Kiwiblog

Martin Johnston at NZ Herald reports:

Obesity experts in New Zealand are dismayed at the legal clamp slapped on New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s law to ban super-sized sugary soft drinks in restaurants.

They should have a large soda to drown their sorrows.

His law would have limited cups of sugary soft drinks sold at restaurants, cinemas and other food service establishments to 453ml.

That is approaching close to two standard measuring cups (500ml) and is well short of the large and super-sized sugar drinks sold in New Zealand fast-food shops.

McDonald’s “large” soft drinks contain 651ml and the biggest offering at Wendy’s is around 1200ml, although Wendy’s says it doesn’t sell many of these mega-drinks.

How evil. They must be banned, along with large easter eggs.

Fight the Obesity Epidemic spokeswoman Dr Robyn Toomath said it was a great shame the mayor’s bid to help halt the growth of New Yorkers’ waistlines had been thwarted.

Yes it is a great shame that human beings have been allowed to choose for themselves what size drink they want. We must protect them from themselves.

A terrifying op ed in the NY Daily News by a Marion Nestle:

Barring any late legal surprises, Mayor Bloomberg’s 16-ounce cap on sugary sodas goes into effect on Tuesday, March 12. After that, restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and food carts will not be permitted to sell extra-large portions of sugar-packed drinks.

Stay calm. This does not signal the end of democracy in America. This is not the nanny state gone out of control.

Actually is is the precise definition of nanny state out of control.

If we want Americans to be healthy, we are going to have to take actions like this – and many more – and do so soon. It’s long past time to tax sugar soda, crack down further on what gets sold in our schools, tackle abusive marketing practices, demand a redesign of labels – and extend the soda cap, no matter how controversial it may seem. This must be the beginning, not the end, of efforts toward a healthier America.

Be scared, be very scared

I’m amazed she doesn’t just advocate making soda drinks illegal.

The soda size cap is a nudge in that direction. You will still be able to drink all the soda, and down all the sugar, that you want. The cap on soda size makes it just a tiny bit harder for you to do so.

That “tiny bit harder” is its point. If you have to order two sodas instead of one, maybe you won’t. If you have to add sugar to your coffee drink yourself, maybe you will only add one or two teaspoons instead of the 10 or more someone else put in there for you.

Oh, so she also wants it to be illegal to sell coffee with sugar in it?

So-called “nanny-state” measures – like bans on driving while drunk, smoking in public places and, now, selling absurdly large sugary drinks – help to level the playing field. Such measures are about giving everyone an equal opportunity to live a safer and healthier life.

Again, she can’t see any difference between measures about preventing harm to others (killing people while drink driving, passive smoking effects) and measures to control how people live their own lives.

Fix the price differential. A 7.5-ounce can of soda costs twice as much per ounce as a two-liter bottle, and you can’t buy just one; it comes in an 8-pack. Price determines sales. If a 16-ounce soda costs a dollar, a 32-ounce soda should cost two dollars.

They should also abolish large chocolate bars being not the same price per kg as small chocolate bars. In fact let’s just regulate all food pricing. No volume discounts for any food except broccoli.

Actions like these will evoke ferocious opposition from the soda industry, and it will spare no expense to make sure such things never happen. We would surely hear more and more howls of “nanny-state” from those who insist Bloomberg has led us to the brink of a public health police state. Polls say that many New Yorkers oppose the 16-ounce cap and would oppose measures like this, too.

But I can’t tell whether the opposition comes from genuine concern about limits on personal choice or because soda companies have spent millions of dollars to protect their interests and gin up histrionic, misinformed opposition.

That’s easy. Its is genuine concern about personal choice – something that the author seems to regard as having no weight at all.

Hat Tip: Eric Crampton

UPDATE: Great news. A Judge has invalidated the ban on large soda drinks. The NY Post reports:

“[The city] is enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations,” New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling ruled.

The judge said Bloomberg and the Board of Health overstepped their bounds, to enforce rules that should be established by the legislative bodies.

