This one’s hard, not because I don’t have a lot to say but
because I am interested in bringing some new perspectives and it has pretty
much all been said. HoCoRising, specifically
did an epic job of putting my thoughts to words here
and here. I suppose I sit with two remaining thoughts
that have been covered to some degree but are worth reiterating.
The first revolves around the use of science in policy
making. I think mostly because of the
(policy) debates around anthropomorphic climate change and evolution it feels
like it is the political right that looks skeptically at science when it
doesn’t fit their existing value narrative.
We all do it though. Politically,
on the left, the obvious example is genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The science, thus far, says that they are not
currently dangerous and in fact has shown many ecological and nutritional
benefits.
This very much doesn’t fit my own personal narrative which
is to say, it’s a pretty bad idea to mess around with nature that way and with
big corporate money interests pushing the “progress” (not to mention buying of
the scientists) we probably have no real understanding of the true damage yet
to be revealed. As it stands, however,
the science is compelling and scientists mostly agree that there is no evidence
of ecological damage or human health risks.
The science isn’t as compelling or the consensus as strong as
anthropomorphic climate change but nevertheless if I ignore it, I am ignoring
sound peer reviewed science so as to fit my worldview.
Back to nutrition standards, I am frustrated with the science
here because it makes for, at best, mediocre politics. However, this proposal is good policy rooted
in strong science.[2] This brings me to my other point, which has
been made ad infinitum but certainly is worth a quick repeat. With this proposal, if you want to have
yourself a sugar-sweetened beverage on County property, go for it. FREEDOM.
‘MURICA. All that. Nothing stands in your way. It seems to me though that this initiative
is saying that the Government should not profit or supply things that make its
citizens unhealthy. I eat/drink and do
plenty of unhealthy things and would be outraged if any government tried to
prohibit me from doing them.
However, I also don’t dare
presume the same government should make any of those unhealthy choices readily
available.
One final word, this idea that the nutritional standards
bill is part of a big political strategy to make Executive Kittleman look like
he says no to everything or some other subversive purpose seems so completely
strange to me. I mean first of all
politics is politics and as political “schemes” go, introducing policy
initiatives to put another politician on the line to make decisions seems so
painfully softball that it’s hard to even articulate here. More importantly though, if Councilman Ball
is in fact doing this for purely political reasons and not because he believes
it’s good policy[3]
then he’s doing it wrong. Why would he
possibly introduce these things and force the Executive to vote a certain way 3
years (give or take) before anyone is actually paying attention?
[1] Title is Upton Sinclair quote, where he
talks about The Jungle and how he was trying to wake Americans up about the
working conditions and instead they passed food safety laws.
[2] One of
the few highlights of watching the hearing on the nutritional standards bill
from the comfort of my home was Dr. Appel confirming Councilman Fox’s assertion
that yes in fact University of Miami is a large institution. Of course by that point I was pretty thirsty
for a highlight.
[3] To
be perfectly clear, I have not talked to him in either my real or assumed
identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment