Kiwiblog

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.

According to the Sunday Star-Times, Cabinet tomorrow will throw out Labour’s decision to introduce mandatory addition of folic acid to bread:

THE BUN-FIGHT is over. Bakers will not be forced by law to add folic acid to our bread, bagels, crumpets and English muffins. The Key government will announce this week that it is throwing out the former government’s policy.

Cabinet is expected to formalise the government’s position when it meets tomorrow, effectively putting the controversial issue on the back burner for three years and, crucially, beyond the next election.

The government is not convinced that making folic acid a compulsory ingredient in all bread is necessary, and wants more time to assess the evidence. Folic acid has been shown to reduce the risk of babies being born with defects such as spina bifida, but bakers say women would need to eat at least 11 slices of bread a day to make a difference to the health of their unborn child.

The Key government favours a voluntary regime. It has been looking for a way to wriggle out of the trans-Tasman agreement, struck by the former Labour government, and due to take effect on September 1.

Community pressure mounted as the deadline approached. Radio talkback shows were last week inundated with indignant callers.

The Star-Times understands that Food Minister Kate Wilkinson on Thursday reached an agreement with the Australian parliamentary secretary for health, Mark Butler, that exempts New Zealand from the new standard.

That is a nice exclusive for the SST, by their political editor Grahame Armstrong.

And the agreement with Australia is much better than unilaterally pulling out. As I have said before, Australian politicians will understand how something can become a major issue.

Under the trans-Tasman agreement, folic acid was to be mandatory in all wheat flour products, including sweet breads and rolls, bagels, foccacia, English muffins and flat breads that contain yeast.

Crumpets, scones, pancakes, pikelets, crepes, yeast donuts, pizza bases and crumbed products were also to be fortified with folic acid.

It was going to be in pizzas also?

Katherine Rich, chief executive of the Food and Grocery Council, said many New Zealanders would breathe a sigh of relief because they did not like the idea of the government tampering with their bread.

There were genuine concerns about the health effects and the prime minister was right to delay any decision until all the facts were known, she said. It was also an issue about freedom of choice.

“It’s quite a scary intervention to dose an entire country,” Rich, a former National MP, said.

“A trip to the baker should not be a trip to the chemist.”

Heh – nice line.

The Herald on Sunday also reveals that Rodney Hide has warned and lobbied fellow Ministers about the issue three months ago.

Colin Espiner reports:

Prime Minister John Key has asked Crown lawyers to help the Government get out of the new folic acid food standard.

Yesterday, Key asked Crown Law to find ways to free the Government from its legal obligations to implement a requirement that folic acid be added to bread from September.

Pleased to see the PM get involved. It is highly desirable to get an out before September.

And Martin Kay has good news:

New Zealand has effectively been given the green light to axe rules forcing bakers to add folic acid to bread from September.

The office of Australian parliamentary secretary for health Mark Butler told The Dominion Post it was New Zealand’s call whether to proceed with the trans-Tasman standard, agreed in 2007.

“Whilst the Australian Government will maintain a keen interest in what New Zealand decides, decisions on New Zealand standards are the responsibility of the New Zealand Government. As permitted under the [food] treaty, New Zealand has opted out of the joint standard and so their standard is nothing to do with the Australian Government.”

That sounds encouraging. If the Ausies are not going to get upset, what is the issue?

To give some balance to the debate, here are some extracts from a PR from the Coalition of Parents of Children with Spina Bifida:

• Folic acid does not cause postrate cancer in humans. The negative studies referred to involve extreme levels of folic acid fed to rats. Levels humans would never consume.
• UK has approved folic acid fortification – the delay is because they are still deciding on the best vehicle ie bread or flour (including pastries/biscuits etc)
• Neural tube defects (NTDs) are more common and deadly then meningitis
• 14 babies were born with NTDs in New Zealand last year. Specialists know this number should be quadrupled because many NTD affected babies are aborted and these are not recorded in the birth register. NTD miscarriages are also excluded.
• The level suggested is not the full 400mcg RDI but it works (US data since 1998 implementation) in reducing the number of NTD births, and has been proven to reduce heart disease and stroke, colon and stomach cancers, congenital heart defects in babies and onset of Alzheimers.
• Folic acid is a b-group vitamin necessary for healthy cell development and is comprehensively proven as beneficial for general health
• The Bakers Association, including president Laurie Powell, have all agreed to the proposal many times during face to face meetings over the past 10 years. Sue Kedgley has also pledged her support as long as organic bread was not fortified
• National and Labour MPs over three successive governments have agreed to this proposal – often unanimously
• This is the most important preventive health initiative since iodised salt to prevent goiter and the rubella vaccine.