“The rule would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it,” Tingling wrote. “Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened drinks.”

“It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the city, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the loopholes inherent in the rule, including but not limited to no limitations on refills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the rule,” Tingling wrote.

The regulations are “fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences,” the judge wrote.

A defeat for the nanny statists. But they will try again and again.

The New York Post reports:

Nanny Bloomberg unleashes his ban on large sodas on March 12 — and there are some nasty surprises lurking for hardworking families.

Say goodbye to that 2-liter bottle of Coke with your pizza delivery, pitchers of soft drinks at your kid’s birthday party and some bottle-service mixers at your favorite nightclub.

They’d violate Mayor Bloomberg’s new rules, which prohibit eateries from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

Absolute fucking madness.

This is what some taxpayer funded lobby groups push for in New Zealand. It isn’t the thin end of the wedge – it is the thick end.

Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.

Imagine how many cans you will need to drink 10 litres a day!

Rachel Young at Stuff reports:

Bar and restaurant owners may soon be able to decide whether dogs are allowed on their premises.

The Food Bill, now before Parliament, would give proprietors the right to choose whether man’s best friend was welcome or not.

The Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 say that “no animal is permitted” on premises where food is prepared or sold.

However, some Christchurch hospitality operators spoken to took a relaxed approach to the rules, welcoming dogs on to their premises as long as they did not cause trouble.

A spokesman for Primary Industries Minister David Carter said the bill, which would replace the regulations and the Food Act 1981, would require operators to take responsibility for food safety in a way that was appropriate for their businesses.

“Obviously they will need to keep unwanted animals out of their restaurants, and especially the kitchens and food-handling areas, but in many cases there will be little risk to food safety if, for example, pet dogs are allowed into outdoor dining areas.”

James Jameson, owner of the St Asaph St Kitchen and Stray Dog Bar, said business owners should make their own decisions.

Absolutely. I was unaware they were banned. I think some bars that get known as pet friendly could do very well commercially.

Good to see the law change to focus on the outcome (hygiene) and not be overly prescriptive on how it is achieved.

Stuff reports:

Labour MP Jacinda Ardern said there was a fine line between being overzealous and exercising caution.

She wanted a government body to investigate how a mental health patient managed to walk along a 192-metre-high Sky Tower platform over the weekend.

“I think the appropriate response should still involve a government department taking an interest because adventure tourism, and tourism generally, is so important to the New Zealand economy.”

I’m sorry but what nonsense. The Sky Tower near-suicide is in a totally different category to the ballooning tragedy where there was a failure on the part of operators.

The man involved was a customer and removed his harness and threatened to jump. To paint this as a safety issue is ridiculous. It is a mental health issue. Calling for an inquiry is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The Herald editorial also goes down this path:

SkyCity and the company that runs the SkyWalk adventure on its tower have said very little since the incident on Saturday when a disturbed man paced the platform for five hours threatening to jump. There is not much anybody can say for the organisation that allowed this to happen.

The company’s director said it was reviewing its systems to see “whether there can be any improvements made to our systems to prevent such an incident from occurring in the future”. There had better be improvements. The organisers must find a foolproof solution if the platform is to be reopened for these attractions.

That should not be hard.

Nobody should be able to get outside the tower for the SkyWalk or the controlled SkyJump unless they are in a safety harness they cannot remove. There is no conceivable sensible need for customers to be able to release themselves from the harness once they are on the narrow platform 192m above the street.

The precautions seem so obvious they might have been assumed to be in force.

I’m sorry, but again this is raving bonkers. The Herald is saying that people should be padlocked into a safety harness? Why not handcuff them so they can’t try and remove it? Or use straitjackets?

By this logic, we should ban pedestrians from bridges, in case a mentally ill person tries to jump from one.

And all office buildings over one story in height must have windows which are unable to be opened in case anyone tries to get out of one.

The Herald reported:

Obese most likely to die early but those classed as overweight have better survival rate.

