Beyond the Nanny State
To give credit where it's due, Junk Food Science today touched another nerve on a topic seemingly far afield from concerns of the salt industry, but on closer examination, there are alarming parallels.
CBS Evening News reported the story yesterday that an idea generated by a handicapped 16-year old in a high school "There Ought to be a Law" writing contest has been introduced as a bill in the California state legislature. As JFS's Sandy Szwarc explains:
The bill will require all poor women receiving welfare benefits to be tested for narcotics. Those who test positive will be required to undergo treatment or lose their public assistance, including healthcare. The rationale behind the bill is to dispense state healthcare dollars prudently and to protect children from health problems due to women who do drugs while pregnant.
Her concern (and ours) is the "slippery slope" of the argument. In this case, I'd posit, very few would defend the behavior of narcotics use. Certainly every taxpayer also wants government health care costs curtailed. Where do you stop? Which unhealthy actions should be used to deny public welfare benefits (and what benefits? food stamps or Social Security, Medicare, etc.?). Smoking, for example. Should smokers be ineligible for taxpayer-subsidized Medicare hospitalization? What about binge drinkers? Over-eaters (or those not following the Dietary Guidelines)? For some, hard evidence might actually show the behavior caused a burden on taxpayer services, but it could extend to other non-data-driven, politically-correct behaviors such as buying foods not labeled "low salt" or sprinkling salt on your food in a restaurant (surely, we'll still be able to eat as we please at home!). Far fetched? I hope so; I fear not.
