my height et al by application only of self-discipline,
let's privatise health so we cop the consequences of our choices. Obesity is at
the hands of Nanny State that breaks that vital link.
Though, bottom line - hang on, got to refill my
wine - I'm sick of the arrogant, and the self-anointed arbiters of my happiness
who would force me to live by their joyless dictum a long lived, sober, low
calorie life is somehow better than a happy one.
Related:
No comments:
Post a Comment