Annette’s mass medication programme
May 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am by David FarrarMy God. Labour in their dying days snuck through a regulation forcing bakers to plant a synthetic form of folic acid into every loaf made in NZ.
The plan aims to reduce the number of brain-damaged babies, although the fall may be a few as four a year.
But new research shows folic acid may cause an increase in colon cancer cases. And another study suggests it may cause colon cancer to grow faster.
The Bakers’ Association has labelled the compulsory introduction “mass medication” of the population, and warned that bread containing folic acid will be less safe than it is now.
This is like National Hospital’s unfortunate experiment – no informed consent for the test subjects.
The scheme was a favourite of former Health Minister Annette King but never went before Parliament. It was passed under special rules which do not allow the same level of public scrutiny.
The mandatory scheme was developed after it was decided the current scheme – in which specific brands are fortified with folic acid – was unsuccessful.
So the public didn’t choose the right sort of bread, so Labour passed a special law (regulation) to force everyone to have folic acid in their bread.
To me this is different to the flouridation debate, where the water supply is centralised. But at least with that debate, people can get their own water tank and supply. But this regulation will mean people have no choice to get bread without folic acid.
Bakers’ Association head Laurie Powell said it was difficult to address the issue because the industry did not want to put consumers off bread. “Our products are safe but probably not as safe with folic acid.”
He confirmed concerns about the scheme had led the association to ask the Government for legal indemnity.
“If it is found in 15 years’ time this stuff is bad and it causes health problems, we would be sued,” he said.
Powell was also concerned the industry could not regulate the amount of folic acid going into each individual loaf.
“It is a mass medication experiment that won’t work,” he said. “A trip to your baker should not be a trip to the pharmacy.”
The bakers have a point – they could get sued.
Authority officials confirmed pregnant women would not get enough folic acid from fortified bread and would still need to take supplements.
Which means the scheme may be counter-productive as it could mean women think they don’t need the supplements.
Related posts:
- Labour confirms support of compulsory mass medication
- More on Folic Acid in bread
- No mandatory folic acid in bread
- Armstrong on Folic Acid
May 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
To me this is different to the flouridation debate, where the water supply is centralised. But at least with that debate, people can get their own water tank and supply. But this regulation will mean people have no choice to get bread without folic acid.
No difference at all. Just as people could get a water tank, there is nothing to stop people baking their own bread. Unlike Australia where the folic acid is added to the flour, in NZ it will be added during the baking process. It will not be added to organic and non yeast breads, so further choices to avoiddd it.
And just like folate in bread, fluoride is added at the wrong place. The kids who need fluoride the most would benefit most if it was added to Coke, not water.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I agree this should have gone to parliament to be discussed
Vote:Actually any major change to New Zealanders health and Governance should be thoroughly debated in parliament
this doesn’t seem to be happening at the moment which is a big shame
What annoys me is the bloody partisan nature of discourse
as an example The in Auckland 8 councilscan be effectively ruled for the next 18 months by just one man
that is 1.4 million people. Where are the howls of outrage?
So yes the additives in bread should have been widely debated and had input from the public along with of other things that have big affect on NZ ers
May 17th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Which also raises another question – why are the National Socialists asleep at the wheel, yet again? Or do they agree with this? A simple regulation can be changed, simply.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:22 am
The Greens have been opposing this proposal for the last 3 years, but until now hardly anyone seemed to want to listen.
I hope the current Government revokes it quick smart.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:23 am
“And just like folate in bread, fluoride is added at the wrong place. The kids who need fluoride the most would benefit most if it was added to Coke, not water.”
I presume this is an attempt at humour. Coke will be detrimental to teeth regardless of the amount of fluoride added to it. It would be foolish to encourage further consumption by giving coke an alleged benefit toward dental hygine.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
@Billyborker: “No difference at all. Just as people could get a water tank, there is nothing to stop people baking their own bread. Unlike Australia where the folic acid is added to the flour, in NZ it will be added during the baking process.”
I think the point is that when there’s a centralized, public supply, as with water, it’s impossible for those who want fluoridation to have it without forcing it on everyone else. With bread, the market will provide folic acid for those wanting it without the need for government to make a decision binding on everyone.
[DPF: Exactly]
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Bullshit from the Bakers Assn. Aussie have been adding since I did my apprenticeship and before. Over 40 years by my rough calc.
They are an industry dying for their own need to innovate and compete with other food sources. Principally because one Multi National baker refused to participate in marketing efforts to increase the purchase of bread and bread products into the average person menu, way back in the late 60′s. Now neither do and now both have become slaves to the supermarket moguls.
Won’t be long and Woollies will own one lot as they are doing with the beer. Buying their own breweries in Aust. Petrol, veges,
bread, coke, beer, wine, all the top selling lines.
And the rest they will screw suppliers for.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Shut up you dumbarses. Gummint knows what’s good for you. Why the fuck haven’t you learned that by now??
