|
November 10, 2011
The Nanny State meme is a favourite of the News Ltd media, and it stands for an opposition to governmental policies of protectionism, economic interventionism, or strong regulation of economic, social, environmental and health. They have winner take all ethos, a political agenda, and they use their concentrated media power to push that agenda which includes destabilising the Gillard government.
One of the frequent targets of those on the right are the public health interventions to improve population health, especially those around cigarettes, gambling and adult and childhood obesity.
Gary Johns in Middle class should stop picking on poor, fat kids in The Australian states that the obesity crisis is a confected "crisis", as with gambling, smoking and drinking, where the middle class declares war on the underclass. He states that childhood obesity is apparently most prevalent in the lower classes (working class?) and more so among Aborigines, islanders and those from the Middle East.
Johns, to his credit, acknowledges that obesity is apparent and increasing, that it carries considerable health risks and costs, and that a core question is whether the cost of individual eating choices should be regarded as an individual or collective problem. He adds that the prevalence of obesity is not in dispute but its spread and policy responses are.
So what is his argument about those policy responses? It's not much:
For those on the Left of politics intervention comes easily. No doubt, they would be keen on a mandatory pre-commitment scheme where a child nominates the number of times each day they poke their head in the fridge. Or, maybe as part of income management, welfare recipients should receive fruit packages....The public health lobby presses for fat taxes and bans on junk food advertising. But these are ineffective and, besides, why should everyone have to suffer for the sake of the few? Preventive measures are justified only when there is strong evidence they pay for themselves... for society at large, labelling food or taxing selectively or banning advertising is a step too far.
Consumers don't need better information. Positive messages of good eating from teachers, doctors, nurses and an array of allied health workers, including nutritionists, will suffice.
Johns vaguely understands the social model of health, health inequity, and consumer control of health. He has a glimmer of understanding that this model means community control over the environmental influences of health, and that this is central to the shift required in the health system if real change is to occur. But he then resorts to mocking primary care and health prevention because ideology takes over: positive messages from government wont work but positive messages from health professionals will .
|
News Ltd goes on and on about a free and independent press standing up to, and questioning the government. They constantly say that the free press's brief is a to keep the other institutions honest and to facilitate popular democratic participation.
What is actually happening is that they've appropriated the language of the 'free press' to prevent reforms undertaken by the government of the day; to block shifts away from self regulation of the press; and to engage in political campaigns.