And to balance that, a PR today from the Association of Bakers:

A day after Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson all but accepted that the new folic acid food standard should go, she has now seized on an unpublished study as conclusive proof that her plan to mass-medicate every New Zealander is safe. …

Her turnaround appears to follow statements by Professor Murray Skeaff, of Otago University, regarding his attendance at a conference in Prague at which an as-yet unpublished pooled analysis of all the randomised control trials of folic acid to date were revealed. We welcome the entrance of Professor Skeaff to the national debate on this important issue. However we note this respected academic has changed his mind from his previous view that “mandatory folic acid fortification would represent an uncontrolled clinical trial with all New Zealanders as participants”.

Professor Skeaff previously got to the nub of the whole issue being debated when he asked, in a research paper in 2003: “Preventing even one case of spina bifida is a priceless relief for the afflicted child or family, but is the prevention of four cases of spina bifida each year sufficient justification for accepting the risks of exposing four million people?” …

Her plan to dose every loaf of bread simply to provide folic acid for pregnant women robs New Zealanders of freedom of choice and her own officials have confirmed to her that there will be “unknown effects” of such a widespread medication plan. It’s the exactly the kind of nanny state intervention in their lives that many kiwis thought would change with the new Government.

Kate Wilkinson’s plan to dose every New Zealander is an experiment – an experiment that very few New Zealand voters want. We welcome the Minister’s continued commitment to a review of the standard but suggest it should take place before – not after – its implementation.

Strong views on both sides.

Kate Wilkinson got a pretty tough grilling on Q&A yesterday as she was in the unenvious position of saying she thinks the compulsory medicating of bread with folic acid was wrong, yet she would not or could not stop it occurring due to our treaty with Australia – the best being offered is a review in October.

It is true that it is much easier to decide not to do something, than it is to pull out of a decision after it had been made by a previous Government – especially when it deos involve a treaty with a friendly Government. But the transcript shows the difficulty of trying to say we think this is a bad decision, but can’t stop it:

KATE The science is actually light on it.  I agree with what the Irish are doing, I’d have to say I agree with what they’re doing.

PAUL Well then do it.

KATE That’s why I’m doing it – the first opportunity I’m taking it and asking for a review.

PAUL I’m sorry you’re gonna put folic acid which may give me prostate cancer again, into my staple food, the bread, and then you’re gonna&

SUE And then review it.

PAUL And then review it, so you could be threatening the health of this nation.

Ouch.

KATE If you drill down into those studies though you’ll find that they’re not that qualitative or quantitative and it is a bit light.  Now if we can get a review through the Ministerial Council it’ll be done in three months.

PAUL Oh so we have three months of possible poisoning.

Holmes was very worked up on this issue.

PAUL Forgive me Minister, I read yesterday in researching this that is some link between excessive folic acid and prostate cancer.

SUE That is right.

PAUL And you are gonna put that in my bread?

SUE But Paul it’s the stupidity of this, that the Minister accepts there are these health risks.

KATE Yes she does.

SUE But she’s saying we have to do it so we’re eating up for Australia, we’re going to be forced because of some trade relationship with Australia, surely we should put – public health issues should be paramount, not some diplomatic relationship.

Never good when you let Sue Kedgley answer on your behalf

Worth remembering this, from NZPA:

Former Food Safety Minister Annette King said when the decision was made that it was “a triumph for humanity and common sense”.

I think this may become a bigger and bigger issue as September gets closer. If I was in Government I would be looking very hard at how to get a decision on this before the scheduled meeting in Australia. Surely one can get the agreement of the Australian Ministers by e-mail or something to allow New Zealand to suspend implementing the folic bread addition due to health concerns.

AAP reports:

THE sleepy Southern Highlands hamlet of Bundanoon has voted to ban bottled water, just hours after the New South Wales Government announced its own H2O boycott.

At a community meeting tonight, Bundanoon locals overwhelmingly supported the Australia-first ban on commercially bottled water, already agreed to by businesses in the town.

So will shops be closed down if they sell bottled water? What if someone is seen drinking bottled water in public – can they be arrested?

The voluntary ban has been triggered by concerns about the carbon footprint associated with bottling and transporting the water.

Free water fountains will be installed in the NSW village, southwest of Sydney, to replace the bottled H2O.

A voluntary ban is fine, but what if a retailer changes his or her mind?

In a double blow for the bottled water industry, NSW Premier Nathan Rees has signalled an end to idle chit-chat around the water cooler for NSW public servants.

Mr Rees today announced an immediate ban on all departments and agencies buying bottled water, including supplies for water coolers.

Maybe they’re be able to put coca-cola in the water coolers instead?

Former National MP Katherine Rich is now Chief Executive of the Food and Grocery Council. She writes:

If any government decides to mass-medicate every bread-buying New Zealander with a certain additive, it has to be very sure that the costs to the community don’t outweigh any health benefits, and that there are no long-term ill-effects on the population.

Minister for Food Safety Kate Wilkinson faces an interesting test as she decides whether to review or delay a controversial new food standard, which will force all bakers to add folic acid to every single loaf of bread.

The question is, will this centre-right politician – who campaigned vigorously on ridding New Zealand of the “nanny state” – endorse such a major intervention?

An excellent question.

Political ideology and the centre-right principle of freedom of choice aside, however, the big issue is the growing concern that too much folic acid might create long-term health problems for bread-loving Kiwis.

Folic acid has been seen as a miracle vitamin since the 1980s, when increasing pregnant women’s folic acid intake was linked to reductions in birth defects.

No one, and in particular bakers, disputes the beneficial effects on pregnant women. Pregnant women can benefit hugely from taking supplements and eating a healthy diet.

Where some part company is when regulators turn from targeted health programmes for small numbers of women at risk, to a programme of effective mass medication – dosing every man, woman, and child.

I prefer targeting.

Official reports written by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) have been made publicly available. Parts of the reports make disturbing reading to any sandwich-making Kiwi parent.

While it’s been estimated that a pregnant woman will have to eat 11 slices of bread a day to receive the amount of folic acid required, the NZFSA reports confirm in black and white that some New Zealand children will, as a result of mandatory fortification, eat more than their recommended daily intake of folate/folic acid.

In rather alarming advice, the minister at the time was told by NZFSA: “There are unknown risks that may not become apparent for one or two generations. Children will be exposed to much higher levels of folic acid than in previous generations. It may not be until this generation of children have their own children that adverse effects become apparent.”

Does not sound reassuring.

“We continue to have concerns that 13.8 per cent of males aged 5 to 8 years and 8.2 per cent of New Zealand females are going to exceed the upper level intake for folic acid …”

These are the “concerns” that will need to be explained in the event the Government endorses the food standard. It may not be a task the minister will relish.

Katherine is not going soft on her former colleagues!

It’s potentially a very unpopular move.

New Zealanders simply don’t like the idea of governments tampering with their bread. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s own research concluded “84 per cent of consumers interviewed, even after providing information on the reasons for fortification, did not support mandatory fortification”.

So listen to them, and don’t do it.

I’m delighted the Greens are launching a major campaign to bring back the food police into schools.

This will remind everyone of the growth of nanny state over the last nine years.

And even better, what lies in wait if a centre-left Government is elected in future. With NZ First dead and United Future down to one MP, it will be almost impossible for Labour to form a Government without the Greens.

I hope the Greens do not stop at school tuck shops. They should get really ambitious and propose the food police be given these additional powers:

• Dawn raids of homes at breakfast times to check breakfasts are healthy and nutritious
• Flying Squads to swoop on major supermarkets to make sure all unhealthy food is placed on the top aisle so no one below 5’6″ can reach it
• Random audits of teenagers in public places to check their diet

Yay. This release just out from Anne Tolley:

Schools will no longer be required to act as food police under changes announced by Education Minister Anne Tolley today.

“As part of the National Government’s commitment to reducing compliance for schools, I have decided to remove the clause in National Administration Guideline (5) which states ‘where food and beverages are sold on schools’ premises, to make only healthy options available’.

“Feedback from schools I have spoken to suggests that this clause has created confusion for many of them particularly around fundraising and school events. The government considers regulation in this area unnecessary.

“I believe boards of trustees should be able to make their own decisions about appropriate food and drink options. After all, they are parents who should be aware of what ‘good’ and ‘bad’ foods are. I am confident they will act responsibly.

Oh my God, you can’t trust parents. It is the Government’s job to decide what can be sold to their kids at school. Or at least it used to be.

“It should be noted that clause (ii) in the National Administration Guideline (5) that requires schools to promote healthy food and drink to students remains in place.

“I am aware of the great work that the majority of schools have already done in this area to ensure their students can make informed decisions about what they eat and drink as part of a healthy and balanced lifestyle.

Labour never got the difference between promote and control. It is one thing to promote healthy food. It is quite another to ban food you disapprove of as unhealthy.

“This change will help schools to concentrate on core business – providing students with a quality education and learning environment and concentrating on improving education standards.”

That would be good.

This is a small issue, but a symbolically important one.

Gerry Brownlee has confirmed he is lifting the ban on traditional incandescent light bulbs.

I actually use eco-bulbs myself, but it is not the role of the state to tell people what sort of lightbulb to use, so long as they are safe. 2.5 million households all have different needs, and householders are quite competent at deciding for themselves what sort of lightbulbs to buy.

Personally I would advocate most people get ecobulbs – they save money and power. But I would also advocate most people vote National, and neither of my preferences should be made compulsory!

Aaron Bhatnagar blogs that a City Vision Councillor voted to ban smoking outside in the Auckland CBD.

Why not just cut out all the in between steps, and just start shooting smokers?