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I get my folic acid from eating properly.
I don’t need any more folic acid, thanks.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:42 am
The Greens (or any other party) now have an oppurtunity to get this regulation struck out. If an MP (say Sue Kedgley)lodges a motion seeking this, Parliament either has to debate the issue or it will be revoked after a certain period of time.
I recall Richard Worth did this once back in 2001 with some regulations, but I can’t find the details.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:51 am
So I’m open on the substantive question here – if new research shows the benefits of adding folic acid are illusory or counterbalanced by significant costs, then I’m for repealing the regulation. But DPF, as is becoming distressingly common, leaps to completely overblown conclusions way too fast. He isn’t right once. DPF claims:
1. This is like the Unfortunate Experiment
That is a ridiculous comparison. By that token, putting fluoride in our water or iodine in our salt is also like the Unfortunate Experiment. Two important points about that experiment that differ from all those cases are that (1) The Experiment doctors didn’t follow the legal protocols for doing what they were doing, and (2) he didn’t tell the subjects. In all these nutrition cases, by contrast, legal process was followed and people informed (see the NZFSA website for notifications etc here: http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/processed-food-retail-sale/bakery-products/mandatory-user-guide/page.htm ). Truth 1, DPF 0
2. This situation is worse than the compulsory fluoride in water thing
No it isn’t. First, following billyborker’s point, baking your own bread is a hell of a lot easier than installing a water tank. You can even buy a bread maker to do it for you. Amazing! And second, any bread that qualifies as organic is exempt from the rule (again, see NZFSA webpage linked above), so you don’t even need to bake anything to avoid the folic acid if you want. Truth 2, DPF 0
3. The bakers might get sued.
This one is trivially true, just as DPF could sue me, if he wanted, on account that I am a leftie. But who cares? That doesn’t mean DPF would win, and neither would anyone suing the bakers. “The government made it illegal for me not to do X” is a pretty good defense against the charge “Hey, you did X!” (Sidebar: Please, please one of you crazies compare this to Nazi trials. You know you want to. That would be super.) Truth 3, DPF 0
4. This might convince women not to take dietary supplements.
Well to be fair this one is supposition on all sides because it has never been tested. But by this argument the introduction of fluoridated water would have been the death of fluoridated toothpaste, and iodized salt would have killed iodine tablets. Is this true? I don’t know, but I don’t think so, and I bet DPF doesn’t know either.
Final score: Truth 3, DPF 0
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am
BradTaylor(1) Vote: 2 1 Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
@Billyborker: “No difference at all. Just as people could get a water tank, there is nothing to stop people baking their own bread. Unlike Australia where the folic acid is added to the flour, in NZ it will be added during the baking process.”
I think the point is that when there’s a centralized, public supply, as with water, it’s impossible for those who want fluoridation to have it without forcing it on everyone else. With bread, the market will provide folic acid for those wanting it without the need for government to make a decision binding on everyone.
[DPF: Exactly]
Assuming, that is, that the only way to obtain fluoride is via the water supply. And it isn’t. Those who wanted fluoride have other options, such as fluoride toothpaste or tablets. No need to force the rest of us to consume it in our water.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Correct, billyborker. There is no difference at all. In both cases it is mass medication with the consumer being denied choice.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
1. Dont care.
2. Brad Taylors response.
3. They COULD be part of a class action.
4. It is a valid concern and it doesnt need the shti to already have hit the fan to be so.
Check your score.
A. The Labour government once again passed a law secretly with no intent of allowing proper public consultation for no good reason.
B. Any conclusions jumped to now are a result of Labour’s arrogance
C. A law, that may very well be worthwhile, has a much higher bar to pass because in their last term Labour decided to abandon democracy.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I see frog’s entered the fray on this issue too.
Kimble said: …because in their last term Labour decided to abandon democracy.
I’d be a bit quieter on that one today if I were you Kimble, given that the Government has just rammed through the anti-democratic Auckland local government restructuring Bill without consultation, opportunity for submission, or people in the Auckland region having a poll on it.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Fortunately, the role of government is whatever the government decides it is.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Bottom line is this: Government has no business regulating my diet.
For once, I agree with Toad, which is surprising given that ‘giving consumers the choice’ has never been part of Green party policy before.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“Assuming, that is, that the only way to obtain fluoride is via the water supply. And it isn’t. Those who wanted fluoride have other options, such as fluoride toothpaste or tablets. No need to force the rest of us to consume it in our water.”
Of course you can get flouride from other sources. The difference is that the propostion ‘for me to automatically get additive X whenever I consume good A, government must regulate’ is true when A=water, false when A=bread. I’m not defending fluoridization, but surely you recognize the difference.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
If there’s anyone who needs medicating, it’s Annette King.
Stupid woman.
