There is no slippery slope


Dick Puddlecote often reminds us of the truth about the slippery slope:

Remember Myth 7?

Myth #7: It may be tobacco today but other consumer products will follow 
FACT: Tobacco is not like any other product ... Plain packs for tobacco will not therefore set a precedent for other consumer products.
Action on Smoking and Health were even more forthright.
[T]he “domino theory” i.e. that once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products is patently false.
Because, you see, according to the tobacco control industry, there is no such thing as the slippery slope those of us grounded in real life see on a daily basis.
Look, if the slope is slippery, it's the most unslippery slippery dip I've ever seen in my life.
How true. Plain Packaging has been in Australia for some years and in the UK for a shorter time. All indications are that it's been an abject failiure. That won't bring the bandwagon screeching to a halt though. In the world of the Public Health industry, more of the same is the only answer to anything that doesn't work. That and denial

The looming threat of plain packaging puts big brands on notice to do the right thing

Spoiler alert. 'The Right Thing', is what the Public Health Industry wants them to do, not what would actually be considered right by any consumer of their products, who doesn't have air between the ears

Our addictions are under fire as governments finally see the sense of following the tobacco lead and regulating products that are bad for us. About time.

There is no slippery slope. It used to be, 'Our' children. Now it's 'Our' addictions. Standard consumer food products are considered to be addictive my these morons

Big global brands will take a massive hit if health campaigners push through plain packaging, as they have with tobacco in the UK, but it’s the consumer who pays the real cost right now, with their health.

Brands may argue they give people what they want, but the freedom of choice defence carries no weight when it comes to tackling obesity.

We all know the addictive nature of sugar and junk food. Addicts don’t act out of choice but out of compulsion. Where’s the integrity in feeding that addiction?

For a long time, anti-tobacco campaigners have been spouting the righteousness of their cause by citing the addictive nature of nicotine. There can be no freedom of choice, smokers cannot choose to enjoy tobacco, as nicotine is just as addictive as heroin and we all see the damage that causes

Of course nicotine is not as addictive as heroin, but if you say it long and often enough, it becomes part of popular culture

That course of action was never available to the anti-food campaigners in the past, because any person of a sane mind would laugh at the idea that every day food was addictive.

Say it long and often enough though. All they needed was those few studies that showed sugar and fat stimulates the pleasure centres of the brain, just like hard drugs do. The thing is though, anything we find pleasurable, stimulates the pleasure centres of the brain, addictive or not

So the 'case' has been made for sugar and fat being addictive, so the campaigners are now doing what they do for our own good, not because they are dicks. If we are addicted to food, our opinion about freedom to choose becomes invalid. They step in on our behalf

We’re waking up to the new rally cry of “Sugar Kills” and big brands like Coca-Cola and Pepsi should be worried.

If a plain-packaging Armageddon happens and Brand Finance’s latest predictions are right, the beverage industry alone could face a whopping $293bn (£217bn) loss in the value contributed by its brands globally.

This is less about health than it is about bashing big business. Anything 'big' that makes a lot of money and has a lot of influence is a target for the Public Health industry, regardless of what product they peddle.

And there is nothing these companies can do to stop the onslaught. If they give ground, Public health wants more. No kind of responsibility deal will ever be any good, legislation must always follow. Even when companies take steps to do exactly what the Public Health Industry wants, without that heavy handed legislation, it's still not enough

The reason? Concerns over the links between high-sugar carbonated drinks and obesity and the company's failure to address those concerns in any major way with initiatives like Coke Zero and Coke Life.

The company develops a sugar free alternative for those who are concerned about sugar, but this is described as 'not a major way' to address those concerns. The problem here is choice. The Public Health Industry do not like choice. They don't want consumers to be able to decide between a version of a drink that contains sugar and one that doesn't, they want the only option to be the sugar free one, to make sure nobody is in a position to choose to ingest the product deemed harmful by Public Health

A company that caters to the wants of it's customers provides choice. Public Health insist sugar must not be a choice. After all, it's addictive, so they're only doing it for our own good

I wonder if they would give up the crusade even if Coca Cola removed all sugar from it's entire product range. They probably would not be satisfied until the company ceased to exist and all the employees were put out of work

Plain packaging might strip brands of their market prominence, but let’s be honest, it really can’t be OK to allow industries to spring up and prey with impunity on our addictions, be it to sugar, fats, gambling, alcohol or nicotine.

Addiction is the only argument they have. Without that, they have no reason to continue this crusade. Companies do not 'prey on our addictions', they sell us products we want to buy. Some of the above items can be habit forming in some people, even incredibly addictive for nicotine, alcohol and gambling for a minority, but for most people, these are just normal, enjoyable activities

To Public Health of course, enjoyment is addiction and must be stamped out

The bad-for-you-and-me industries are all on notice. Soon, the supermarket shelves are going to look pretty bland as supermarkets’ own brand products are swamped by a tsunami of no-brand products.