For older people, body weight could be a positive sign of being well-nourished. Photo / Getty Images

Overweight people have surprisingly beaten out your normal Joe Average on the mortality scale, a statistical survey of medical studies has shown – despite a well-established link between weight and sickness.

When talking of health, “death is a rather crude tool”, said Auckland District Health Board clinical director Robyn Toomath, who is sceptical of the paper.

Death may be a crude tool, but it is a pretty important one. It is one that public health advocates use all the time in campaigns about the dangers of smoking for example (which I agree with them on).

The best way to reduce public health costs for the country was still to help people eat healthy and stay slim, by restricting the marketing and value of junk foods or promoting nutritious foods, she said.

No, the best way for people to stay slim is for them to eat less and exercise more. Nanny state policies to “restrict” the marketing of certain foods should be resisted at every stage.

Stuff reports:

Call her the girl with no name.

A 15-year-old is suing the Icelandic state for the right to legally use the name given to her by her mother. The problem? Blaer, which means “light breeze” in Icelandic, is not on a list approved by the government.

Like a handful of other countries, including Germany and Denmark, Iceland has official rules about what a baby can be named.

In a country comfortable with a firm state role, most people don’t question the Personal Names Register, a list of 1,712 male names and 1,853 female names that fit Icelandic grammar and pronunciation rules and that officials maintain will protect children from embarrassment.

Parents can take from the list or apply to a special committee that has the power to say yea or nay.

How ridiculous. An approved list of names and a special committee that can decide on exceptions.

I’m not against the state having a power to refuse very offensive names that would harm a child, such as if someone tried to call their child “fuck me” or “bitch”. But the default position should be any name at all is allowed, unless judged harmful. Having a list of “approved” names is just bureaucratic nonsense.

On his thirtieth birthday, he bought a full-page advertisement that read, “From February 1, 2006, I hereby change my name to Curver Thoroddsen. I ask the nation, my friends and colleagues to respect my decision.”

“I can understand a clause to protect children from being named something like ‘Dog poo,’ but it is strange that an adult cannot change his name to what he truly wants,” he said.

Indeed.

Talking of names, DIA has the list of most popular names in 2012. Olivia and Jack No 1. Noah was No 10!

The NYT Sunday Review:

One common denominator of successful bike programs around the world — from Paris to Barcelona to Guangzhou — is that almost no one wears a helmet, and there is no pressure to do so.

In the United States the notion that bike helmets promote health and safety by preventing head injuries is taken as pretty near God’s truth. Un-helmeted cyclists are regarded as irresponsible, like people who smoke. Cities are aggressive in helmet promotion.

But many European health experts have taken a very different view: Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury. But such falls off bikes are rare — exceedingly so in mature urban cycling systems.

On the other hand, many researchers say, if you force or pressure people to wear helmets, you discourage them from riding bicycles. That means more obesity, heart disease and diabetes. And — Catch-22 — a result is fewer ordinary cyclists on the road, which makes it harder to develop a safe bicycling network. The safest biking cities are places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where middle-aged commuters are mainstay riders and the fraction of adults in helmets is minuscule.

That’s one anti-obesity measure I’d agree with – remove the legislative requirement to wear a cycle helmet or get fined.

I note helmets are becoming more common on ski fields. I dread the day when some official or NGO proposes making them compulsory.

Kate Wilkinson announced last week:

The fortification of bread with folic acid will remain voluntary, Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson announced today.

A thorough eight-week public consultation process by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) resulted in 134 submissions, of which 88 supported voluntary instead of mandatory fortification.

“In making my decision in favour of voluntary fortification, I read all the submissions and the clear message is that people want choice,” Ms Wilkinson says.

I am pleased with this decision. Personally I hope bakers decide to include folic acid in the bread they sell, but it has to be a choice. Any other decision could have been a slippery slope.

Women’s red blood folate levels have increased in the past few years under the existing voluntary fortification. Between 2008 and 2011 the level of women with blood folate levels that put them at risk of having a neural tube defect (NTD) affected pregnancy has nearly halved.