They did the same thing with putting iodine into salt, although that probably wasn’t as harmful.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Christopher, there is a big difference between setting energy efficiency standards (which result in some products being taken off the market becasue they don’t meet those standards, but still gives consumers the right to choose from among those that do) and forcing people to eat mass-medicated bread, with the only choice being making their own.
I can’t imagine you think we should still have the choice of using lead-based house paint or installing asbestos ceilings. Or do you?
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
This will give King another opportunity to try her hand at a comedy blog post, like the one she did about motorways and crime that she did earlier in the week.
Oh how we’ll all laugh…
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
The MSM, specifically the NZ Herald, is late on the job with the folic acid and bread story. We worked it over in Kiwiblog’s General Debate thread on March 31.
The Herald has also overlooked that, as well as increasing risk of colon cancer, a further study suggests folic acid in bread may double men’s chances of developing prostate cancer.
I quote from an Internet clip:”A study led by researchers at the University of Southern California found that men who took a daily folic acid supplement of 1 mg had more than twice the risk of prostate cancer compared with men who took a placebo. The results appear in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. he finding came from a secondary analysis of the Aspirin/Folate Polyp Prevention Study. The AFPP study was conducted between 1994 and 2006 and found that aspirin reduced the risk of colon polyps, while folic acid had a negative effect and increased the risk of advanced and multiple polyps. In the secondary analysis, researchers looked at prostate cancer incidence among 643 men who were randomly assigned to 1 mg daily folic acid supplements or placebo in the AFPP study and who enrolled in an extended follow-up study. The estimated prostate cancer risk was 9.7% at 10 years in men assigned to folate, compared with 3.3% in men assigned to placebo.”
The answer is obviously voluntary taking of folic supplements by pregnant women who need them.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
In a proper country with no public healthcare system, then yes I certainly do thing we should still have the choice of using those products.
Of course, in reality, we live in an unfortunately backward country which requires productive individuals to pay for the poor health of others, meaning that the banning of asbestos and other harmful products is sensible.
The answer is to remove public healthcare, not ban the products.
I pay for the power, I have the right to choose which lightbulbs I want. That’s using regulation to remove my fundamental right to buy anything which someone wants to sell me (providing that they have a legitimate property right in the good being sold, of course).
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
“…setting energy efficiency standards (which result in some products being taken off the market becasue they don’t meet those standards, but still gives consumers the right to choose from among those that do…”
So as long as the consumer has at least TWO products to choose from, consumer choice hasnt been infringed?
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“The bakers could get sued”
Wrong David, this would be a healthcare intervention, and hence covered under under ACC. The only avenue to sue would be gross negligence for instance putting in 10 times the amount, or emotional harm, both effectively a no-show. Also compare this with the main cause of leaky buildings, failing cladding systems over untreated timber, everything as per government institute approved specification. Yet the institute responsible was rapidly terminated when the sh*t hit the fan, and the Courts refuse to acknowledge that line of attack. All attempts to sue govt departments fail anyway, even where gross negligence is involved, wait and see what happens with the Susan Couch case.
One can argue that the govt may regulate for instance product descriptions, and ban harmful substances in food products (like melamine), but it is way out of line for a government to effectively force people to take some medication. Next step is a mild sedative, so the citizens stop to cause too much hassle….
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I disagree with DPFs suggestion that it is easier for people to choose not to have fluoridated water than to not have folated bread. It is much harder to get ones own water supply than to make ones own bread.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Notice how the FOL (Friend of Labour) are trying to deflect the heat from King by comparing to fluoridation her mad desire to put NZers at risk from colon cancer and Kiwi men from prostate cancer by forced inclusion of folate in bread?
No Government is trying to force national fluoridation of water that I’m aware of.
Don’t let the Lefties hijack the folate topic. Have you noticed how many layabout Lefties have drifted into Kiwiblog in the last week or two? Even T. Mallard. Even Russell Brown, usually known to us as the Hector the Lecturer face giving us moral guidance on State paid television adverts.
Could it be the FOL is preparing for a Dunkirk defence ahead of the release or non-release of police findings or non-findings on the stolen Brash emails?
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
We want your DNA.
We’d like your cell phone number too, I wonder how we can get that? Hmm I know, let put the idea out there as a good idea to get people to vote, the righties will fall for it.
I doubt that this regulation will be changed (I wonder how poor the science is that labour based the folate regulation on? Pretty poor I’d imagine. Governments don’t do science very well).
The whole idea of “the gummit knows best” sits quite well with National too.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Well Colin, at 11:19 I did say “Which also raises another question – why are the National Socialists asleep at the wheel, yet again? Or do they agree with this? A simple regulation can be changed, simply.”
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Kimble – I’ll raise your “don’t care” about part of my post with a “don’t care” about all of yours. When you go around saying that Labour passed a law secretly and that they didn’t pass a law at all in the same post, then you deserve to be ignored. You also get ignored when you make dumb claims like “Labour abandoned democracy” (show me the evidence of that in the democracy ratings…)
Jack5 – I think you’ll find it was DPF who made the initial comparison with flouridation, not anyone else. Also, if you’re going to criticise people for bringing in irrelevant material, then you probably shouldn’t start in on the Brash emails during a discussion of folic acid!
Christopher – Good for you for sticking to your principles, silly as they are. At least you have an ethos. By the way, I live in a country with a more privatised health system and guess what – people are sicker and die earlier, compared to similarly wealthy countries with more publicly funded healthcare. Hooray for privatised health care?
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Rob Salmond posted at 2.24: “… the way, I live in a country with a more privatised health system and guess what – people are sicker and die earlier, compared to similarly wealthy countries with more publicly funded healthcare.”
Hey Rob, out of interest, which country are in you please? And just how privatised is it? Is a federalised system or a national system? How do you pay for the public part of the system?
AND! Does your country put folic acid or similar into your bread?
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I don’t know – why not just encourage pregnant women to eat more meat.
Big Macs – unfortified, are a fairly good source of natural folic acid. Chicken pate is an even better one.
Let pale washed out pregnant vegetarian womin buy their own folic acid supplements rather than dose the whole population.
In truth the science linking neural tube defects to low dietary folic acid isn’t even definitive – just suggestive but that is enough for some people to go off the deep end.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
In reply to Jack’s questions:
I live in the US. The public hospitals, such as they are, are mainly run at the County level but funded from all sorts of places. Medicare (for the elderly) and medicaid (for the poor) are federal programs that pay for some of that system. Other programs run at the State and County levels. All the public and private programs combined cost USD7,026 per person, or 15% of GDP. That is 66% more (in PPP dollars) than New Zealand spends, and is higher than every other advanced democracy. Yet with all that spending, the US is only ranked 30th in the UN for life expectancy, and 32nd in the world for infant mortality.
And I do not know about the folic acid situation here, I am sorry to say.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Good old Rob, rushing in to defend the actions of the “state” under Comrade Clark.
How dare we criticise, how dare we question, don’t we know that the “state” knows better than us.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
williamporker … since you bring up the question of National Socialism it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves the according to the tenants of that twisted ideology and as espoused in Germany it was ‘the Government (meaning me, Hitler) knows what’s best for you’.
Meanwhile in New Zealand for the last nine long years it was ‘the Government (meaning me, H1) knows what’s best for you’.
Spot the difference. I can’t.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
big bruv – You may not have noticed, but I specifically said I was undecided on the question of folic acid in bread. Never mind – keep running your lines, maybe one day they will be true.
And a huge hooray for Ross Miller for running the “Helen Clark = Adolf Hitler” argument. Ross: Look up Godwin’s Law. You just lost.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Christopher,
“The answer is to remove public healthcare, not ban the products.”
So, just to get this straight, in order to uphold your individual, “fundamental right” to buy lead-based paint, the rest of us are not allowed to collectively choose to allocate healthcare through a publicly funded system of rationing? Gosh, and us lefties get accused of being dictatorial!
On the actual issue DPF raises, there’s good evidence that adding folic acid is a very, very good thing for pre-natal babies:
“An overwhelming body of evidence for a protective effect of periconceptional folic acid supplementation against neural tube defects (NTDs) led to mandatory folic acid fortification in the United States. The effectiveness of folic acid fortification in improving folate status has already been shown to be quite striking, with a dramatic increase in blood measurements of folate in the United States. Preliminary reports also suggest a significant reduction ({approx}15–50%) in NTDs in the United States. The success of folic acid fortification in improving folate status and in reducing NTD rates is truly a public health triumph and provides a paradigm of collaboration between science and public health policy.”
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/5/1123
The question then is, are there offsetting public health risks that may counter-act this undoubted good consequence? Here the data is as yet inconclusive – there is some evidence that quite high doses of folic acid (far higher than you’d get from eating the bread with folic acid added) is linked to increased colon and prostate cancers:
http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20090310/folic-acid-may-raise-prostate-cancer-risk
But there is no evidence (as yet) of a general folic acid/cancer link (as is the case with, say, dioxin, where there is no safe level of exposure).
So why not just wait for that evidence to come in, or make the scheme voluntary? It appears it is the fault of the Aussies, and the transtasman agreement we have to harmonise our food additive regulations.
“Both countries are subject to the transtasman Food Standards Australia New Zealand agency, which led compulsory introduction in both countries.
Wilkinson is the sole New Zealand minister on the group that runs the agency.
Briefing papers supplied to her before a meeting with supermarket and bakers’ representatives last month warn that pulling out of the scheme “would be likely to have an undesirable effect on the Australia and New Zealand relationship”.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10572764&pnum=2
Question for kiwibloggers – which is better … a free-trade/open borders arrangement with Australia (our most important market, crucial to pulling us back into the top half of the OECD, etc etc), or keeping the folic acid out of your bread?
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Rob,
“And I do not know about the folic acid situation [in the USA], I am sorry to say.”
http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/chemicals-nutrients-additives-and-toxins/folate/index.htm
“In the USA and Canada, mandatory folic acid fortification of flour since 1998 has successfully reduced the number of babies born with a neural tube defect. Australia, like New Zealand, introduced fortification with folic acid in 2007, requiring most bread to contain folic acid by September 2009.”
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Thanks AG – Good to know.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Rob Salmond>Yet with all that spending, the US is only ranked 30th in the UN for life expectancy, and 32nd in the world for infant mortality.
As with a lot of US-related statistics (such as literacy), this is mostly due to having a large immigrant population. If they weren’t such a magnet for immigrants, legal and illegal, from places like Mexico, then their statistics would look a lot better.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Yeah, you must have real good health Rob, or you wouldn’t dare live in the US would you. You’d go somewhere like the UK, or Sweden right. Socialized medicine. That’s what you want isn’t it. To take all our choices until we don’t have one remaining.
But wait-
A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, “Delay, Denial and Dilution,” written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the UK NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world.
The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now “waiting lists” for the waiting list.
Well, hell, I’m sure that’s only a temporary thing Rob. What’s say we give another of your commie basket case outfits a go- Canada;
But wait again- Canada’s government system isn’t that different from Britain’s.
For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks.
Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless.
Canadians have an option the UK citizens don’t: close proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in that country.
Hell then, lets try Sweden. The epitome of the sharing caring society, they type that Rob and his brain dead commie ilk would love to see here in NZ-
Oh oh- no good news there either. Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden’s problems in “Lesson from Sweden’s Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt,” published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008).
Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor’s request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.
Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden’s third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full.
Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden’s National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography.
Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, “In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views. New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem that brings increased costs and disturbances in today’s slimmed-down health care.”
Of course none of this will deter Rob and his ilk, whose true motivation is not compassion for the sick or the quality or costs of health care, but for government control of a huge section of NZ’s economy.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I heard on the radio that the government is not sounding too keen on the folic acid supplement situ, so don’t be surprised if Labour’s law change is reversed.
Anyway, if the issue is folic acid to prevent birth defects, why not just offer folic acid supplements to pregnant women, rather than mass-medicating the rest of us? This seems to be the key difference between folic acid and iodine in salt or flouride in water. At least in the latter cases, the additives can be seen to be preventative to very general and serious problems in the population. In the case of folic acid, the masses are being medicated to prevent a very small number of problems.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Nice try, davidp. But I think you mean, “As with a lot of US-related statistics (such as literacy), this is mostly due to having a large black population that suffers disproportionately high levels of deprivation.” So, in 2005 (after the last census), the death rate per 100,000 people for whites was 785.3, for all other races was 850.2, while for blacks it was 1,016.5.
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Age%20adjusted%20death%20rates%20for%20113%20selected%20causes%20by%20race%20and%20sex%202005.html
Black people are overwhelmingly poor, poor people do very poorly under the US system of health care, so black people die in far larger numbers (and at a far earlier age).
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
davidp – While I agree with AG’s point about the dreadful treatment of the US’s African-American population, high immigration levels may indeed be a small part of the issue. Bear in mind, however, that according to the UN, the British immigrant population is almost as high as the US’s, and with plenty of those coming from countries at least as poor as Mexico. But Britain, with a mainly public healthcare system, has a life expectancy about seven months longer than the US. Germany also has immigration levels around the same as the US, but – again with a strong public healthcare system, has longer life expectancy by almost a year.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
You’re killing them with welfare AGatha. You trade their lives for leftist power.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
reddy,
I don’t understand your post. The question is not “does publicly funded health care provide perfect care to every patient suffering from every health need?” Outside of medical drama like “House” or “ER” (which are not real, in case you’re confused), such systems do not exist. What we have are systems attempting to ration access to various health treatments to persons suffering a multitude of different ills, in a situation with limited resources.
So when you say things like: “Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now “waiting lists” for the waiting list.”, my answer is “so what?” Unless a country pumps an ever increasing amount of its GDP into healthcare provision, THERE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH FOR ALL THOSE WHO WANT IT. This is a reality of an aging population (increased demand both in terms of numbers of people and the fact thatold people require more treatment)/increasing innovation (more can be done than could in the pasr)/increasing costs (the stuff that can be done now often costs more).