To the sane of mind among us, that is a vision of a horrible dystopian future where the Government dictates every minor facet of our lives. To Public Health, this is the Holy Grail. These people truly are evil

On the front line of global brands aiming to stem the tide of rampant regulation is Japan Tobacco International, owner of Benson & Hedges, Silk Cut and Hamlet.

JTI warn that regulation creep won’t stop at fag packets: if brands don’t stand up and act, then alcohol, soft drinks and confectionery could be next.

It’s hard to see any cancer stick manufacturer managing to fire up the anti-regulation sympathisers anytime soon.

They're quite correct though and I for one, certainly don't mind 'sympathising'. It really is time these industries stopped trying to appease the Public Health lobby and put all their efforts into fighting excessive Government regulation

I worked in the pub industry when the smoking ban came in and I asked why the pubcos were setting aside so much money to make sure the ban went smoothly, when all that money could be pooled to effectively fight the ban. The trouble then was, that the companies had fully bought into the lie that the ban would be a good thing and would be great for trade.

None of the companies currently in the sights of Public Health can still seriously think that appeasement will help their cause, after witnessing the damage that rampant legislation has already done to business and freedom of choice, but I wouldn't bet against it

A massive 26.9% of Britain’s population is now clinically obese.

No it isn't

clinically obese
adjective
overweight to a degree which causes medical complications

Anyone with eyes can take a look around them and see that not even 26% of the population are overweight, never mind clinically obese. This is a lie brought about by seriously massaging data. It's a lie that helps the cause, as too many people will believe stats in newspapers before they believe their own eyes. Say it long and often...

First comes the tax, like the UK’s sugar tax, which comes into force in April 2018. Plain packaging could easily follow.
As for plain packaging, the thought’s enough to drive any alcohol manufacturer to drink, but that’s purely out of self-interest.
And what is wrong in self interest for a business? The purpose of a business is to create profit. Doing that also creates jobs. Profit and jobs are created by providing a product that consumers want.

For the consumer, regulation can be a good thing. Iceland has turned its alcohol problem around in the past 20 years. Now its young people have gone from the heaviest drinkers in Europe to the lightest.

A good thing for the consumer? By young people, I'm assuming they mean people below the legal age to drink alcohol? If so, these people are not consumers, so how does excessive regulation help adult consumers?

If they are using the modern definition of young people, meaning anyone up to about thirty years of age, what did they actually do to reduce consumption?

Iceland imposed 'common sense laws'.

My definition of common sense may not concur, but let's see

They set a curfew for young people which meant they had to be home by 10pm in winter and midnight in summer.

Every day after school, young people attend clubs for arts, crafts or sport with not an iPad in sight. On the flip side, Iceland has the highest internet penetration per capita in Europe.

It’s not rocket science, but a little regulation has done a lot of good in Iceland.

So Icelands solution did not include minimum alcohol pricing or plain packaging? So why even use that as an example? Our Public Health busybodies are not calling for after school clubs, so what does any of that have to do with this?

The stampede to save humanity isn't stopping with food and drink, either. It includes data.

The imminent arrival of the GDPR in Europe in May 2018 has already put a spoke in Facebook’s wheel. People’s right to privacy would mean Facebook’s new AI app that trawls your posts and video comments for suicidal tendencies will be a big no-no.

Plain Packaging for personal data? So we have a right to privacy on the most public of all internet forums. but we don't have the right to decide what foods we can eat or drink? WTF?

There’s a new zeitgeist taking hold, and any industry that doesn’t have their consumers’ best interests at heart is on notice.
Every business worth it's salt already has it's consumers best interests at heart. They supply the things their consumers want to buy. No, what this little quote actually means is, any business that does not do as they are told by the Public Health Industry, is on notice. You will do as we want or we will royally mess you up. That's bullying and coercion

Brands would do well to wake up to the inevitable now, use their cash piles to diversify into industries that help humanity rather than destroy it.

The best possible way right now, for businesses to use their cash piles to help humanity, would be to use them to fight the rising tide of Big Government intervention and the tsunami of regulation that is taking over every choice, every freedom and every enjoyment we once had

The pub industry missed the boat on that one. Maybe the food industry will step up and protect their customers?

Maybe


Cris Snowdon tells us that Public Health is the middle classes imposing their will on the working class. So who wrote this article?

By Richard J. Hillgrove VI

Hmm...


2 Comments:

The Jannie said...

Bucko said...