“Folic acid plays an important role in reducing NTDs in babies, but fortification of bread is only one part of a wider package of initiatives.”

We encourage parents in New Zealand to vaccinate their children, but we don’t make it compulsory.  This is in keeping with that tradition.

Iain Lees-Galloway blogs at Red Alert:

National’s irrational fear of being tagged with the ‘Nanny State’ label they successfully over-hyped against Labour has just jumped the shark.

3 News reported tonight that optics man Steven Joyce pulled a last minute flip-flop on making life jackets compulsory on small boats.

Associate Transport Minister Simon Bridges, sounding like he was on morphine, gave National’s reasoning as not wanting to over-regulate.

What the hell? We have tragedies like  this happening all the time because our laws are inadequate and wearing of life jackets is unenforceable.

Oh my God, I can’t believe that Labour wants to have water police motoring around and fining people for not having a life jacket on at all times.

Having life jackets on board at all times is essential. But making it compulsory to wear them at all times would  be a step too far.

I recall the last time I went out fishing. It was a beautiful day as we caught fish, cooked the fish and ate it. I also dived off the boat and swam around a bit before coming back on to dry off in the sun. Having to have a life jacket on at all times, would have seriously got in the way of fishing and sun bathing. As adults we made the decision that the boat was sturdy enough (close to the 6 metre limit for the proposed law) and the conditions calm enough that it would be ridiculous over-kill to be wearing life jackets. If I was in a two metre dinghy on a stormy choppy day, then I would wear one. It is called judging the conditions.

Yes it is sad when people die at sea. But going to sea always has an element of risk. Swimming at the beach is bloody risky also sometimes. I do not want to live in a society when the only goal of the Government is to eliminate risk, at the expense of choice and enjoyment.

Shabham Dastgheib at Stuff reports:

The mandatory bicycle helmet law has cut the number of cyclists in half and contributed to 53 premature deaths per year, new research says.

The research, published in the New Zealand Medical Journal today, found a 51 per cent drop in the average hours cycled per person from the 1989-90 period when compared to 2006-09.

Colin Clarke, the honorary secretary of the Yorkshire Region’s Cyclists Touring Club in England who produced the research, has worked as a safety instructor and cycled in more than 20 countries including about 8000 kms in New Zealand.

Clarke estimates the 1994 law has translated to about 53 premature deaths per year (through adverse health effects from not cycling) and promotes discrimination in accident compensation.

He said safety should be improved through policies supporting health, the environment, and without the legal requirement to wear a helmet.

I actually think people have the right to risk themselves. Hence they can bungy jump, climb mountains, swim, work as salvors etc. That right should extend to wearing no helmet while cycling, and no seatbelt while driving.

With cycling, people should be able to judge for themselves whether the extra enjoyment they get from cycling without a helmet outweighs the probability of more severe damage if they crash. If you cycle 10 hours a week, and you have say only a 5% chance of a serious crash over your cycling life, then it is may be a reasonable decision to not wear a helmet.

Now some may argue that the decision is not one of people’s rights to take risks, but an economic one. That as we have a socialised health system, we should force people to minimise their chances of disease and injury, as otherwise we end up having to pay for their bad choices.

I have some sympathy for that argument, but it can be slippery end of the slope. You could use economics to justify making condoms compulsory for sex to reduce the prevalence of STDs.

But this story above, is a nice reminder that even if you do accept the economic argument to reduce risk by say banning cycling without a helmet, you run the risk of unintended consequences. In this case, the unintended consequence is alleged to be fewer people are cycling, and hence unhealthier, which has actually led to more premature deaths and a greater cost to the economy.

This is another reason why we should be extremely reluctant to interfere with people’s personal choices. You may have the best of motivations, but you don’t know what the impact will be.

The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is proposing minimum energy performance standards and labelling for computers.

This has a certain deja vu, with the proposed maximum flow for shower nozzles in 2008, on the grounds of energy efficiency.

I’m all in favour of energy efficiency labelling. This allows consumers to make informed choices. When I buy a fridge or a washer/dryer, I always look at the labels and they form part of the decision on what model to purchase.

But it is another thing to have the Government regulate a minimum energy efficiency for a type of device.  Consumers pay for their electricity, and they are best placed to decide if the cost of having a less energy efficient device outweighs the benefits.

This proposal is a form of nanny state. If agreed to, it would be the Government dictating to consumers what computers they are allowed to buy within NZ. The alternative option of mandatory labelling should be chosen instead. If the Government should not dictate out shower flow speed, neither should they dictate what computers can be purchased.

Having said that, I would point out that the comparison with shower nozzles is only partial. It is quite possible that requiring computers to be more energy efficient will not affect the performance of the computer in any noticeable way. The main impact is probably an extra $20 on the price. While the proposal to limit the pressure in showers, would absolutely and noticeably have affected the performance of the shower.

The Herald reports:

Calls are increasing for skiers to be required by law to wear a standards-approved helmet on the slopes following a number of fatal skiing accidents.

Oh for fuck’s sake.

The Government is releasing a 500 page report next Tuesday from the Law Commission which makes scores of recommendations of changes to alcohol laws and policy.

The report was commissioned by the former Labour Government, and the primary author is former Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer – who is also the Law Commission President.

Details of the report have leaked out, and I can exclusively reveal some of these. They represent a nanny state mindset which I doubt even the last Government would have ever gone along with. It stops short of prohibition and six o’clock closing, but represents a huge step backwards. Fundamentally the report fails to propose measures that target the minority of people who cause problems of crime and violence when under the influence of alcohol, and instead it has gone for a one size fits all approach which punishes millions of responsible drinkers, and especially 130,000 18 and 19 year olds.

I understand the Palmer Report proposes:

1. A massive 50% increase in the excise tax on alcohol. This would result in an extra $500 million of revenue to the Crown at the expense of everyone who drinks.
2. Banning the sale of liquor at off licenses after 10 pm. So if you pop into New World at 10.30 pm to do your shopping (which I often do), you won’t be able to buy a bottle of wine.
3. Forcing bars and nightclubs to refuse to allow people to enter after 2 am.
4. A nationwide closing time for all outlets, probably at 4 am.
5. An increase in the purchase age for alcohol from 18 to 20, criminalising 130,000 18 and 19 year olds if they buy alcohol.

As I said, this is nanny state unleashed. What is most disappointing is the failure to come up with measures that might actually target those causing the problems such as a drinking age (instead of a purchase age), increased penalties for alcohol related crime, and a one size fit all approach.

I would not necessarily be against allowing local communities through local Government able to (for example) set a closing time for their local neighbourhood.  But a nationwide closing time that treats Ponsonby and Courtney Place as the same as (say) Wainuiomata is a bad thing.

I am sure there are some useful recommendations in the Palmer Report, but its main recommendations represent the worst excesses of nanny state and punishes all New Zealanders, rather than targeting problem drinkers and the associated violence and crime they cause.

I hope the Government, and in fact all parties in Parliament, reject any wholesale adoption of the report’s recommendations.

The Herald reports:

The Transport Minister is pushing for security cameras in all city taxis and the taxi federation hopes they will be in place by the middle of next year.

Steven Joyce announced this morning that he would put to Cabinet the recommendation in May.

The move follows recent attacks on taxi drivers: on Saturday, two men held a knife to an Auckland cabbie’s throat for $30 in coins, and in January driver Hiren Mohini was stabbed to death in Mt Eden for a $15.20 fare.

Many Auckland cabbies have since said that they are now scared to work at night.

NZ Taxi Federation executive director Tim Reddish said the federation had been pushing for a Government mandate for security cameras for three years.

“We’re just delighted to achieve our objective and the fact that it will save lives,” Mr Reddish said.

If the recommendations gets through Cabinet, he expects the first cameras would be installed toward the end of the year and be complete by the middle of 2011, Mr Reddish said.

He expected a 24-hour distress alarm – that would let cabbies call for help – would also be part of the new legislation.

I’m confused.

The taxi federation say they are delighted and have been advocating cameras for years, as a safety measure.

So why haven’t they just gone ahead and done it themselves?

Why in God’s name do we need a special law for this?

It is a good idea to get the support of the Minister, sure. But why not just have the Minister write a letter to all taxi companies saying he supports cameras in cars.

Mr Joyce said the industry would pay for the cameras – a cost expected to increase fares by about 30 cents.

So why would individual taxi firms not decide to do this for themselves, without coercion? Wouldn’t drivers be demanding cameras be placed in their cars if the cost averages out to only 30c a trip.

And even if a few companies don’t implement cameras, then their drivers can choose to work for another company.

It’s sad that the NZ Taxi Federation thinks it needs a law passed, to be able to put security cameras into cars. Why don’t they just get on and do it.

Trevor Mallard blogs at Red Alert:

Kerre Woodham’s column in the HoS today promotes letting or even encouraging kids to take some risks.

Too often risk averse parents and schools wrap kids in cotton wool to the point where they don’t develop the power to judge risk and make their own decisions.

I agree, but find such a stance hilarious from the party that set out to remove choice in so many areas, especially around risk. I commented:

Hell next Trevor will be advocating that a kid should be allowed to decide for him/her self whether or not to buy a pie from the school tuckshop after a sports game.

Hard to see that the party that doesn’t even trust a kid to decide on whether or not to have a pie, is about to roll back nanny state,

The Dom Post reports:

A developer’s plan to build a casino in Wellington appears doomed after Internal Affairs Minister Nathan Guy ruled out a law change required for it to proceed.

Backers of the proposed billion-dollar project in Shelly Bay – which also includes a luxury apartment block and a gondola at the prime harbourside site – need the previous government’s moratorium on new casinos lifted if the centrepiece of the development is to go ahead.

But Mr Guy, who has responsibility for gambling, said changing the law was not in the pipeline and, even if it was, doing so would be a lengthy process.

“Any change to the law would be a decision for the Cabinet and caucus and would require extensive discussion with the wider community,” he said.

“At this stage, the Government has no plans to change the law.”

That’s a real shame. It is bizarre that the Government thinks Wellingtonians can not be trusted to have a casino.

I don’t think there should be any limit on the number of casinos. There should be rules around how they operate, but I don’t see it as the role of the state to determine which cities or towns are allowed one, and which are not.

The Press reports:

Teenagers who prefer texting to talking have driven some parents to call for a minimum cellphone ownership age of 14.

“Parents are worried teenagers are losing the ability to properly communicate with eye-to-eye contact,” said Shanti Ravichandran, of Auckland’s Unitec, who has surveyed parents’ attitudes to teenage cellphone use.

She said the use of text language was “overpowering” among teenagers, with some even using it in school examinations.

Ravichandran, a Master of Computing graduate, said 52 per cent of the 115 parents or caregivers she surveyed felt there should be a minimum age of 14 for cellphone ownership.

How effing ridicolous. The last thing NZ needs is an age limit for using or owning a cellphone. What next – a state imposed curfew at 9 pm, or a mandatory go to bed at 9.30 pm?

Those 52% of parents are very welcome not to allow their kids to own a cellphone. But they shouldn’t try and decide for all families what is best. Decisions should be made by families, not the state.

I know many parents who find it incredibly reassuring that their kids have a cellphone, as they can contact them 24/7.

Parents’ main concerns about cellphones were text bullying, addiction to text messaging and the negative impact on communication skills, she said.

“Because it is so discreet, teenagers are doing it under their sheets and they’re not getting enough sleep.”

So the solution is to send in the Police to arrest them?

This article from Australia sums up the mentality of some people:

A MOTHER outraged by clothing shop music peppered with the F-word could not find a single agency to deal with her complaint.

Deb Sorensen was in a city Deborah K clothing store this month with her 14-year-old stepdaughter and her friend when “degrading and offensive” music was played.

“We were subjected to a loud barrage of foul and highly disturbing lyrics, including the ‘F’ word,” she said. …

Store manager Hussein Kaiser dumped the music, which he said was chosen by young sales staff. But Ms Sorensen said there was nothing to stop others playing it.

Victorian Consumer Affairs had referred her to ARIA (the Australian Recording Industry Association), which sent Ms Sorensen to AMRA (the Australian Music Retailers Association), which suggested the Australian Retail Association, which passed her on to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission), which suggested ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission).

Ms Sorensen also contacted her local MP and Melbourne City Council. While most were sympathetic, no one could help. …

“There is obviously a gap in legislation, and authorities seem confused about who is responsible,” the mother of seven said. “Vulnerable children should not be exposed to sexually explicit, violent material, anywhere, at any time.”

No there is not a gap or a problem. No new agency is needed to deal with complaints about what music is played in a private store. If you do not like the music, then never shop there again.

If you really feel passionate, about it then blog about it, twitter about it. Even stand outside and picket then (God knows why though as they clearly said they dumped the music). But don’t go demanding some Government agency do something.

What she should have done, if she was smart, was ring ARPA (Australasian Performing Rights Association) and tell them the store was playing music without having paid royalty fees to ARPA. They would have probably had a SWAT team down there within 30 minutes

I love this. The Scottish brewer BrewDog, of Fraserburgh was criticised for an 18.2% alcohol content beer. So it has now produced a 1.1% alcohol beer and given it a label of “Nanny State Beer”. Wonderful.

The SST reports:

Slapping a high-fat content label on food won’t stop people eating it, says a visiting nutrition expert.

Josephine Wills, European Food Information Council director general, says food labelling is useless without supporting education and advertising campaigns.

Guest speaker at this week’s Nutrition Foundation annual meeting, Wills says research shows consumers can identify healthy foods, “but they’re not acting on it”. In Europe, half of shoppers knew which foods had less salt, fat and sugar – but in a supermarket aisle, only between nine percent and 27 percent made the healthier choice. “Taste and price are the strongest drivers when it comes to food choice. Nutrition is a little bit lower down.”

Oh my God. Consumers are choosing on price and taste, not just nutrition.

Obviously this can not be allowed to continue. The state should decide what foods are acceptable and do the shopping for households.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff has admitted the party made mistakes with its so-called nanny-state policies as he tries to win back voters turned off by Helen Clark’s regime.

Mr Goff said he wanted to “draw a line under the past”, citing unpopular policies such as those telling people what size shower heads and which lightbulbs they could use.

“We’d stopped listening to what people’s priorities were and seemed to be working on issues they thought were sideshows,” Mr Goff said yesterday.

Sensible and encouraging.

The nanny-state image was a big factor in Labour’s defeat and has been blamed for turning off voters who shared the party’s core values but felt it was interfering with their lives.

Mr Goff said people thought Labour should have been more focused on what really counted for them, such as the struggle to make ends meet.

The Labour Government had engaged itself in too many distractions, such as the smacking debate, when the focus should have been on solving New Zealand’s disgraceful child abuse rates.

“It is not about smacking, it’s about giving the best possible start to our children.”

If Goff was really brave, he’d announce they’ll support the Boscawen bill to select committee. It would make life very difficult for National if he did.

Goff is right that the smacking debate is a sideshow from solving the problems of child abuse.

The backdown on shower pressure regulations and light bulb bans are simple ones to make also, but symbolically useful.

What Labour may not appreciate is that it is not just about whether one has support for an issue, but whether or not is is a priority for the Government. I’ll explain with an example.

I supported the civil union legislation. I even lobbied in favour of it, and I think it was a good law to pass, and think most NZers are comfortable with it.

However that is a different issue to whether or not it should have been a priority for the Government, compared to increasing productivity growth, improving educational outcomes etc. Just because the public agree with you on an issue, doesn’t mean they think that issue is a priority.

As an example that the EU debate in the UK. Most people agreed with the Conservatives on the EU, but they didn’t vote for them as the EU was not as significant an issue as whether or not they have jobs, schools and hospitals.

Now of course a Government can do more than one thing at a time, but the media only report a couple of things a day, so if you are passing civil union legislation, they are not reporting on school standards.

So the lesson for Labour isn’t to only be wary of “unpopular” nanny state legislation, but even “popular” legislation such as civil unions and prostitution law reform can damage the Government if voters think this has become your priority.Now that is not an argument to never pass such laws (I am glad they did) but to consider carefully the pace of any law reform.

President Andrew Little said there was no question Phil Goff had the support of the wider party, and the conference was his chance to “step up” and “stamp his imprimatur” on the party.

Well up until the point that Helen sends that text from New York saying “time for a change”!

No surprise, but the Government has confirmed there will be no mandatory addition of folic acid into bread – at least for the next three years.

Today, Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson said mandatory fortification of bread would be deferred until May 2012.

The Government and Bakers were now likely to focus on introducing a voluntary range of fortified breads.

The deferral was the “best way forward”, Ms Wilkinson said.

“I agree with public health advocates that folic acid is beneficial to the health of women and can prevent neural tube defects, but I also understand consumers overwhelmingly want to be able to choose whether or not the bread they buy is fortified.

“This approach will provide for consumer choice while also helping to address folate deficiency and increase the protection for babies resulting from unplanned pregnancies.”

Works for me.

John Armstrong writes:

The political furore over putting folic acid in bread is not confined to arguing the scientific merits of putting folic acid in bread.

It is about much more than that. It is an argument about the morals of mass medication. That raises all the connotations of “nanny state” knows best .

And no one is against people being able to buy bread with folic acid added to it. But why should every male, and every female aged under 16 or over 50 be dosed with folic acid, when the main benefit of it can not apply to them, and there is some uncertainity about risks.

Her handling of this hot potato has been lambasted largely on the back of a less than impressive performance on TVNZ’s Q&A programme the Sunday before last. Wilkinson seemed woefully under-prepared for the bombardment she received from interviewer Paul Holmes and the Greens’ food safety campaigner, Sue Kedgley. …

While making it clear she was looking for a means for New Zealand to escape its transtasman obligations, she looked like a minister hostage to the advice of her officials and seemingly powerless. Her solution that the decision to mix folic acid into bread be reviewed after its introduction may have satisfied legal considerations but it seemed somewhat farcical.

There were three basic positions you could take. One is you are against compulsory addition of folic acid in bread and are not going to let it happen. Another is you think it is a good thing to have folic acid added to bread and defend that decision. The third is that you are against adding folic acid to all bread, but won’t or can’t stop it happening. That is the worst position to adopt as it is saying I agree it is wrong, but I’ll let this bad thing still happen because I am powerless. It is a lesson for other Ministers.

Exit Wilkinson. Enter the Prime Minister. The Government will release a discussion document tomorrow with three options – deferral, rejection or the status quo. But Key has already said he prefers deferral, bringing the matter to a close. If this is another example of Key’s brute pragmatism, there are also lessons for his Administration.

The reason Key is so popular, is he is always getting involved and sorting out problems like this one, the old s92A etc etc. But over the longer term, the Government as a whole needs to be seen as performing very well – not just the Prime Minister.

Labour’s unwavering backing for folic acid in bread might have meant the issue was dead in terms of parliamentary politics. However, it has turned out to be very much alive politically outside the Beltway.

And Labour still back the mass medicating of folic acid. This means it may be an issue in the 2011 election as Labour will effectively be campaigning on their plans to make folic acid compulsory in bread. The review of the decision is timed for just a few months after the 2011 election so parties will be expected to have a position.

NZPA report:

Deferring a decision on whether folic acid should be added to bread was “a cheap cop out” in response to lobby group scaremongering, the Labour Party said today. …

Ms Dyson said the previous government considered a great deal of information before deciding to go ahead with the introduction of folic acid to bread.

Labour – the party of mass medication – even if we don’t know whether it causes cancer or not.