The question then is, do publicly-funded systems do a better or a worse job of allocating healthcare to those who need it than do countries that use a private-funding system? Here you say nothing at all. So I’ll counter your “horror stories from the front line of socialised medicine” with this one:
“Several years ago, my son (16 at the time) got stepped on by a horse. I took him to thte doctor, got x-rays and was told his foot was bruised, no breaks. He tried to walk on it for about a year, but he walked with his leg twisted around and was in constant pain. Then he fell off the barn landed on the same foot. Took him in again, more x-rays. Bruised again. This time when he did not heal I called the Doctor and demanded a second opinion. The nurse told me “his foot is not broken”. I told her I wanted a second opinion from someone ELSE. And I did not care if his foot was broke or not. He was in pain and it was not healing. It took another two 0months to get a referral. When I got him to a new Doctor. We found out his foot had been broken BOTH times. He had walked on this broken foot so long it damaged his ligaments and he had suffered nerve damage to his feet. He was put in a cast for 12 weeks to try to straighten his leg so he did not walk with his foot twisted sideways. He wsa suuposed to get surgery, but that doctor knew that my insurance on my son was running out at the end of the year and refused to operate on him because my insurance would not cover the after care. Consequently my 18 year old son was told he would be in constant pain for the rest of his life and he might as well get used to it. A doctor told him this.”
There we are – proof positive private health provision is a failure. Right? Because one-off stories and experiences are all that’s needed to win an argument. Right?
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I was going to reply to redbaiter the say way AG did, but AG beat me to it. I agree with AG.
Props, however, to redbaiter for doing something approaching research for once. Just a pity he retains the crazy mindset that supporters of people who made sure the 5th free-est economy in the world stayed the 5th free-est economy in the world are a bunch of “commies.”
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Don’t come all sanctimonious with me AGatha. I’m not one of your brain dead mis-educated cronies and gormless propaganda fed suckholes. I know what is going on.
The fact is the left create welfare ghettos because they need the votes. Without poor to leach off, they’d never win power.
These ghettos, generated by the left in their thirst to crush any aspiration any man might have for a better life, are where the people who need health care live because leftist policies force them into a life that makes them more prone to disease- diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity.
The left fails to educate them. Sending them to failing public schools that teach them how to be socialists and nothing else. So they do not have the skills to move out of the ghettos.
The left forces upon them a life so devoid of hope they turn to drugs and self medication, a device that kills them by the thousands.
The left, again for the sake of political power, creates the them and us mentality that is yet another barrier to their social advancement.
Fact is AGatha. If you plague of power obsessed brain fucked leftists ever vapourised yourself, health care and the circumstances of every human being, north south east and west,would greatly improve soon after. You are uncivilized uncouth barbarians who are a millstone around the neck of civilization, and the worst disaster to afflict the globe since the Third Reich.
You don’t care about health or the death rates of blacks. You care for nothing but political power.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Redbaiter: “You are uncivilized uncouth barbarians who are a millstone around the neck of civilization, and the worst disaster to afflict the globe since the Third Reich.”
Me: And a big hooray to you for the Nazi comparison. Like Ross Miller, you should look up Godwin’s law. You, like Ross, just lost.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Yes, yes reddy.
Challenged to come up with some facts to back up a claim (“private health care provision is better than public”), you lapse into your usual ideological rant. And there I was, thinking – no, hoping and praying – we might even have a conversation of sorts …
Just a quick question, though. This brilliant plan to keep people poor so they’ll vote us into power. Given that poor people have a much lower turnout rate than non-poor, isn’t it a bit self defeating? Not to mention “forc[ing] upon them a life so devoid of hope they turn to drugs and self medication, a device that kills them by the thousands.” Killing off your own voters seems really dumb to me. I’m surprised we’ve done so well for so long! Must be the lack of any sort of credible alternative.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
AG>Black people are overwhelmingly poor, poor people do very poorly under the US system of health care, so black people die in far larger numbers (and at a far earlier age).
The stats you link to show that black males are murdered at seven times the rate of white males. But black females are only murdered at three times the rate of white females. If you consider murder as being due to poverty, then you’d expect both ratios to be about the same.
Similarly, black males die from HIV-related causes at eight times the rate of white males. But black females die from the same cause at a rate 15 times that of white females. If you consider death by HIV as being due to poverty, then you’d also expect both ratios to be about the same.
But what I think we’re seeing with these two statistics is not particularly poverty related, but due to cultural and lifestyle choices. If you corrected for differences in alcohol, tobacco, and other drug consumption (as well as unprotected sex with multiple partners and inter-community violence) then a lot of the differences in death rates between whites and blacks would go away.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
“You, like Ross, just lost.”
Maybe you can tell me of another instance where those competing can also declare themselves the winner.
There’s always an objective umpire.
See what I mean?
I try not to go overboard on how dumb you people are, but you make it so damn hard.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
“Killing off your own voters seems really dumb to me.”
Well, enough said right?
Of course, after you have succeeded in your great levelling exercise, everyone is poor.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
davidp.
True. My claim was too simplistic. The interweaving of culture/economics/history that would be needed to explain the current plight of black males is way beyond me to provide. So I stand corrected on it.
I guess my broader point was that the USA’s (comparatively) poor performance in social statistics (like the average age of death) can’t just be because it gets waves of immigrants into the country … there’s some pretty entrenched and important factors that are endemic to it as a society.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
reddy
“There’s always an objective umpire.”
And Rob pointed to it – according to Godwin’s law, your hackneyed reference to the Nazis labels you the loser, because it shows you’ve run out of sensible things to say. If you dispute that as the appropriate test, feel free to do so.
Further, if we’re so dumb, why do we keep on winning, and why can’t you do anything about it? Are we just the dumb and dumber show??
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Why is it Agatha, that every exchange I ever have with you ends in my utter boredom?
Yawnn… zzzzz.. snore…
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I guess the predictability of your craven collapse in the face of any sort of intelligent challenge DOES become a little same-old-same-old. Maybe you could liven things up for once by, you know, drawing upon some facts in a logical manner to craft an argument? Just a suggestion – you don’t need to try it if you think it’s a bit beyond you yet.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I think Red’s been using too much of the nasally delivered viagra. It was designed for dickheads…
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Worthless subjective crap AG. Not e
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
ven worth responding to other than to express my puzzlement at your apparent compulsion to write something so worthless.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Redbaiter said: There’s always an objective umpire.
Yeah, and his name is Peter Plumley-Walker!
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
AG: “So, just to get this straight, in order to uphold your individual, “fundamental right” to buy lead-based paint, the rest of us are not allowed to collectively choose to allocate healthcare through a publicly funded system of rationing? Gosh, and us lefties get accused of being dictatorial.”
In a free market,private health system the “rest of us” can organise to setup whatever collective arrangment we like…but not force others via the States gun to fund it or participate.Thats what we have now….a one size fits all facist set up that groans along killing many within its web by ineptitude and under resourcsing.
Open up the healthcare area and lets see what competition in an free market can do…..if you are so sure of the superitory of your State monopoly then whats the problem?
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Oops, perhaps my last comment should have been on the Rankin thread.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
“Open up the healthcare area and lets see what competition in an free market can do…..if you are so sure of the superitory of your State monopoly then whats the problem?”
Errr … you are stopped from buying private health insurance by what, exactly?
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
if you are so sure of the superitory of your State monopoly then whats the problem?
What state monopoly?
I visit a GP in private practice.
I buy my drugs from a privately owned pharmacy.
IF I was so inclined, I could also seek treatment from a bunch of other private practitioners in areas such as herbalism, homeopathy, reiki, etc.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Andrei,
Where do you get your information about Big Macs being a good source of folic acid?
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Get with it Salmond, the rule says “The first person to mention “Godwins law” loses all net credibility” You just lost the lot, not that in this case you had a lot to lose. Of course, young billy the Borker with his “national socialist” laugh-a-minute style could have drawn your ire as well, quite telling that it doesn’t.
Back to Folate, classic command and control issue. You there, yes you, you won’t take your medicine ? Bad person, as punishment, ALL of you must take the medicine. What, you claim it will make you sick, don’t be foolish, WE know best, do what you’re told.
Folate is useful for pregnant women, and has no positives and some negatives for everyone else in the population. Folate levels are usually more than adequate for people on a “normal” healthy diet. Why in the hell would any sane person think this was a
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
hmm so I wonder what the pseudo-libertarians in office will do? considering they dont appear to be as extreme as you lot.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Plus why dont you quit whining about government and maybe check the journals yourself…
Heres an interesting article – it examines 6 different countries respective folic-acid programmes/policies.
Lawrence MA et al (2009) Examination of selected national policies towards mandatory folic acid fortification. Nutrition Reviews vol 67 (1) S73-S78
or are you too blinded by ideology? The one that continues to discredit science and research.
Vote:- You’ll find that this article looks at the good and bad of the folic acid policies.
May 17th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
“You also get ignored when you make dumb claims like “Labour abandoned democracy” (show me the evidence of that in the democracy ratings…)”
Your appeal to some form of foreign authority is a waste of time. I dont care who determines the “democracy ratings” and I dont need some silly scoring system to confirm what i have seen with my own two eyes.
I do know that Labours efforts through the EFA to restrict democratic involvement of a big swathe of the population is probably the biggest step away from democracy that New Zealand has ever taken. They passed laws under urgency, when nothing was really urgent. They maintained corrupt politicians to keep their slimy grasp on power.
If Helen Clark could have, she would have declared herself President for life.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Have you been living under a rock since the election Kimble?
Seen any laws passed under urgency recently? open ur eyes, spare us that blind drivel.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Usual off topic tosh then folks. Public private yawn.
“But new research shows folic acid may cause an increase in colon cancer cases. And another study suggests it may cause colon cancer to grow faster.”
I’d like the references. The first study I suspect you are referring was not able to demonstrate a link between folate use and colon cancer protection at double the recommended dose. I cannot find the second source but would be eager to critique it.
