Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:51:39 PM
I just saw a news blurb about plans to regulate salt content, and I have to wonder why. I have followed the scientific research indifferently, but the last I heard, removing all added salt from one's diet would have a trivial impact on all but a few aberrant cases.Yet, despite the lack of scientific evidence that banning salt will help, the state is intervening.
Now, I know popular belief is that salt is a danger, and advertisers reinforce this to help sell "low salt" products. Just as they did with transfats, the government and the "health food" industry, as well as CSPI and their ilk, have latched on to early studies and decided they are the whole story, despite later, and more conclusive, research. And, as the public prefers scare stories to reports that everything is alright, the public has accepted the frightening headlines, making it easier for the state to engage in needless regulation.
Rather than go through the science, I will refer readers to my posts "
If
They Were Serious", "
Transfats?", "
Nerf
World", "
A
New Fairy Tale" and "
Bad
Economics
Part
1", as well as
junkscience.com, especially their publication "
False Alarm", detailing the many CSPI food scares, and the lack of science behind them. Basically, in a nutshell, in every case, the government decided, long after the science was clear, to go with popular prejudice rather than science, and ban or regulate in a manner which science would argue is completely pointless. On the other hand, I suppose I should be happy it is only causing our food to taste worse, perhaps harming the economy a bit, as the prototype for such decisions, the banning of DDT, has killed tens of millions. So, as far as pointless regulation goes, these or at least relatively harmless. Still, choosing to follow public prejudice rather than science seems a bad policy.
I am sure some, having read that line will think me hypocritical. Many times I have argued that the liberal philosophy is arrogant ("
How
the
Government
Corrupts
Relationships", "
Deadly
Cynicism", "
The
Citizen
Dichotomy", "
In
A Nutshell", "
Cognitive
Dissonance
Part
2", "
The
Right
Way", "
The
Danger
Inherent
in
Banning
"Bad
Ideas"", "
Contradictory
World
Views" ), forcing their ideas on the public,base don the idea they know better. So, should I not endorse a government which follows public opinion rather than forcing its ideas upon them?
But that is a false dichotomy, and demonstrates well why big government is so dangerous,m mainly because it creates such "either/or" decisions, where none should exist. Instead of deciding whether the state should force us all to follow public opinion or some scientific opinion, we should leave the state out of the question, with each individual deciding. In that way, the only person who would suffer the consequences, or enjoy the benefits, would be the one who made the choice.
But for some reason, that is unacceptable to many. Rather than allow free choice, with some making the wrong decision, they would force us all to "do the right thing", even if it means we may all sometimes be forced into error. ("
The
Inherent
Disappointment
of
Authoritarianism", "
Utopianism
and
Disaster", "
Life
Is
Not
Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse", "
The
Illogic of Sex Offender Registries and Preventive Detention Continues,
With a Technocrat Twist", "
Selling
Yourself Cheap") It is the real arrogant position, as it demands one imagine himself incapable of error.
As I cannot say that of myself, for me it seems best to leave decisions to each of us, so we may, collectively, eventually find our way to the truth. ("
Planning
For
Imperfection", "
Fairness
and
the Free Market", "
The
Triumph
of
Good", "
Greed
Versus
Evil")
POSTSCRIPT
For those skeptical of my claims about salt, allow me to quote from the document ("False Alarm") cited above:
It’s true that dietary salt may, in some salt-sensitive people, slightly increase their blood pressure, but it’s not clear that the increase leads to health effects or that restricting their intake of salt makes them any healthier.
Since 1995, 10 studies have reported on whether lower sodium diets produce health benefits. All 10 studies indicate that, among the general population, lower sodium diets don’t produce health benefits. In fact, not a single study has ever shown improved health outcomes for broad populations on reduced sodium diets.
In February 2004, a coalition of six Canadian medical groups rejected a recommendation for universal salt restriction, choosing instead to make lifestyle recommendations for reducing blood pressure such as exercising, eating a balanced diet, and stress management.
Granted, the author does have a clear agenda, and a definite point of view, but these facts can be confirmed, so biased author or not, the facts remain.