Organic Food ... A Tax on the Gullible!

Followers of my other blog will know that yesterday Lynne and I travelled to the Forest of Dean in search of some good old-fashioned spontaneous relaxation.

On the way home we pulled in to have a light meal and I was struck by a headline in the Sunday Times newspaper ... "Organic food is a tax on the gullible", written by a rather smug individual by the name of Dominic Lawson.

I got a wonderful response on Facebook regarding my previous post on this subject ... and it immediately became clear to me why I had waited an entire week to post again. I whizzed through the article as we ate, then surrupticiously nicked it for future reference. I can only hope I do this justice.

It's tough to know where to start with three columns of fine print brimming with potential.

Our Mr Lawson was of course referring to fallout received by nutritionist Alan Dangour who wrote a "peer-reviewed meta-study" (sounds important!) concluding that organically-grown food was not materially healthier than conventionally farmed produce.

What made this particularly unpalatable to some people was that this paper was funded by Britain's Food Standards Agency ... and therefore had a potentially enormous impact on prevailing sentiment. Not only that, mainstream media were crowing about this development as if God himself had spoken.

Apparently a storm of invective followed, only serving as proof (according to Lawson) that anyone outspoken in their disagreement with the findings of this particular study were now exposed as dissidents of the foulest order.

"They are cults masquerading as science rather like the creationists of America's Bible Belt ..." Lawson says. This after quoting NHS doctor Ben Goldacre "In my experience the (comments of the) organic food, anti-vaccine and homeopathy movements are unusually hateful and generally revolve around bizarre allegations that you covertly represent some financial or corporate interest".

The generalizations continue with quotes from French philosopher, Luc Ferry who infers that rhetoric against civilization is evidence of a broader "hatred" of humanity.

These must be the same evil people who advocate the occasional water fast, or who dare to suggest that pasteurized milk may not do a body good ... for more than just the obvious reasons.

Me thinks thou protesteth ...

Lawson goes on to state "The more rational among the organic movement long ago stopped claiming as scientific fact that their products are better for human beings". More semantic juggling ... "fact" is empirical, "better" is subjective. We get it, OK!

Apparently he deems himself somewhat of an expert in these things having nearly become "a fatal casualty of the organic movement" because he got sick from the spores of his wife's ill-fated pidgeon dropping organic vegetable garden (I kid you not!).

Regrettably, he contracted "atypical" pneumonia which was resistent to conventional medical intervention.

Oh, the terrible irony of it all. How his "gullible" (his word, not mine) wife must have got it in the neck!

Sorry ... it's a long and ponderous column, though well worth reading, if only for the rare insight it provides into the mentality of those among us that obviously do love humanity.

Our intrepid patient/journalist even goes on to conclude that pesticides must be safe otherwise how else would you explain research pointing to the comparative health of farmers relative to the rest of the population. Unassailable logic, don't you agree?

Finally, he rounds off his article by referring to the "organic balloon bursting" after making the point that common sense dictates "that diet, rather than whether food is produced 'organically' or not, is the key to healthy eating."

So that's it then folks ... conclusive evidence now in. Keep getting your nutrition from dairy, meat and plants grown in soils fortified by artificial nitrogen, phosporus and potassium.

Don't worry about chemical pesticides ... us humans are a hardy bunch (except when it comes to those dreaded, antibiotic-resistant bacteria in those "dirty" soils made by them hippies).

Have a nice day Mr Lawson.

Should Trans Fats Be Banned?

Well it's Friday again and now that my dad is an internet celebrity I would not dare miss this post!

Drum roll please ... as promised, here's the link to my new blog Follow Me Slim

Of course I will continue to post bi-weekly here as I really have become quite attached to Health Essentials and find that writer's block is never a problem for me.

I came across an article in Zest magazine recently on trans fats, the gist of which was an argument for continued, heightened lobbying of the UK government to ban trans fats. Apparently they are banned already in Denmark, Switzerland, New York, Boston and California.

For those of you who have been fast asleep, trans fats are chemically altered vegetable oils that are ubiquitous in processed biscuits, confectionery and fast foods. The devil of the fat world ... a shortcut to heart disease and a regular feature in many shopping carts.

Some high profile food manufacturers and retailers (including Tesco, M & S and McVitie's) have voluntarily removed them from their products, prompting the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to advise government last year that a ban was unecessary.

My position? I'm against banning anything that doesn't involve abuse of humans or other creatures. If segments of the British population want to eat themselves into an early grave, that's their perogative. No one's going to ban booze, which is every bit as harmful to people's health in the quantities most are imbibing ... and has the added bonus of causing offensive behaviour.

Then there's cigarettes, fumes from manufacturing, vehicle fumes, industrial chemicals, air fresheners, soft drinks ... should I go on?

Banning things is like dieting. It won't change the mentality of people any more than a magic bullet will teach people healthy consumption habits.

But we'll still keep looking.

World Gone Mad

In a recent interview with BBC radio 4's Adam Shaw, the founder of an international pizza chain suggested that pizza was a "healthy" and "nutritious" when consumed in moderation.

The gentleman in question was John Schnatter, founder of Papa John's Pizza ... who stated in all sincerity that " You can't eat five or six slices but if you eat one or two slices it's very nutritious."

Predictably Twitter, the blogosphere and traditional media went mad ... a blunder ... too honest ... monumental PR screw-up ... flash of PR genius ... what about the shareholders ...

Here's my two cents:

- Pizza in any quantity hardly qualifies as "healthy" or "nutritious" ... let's get that out of the way right up front.

- However, there's no denying the pshychological benefits of a few slices once in a while for those that crave it.

Now here's where it gets interesting.

- to accuse Mr Schnatter of being "too honest" or making a "gaffe" is just plain insulting to everyones' intelligence ... or is it?

- Other businesses are expected to lie to us on a daily basis and we accept it numbly ... so come on Mr Pizza Man ... don't you know it's prudent to lie?

- Does anyone with an IQ surpassing an amoeba honestly believe that sales would have spiked if the main man had said that eating a full pie was the way to go?

- So why then is this ridiculous expectation still touted as expedient?

- Isn't someone just a little bit tired of being spoon-fed all this drivel?

- Conversely, to suggest that his comment was "responsible" in view of his interests is pushing it.

- I think the response was savvy because it didn't paint him as a total hypocrit.

- Or maybe pizza could be nutritious and I haven't yet grasped the benefits of processed flour, loads of saturated fat and non-raw, non-organic dairy?

Perhaps the most scary thing for me is that so many people thought the comment was inappropriate because he was who he was. Maybe one day we'll evolve to the point where we actually respect candour unembellished by diplomacy or "dumb corporate robot disease"?

Not in my lifetime. God that's sad!

The UK Food Standards agency is talking to business owners about the feasibility of food chains displaying calorie numbers on menus.

I'm just speculating here ... but isn't the reason most people have no idea how to eat healthy because everyone and his dog is so fixated on calories?

While the message is a) weak ... and b) limited to "calories", "weight" and "diet" ... obesity will get worse, not better.

Of course, by then there'll be a pill one can take.