By way of contrast the reference below shows an increase colon cancer risk in folate deficiency.
Journal reference:
1. Duthie et al. The Response of Human Colonocytes to Folate Deficiency in Vitro: Functional and Proteomic Analyses. Journal of Proteome Research, 2008; 7 (8): 3254 DOI: 10.1021/pr700751y
Oh DPF – You have a proclivity to label any public health effort akin to the “Unfortunate Experiment”. Not only does this reflect your lack of knowledge in the area which feeds your need to sensationalise subjects like many a newsprint whore but it is depressingly boring.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
thehawkreturns,
na you dont get it… these jokers dont read scientific things. They just spout out their ideological crap all day.
Someone – Told them – that a paper said – that itll give you Colon cancer!! run for the hills.
Vote:May 17th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Someone – Told them – that a paper said – that itll give you Colon cancer!! run for the hills.
Vote:Right, with a nice incandescent lightbulb up your bum to keep the crypto-sodo-socialists out. I know light bulbs was so last year, but you can’t be too careful.
May 18th, 2009 at 12:15 am
“But new research shows folic acid may cause an increase in colon cancer cases. And another study suggests it may cause colon cancer to grow faster.”
Actually it doesn’t show that. Bit of background: in NZ we have a low amount of folate in our diet – 250 mcg when the recommended amount daily is 400 mcg. This does pose the question that if a policy is introduced to increase this by adding to bread (much as you get products with added vitamin C or oxidants voluntarily on sale) that this would be an easy strategy to raise the overall levels which could also help catch the at risk groups in the population that actually need the supplement.
There has been increasing interest in investigating whether increased supplementation above the amounts generally thought necessary in the diet would increase health benefits of a nutrient. In these studies, like the folic acid/prostate they supplemented with much more that 400 mcg – actually at 1 mg and then you could add in whatever the person took in with diet on top of that. With the bowel cancer what was being looked at was polyps which may become cancerous, and again in the context of supplementation way above what is needed in the diet. There was increased growth. All this really says to me is that more is not better, not that fortifying foods to get nearer the recommended amount is going to cause health problems. There doesn’t appear to be a health risk at normal levels or below that I’ve been able to find. Further folate is the natural form of the B vitamin, folic acid is the synthetic. In this case, it’s actually the synthetic that is absorbed some 50% or more better due to folate having a more complex structure which must be broken down and absorbed before being used by the body.
I’m fairly agnostic about whether they do it or not, but either way supplementation is required for some groups and it seems that we could all do with increasing average intake of this nutrient.
Vote:May 18th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Is everyone aware that the previous Government also did this with iodised salt? Leanne Dalziel said this:
“Bread manufacturers have until September 2009 to switch to using iodised salt. That gives them time to make changes to manufacturing and labelling and it will allow the salt industry time to increase the production of iodised salt.”
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/feature/mandatory+iodine+fortification
The thing that most annoys me is that the reason people ended up getting less iodine is the government pushing propaganda against salt. People ate less salt – therefore less iodine and the government has to force the iodine on them in other ways. The law of unintended consequences working against the left yet again.
The root of this problem is ACC and socialised health – if we got rid of both of those the government would no longer benefit (financially) from trying to force us to be healthy.
Vote:May 18th, 2009 at 9:07 am
AG said: “Errr … you are stopped from buying private health insurance by what, exactly?”
The fact that I can’t afford it because the government is taxing me so high to pay for everyone else’s health insurance.
Vote:May 18th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Everyone seems to be missing the point with their arguing over whether or not the stuff is good for you. The point is – the government should not be forcing it on us – if we all need it, let them campaign for its benefits and let us buy supplements. That is all that is needed. Not a campaign of force in which choice is removed (from bakers and the consumer).
Vote:May 18th, 2009 at 11:54 am
The thing that most annoys me is that the reason people ended up getting less iodine is the government pushing propaganda against salt.
The original push to iodised salt was because NZ soils are iodine poor, thus NZ diets were iodine poor. Sadly, since then, salt is added in excessive quantities to manufactured food, and it isn’t iodised salt.
Vote:May 18th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I use iodised salt for cooking pasta. You don’t need a whole lot of iodine. Just some. I occasionally take sea-kelp pills too, though.
Vote:May 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
WraithX (242) Vote: 1 1 Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:07 am
AG said: “Errr … you are stopped from buying private health insurance by what, exactly?”
The fact that I can’t afford it because the government is taxing me so high to pay for everyone else’s health insurance.
Then get a better job with better pay!
Vote:May 18th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
“Errr … you are stopped from buying private health insurance by what, exactly?”
That’s not the point. If you purchase private medical insurance, you are still required to also buy into public health via your taxes. There is no opt-out provision. One ends up paying for one’s healthcare twice.
Answer me this: If public healthcare is so damn good, why does private healthcare bother to exist at all? How can private healthcare compete with “free”?
Bill.
Vote: