There’s an old joke which goes along the lines of: “I only ever made one mistake, when I thought I was wrong one day. But I wasn’t.”
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Unfortunately your scribe can’t subscribe to this as it seems he’s made another regarding the matter of sugar in soft drinks.
A clear case of premature acclamation.
Having previously praised Coca-Cola for announcing it was going to voluntarily reduce the level of sugar in its products, the fine print has now come to light.
First of all, the initial 10% reduction won’t occur until 2020, then another 10% by 2025.
Secondly, the reduction will be an average figure across the range, not a reduction in each type of drink.
Thirdly, there will be no change to the popular best-selling drinks like Coke: the average will be brought down by marketing new low-sugar drinks including bottled water.
Do you sense a con?
***************************
It is not just Coca-Cola: almost all the non-alcoholic beverage industry has signed up to this deal which was announced in the presence of the federal Health Minister who gave it unwarranted credibility by describing it as “the most significant change in food or beverage formulation in Australia.”
If it is, it mustn’t have much to beat!
Health experts and professionals have reportedly reacted with disbelief, describing the announcement as “a scam.”
They contend it will do nothing for childhood obesity, and perhaps the minister should have taken advice from them before giving the initiative such glowing support.
A more prudent minister might have done just that, but perhaps political donations got in the way.
These people believe it is merely a smokescreen to attempt to stave off the sugar tax that they have been campaigning for so vigorously.
However they are up against it as both major parties oppose it despite over 26 other countries imposing sugar taxes.
It may well have an adverse impact in sugar cane areas which would need addressing, but EXCESSIVE sugar is already having a measurable impact on people’s health and the nation’s health budget.
Which is the more important?
****************************
Another follow-up story concerns the fluoridation of town water supplies which is carried out by 67 local governments but not by the remaining 17.
Apparently the NSW minister has offered for the government to pay the installation costs for 9 of these water supplies but only 2 have accepted to date.
It seems unbelievable in this day and age that uninformed prejudices can be held up to oppose progress and advancement based on established scientific studies but, as the minister is quoted as saying, “Anti-fluoridation campaigners have the same genetic make-up as the anti-vaxxers.”
That says it all, really.
Despite his brave opinion, the minister has declined to force the issue, relying on persuasion and common sense to prevail.
Good luck with that.
Meanwhile another generation of children in those council areas will have avoidable dental problems which will affect them for life.
One would almost think that the anti-fluoridation campaign was being funded by the dental fraternity (but it’s not!)
****************************
Health seems to be the theme this week.
As Grenfell’s new health centre slowly takes shape, one person with a good view of progress is Dr Patrick from straight across the road.
In his native Botswana, Dr Patrick helped design and build an even larger medical centre which he operated for many years before relocating to Grenfell over 5 years ago.
One would think his experience should be valuable for council as the project comes to fruition.
****************************
While on health matters, your scribe would like to remind all readers that the old maternity cottage at the hospital is continuing to deteriorate. First in NSW, now they can’t wait for it to fall down.
****************************
Political donations often get a run in this column but it seems that the medical profession can give the pollies a good run for their money (quite literally!) in their particular field.
Drug companies have long been known to offer incentives to doctors to prescribe their particular drugs, and conducting workshops and conferences is a favoured method of getting the doctors’ attention.
An investigation by a Sydney newspaper has found that one single professional medical group accepted almost $1 million from pharmaceutical companies in 6 months last year, while the industry as a whole accepted over $16 million to conduct 1900 workshops, meetings and conferences in the same period.
You can hardly blame the doctors for taking advantage of all this largesse but some are worried that it may be creating biased medicine.
Apart from that, it would also be a reason why many drug prices are so high.
Obviously the profits are substantial , to go with the prices.
****************************
This column should appear on 4th July, widely and enthusiastically celebrated in the USA as Independence Day dating back almost two and a half centuries to 1776.
So this week’s dedication to all the Yankee-philes is the Neil Diamond patriotic song, “America.”
It does tend to make one wonder in 2018 when Australia will have its own independence day.
Feather Duster No 3
T Lobb
**************************
Letters for publication can be forwarded to ngaire.soley@fairfaxmedia.com.au or submitted via the Grenfell Record website at www.grenfellrecord.com.au, or the Record Facebook page at www.facebook.com/GrenfellRecord.
Please note that letters forwarded may be subject to editing.
