A Framework Convention on Obesity Control

Oh dear. They’re talking about an FCTC treaty to deal with obesity. FCOC?

In a global show of support for increased efforts to tackle diet-related ill health, leading health campaigners and consumer advocates from across the world have publically endorsed calls for a tobacco-style Global Convention to protect and promote healthy diets.

With the world’s governments gathering in Rome this week for a conference that aims to address malnutrition in all its forms, an open letter calling for a binding treaty has been sent to the heads of the WHO and FAO, co-authored by Consumers International, the World Obesity Federation, the UK Health Forum and consumer groups in Fiji and Mexico, with the support of over 320 individuals and organisations.

The letter urges greater action to protect and promote healthy diets using a similar mechanism to the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control which has already proved successful in reducing tobacco use. The letter is addressed to WHO Director General Dr Margaret Chan, and FAO Director General José Graziano da Silva, ahead of the International Conference on Nutrition (19-21 November, Rome).

The letter states that ‘the governance of food production and distribution cannot be left to economic interests alone,’ and urges governments to take regulatory action to reduce children’s exposure to marketing, to impose compositional limits on the saturated fat, added sugar and sodium content of food, to bring in fiscal measures to discourage the consumption of unhealthy foods, and to require all trade and investment policies to be assessed for their potential health impacts.

The authors, who have already drafted a Global Convention to Protect and Promote Healthy Diets, state such a treaty can ‘help Member States, particularly smaller nations, to maintain a robust defence of public health for their citizens.’

Amanda Long, Director General of Consumers International said “Diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer are increasing in all regions of the world, most rapidly in developing countries. The policy actions that governments take now will determine whether we can turn the tide on this health crisis. A binding Global Convention offers the best hope of protecting and promoting the health of all consumers.” (my emphases)

If it’s anything like the War on Smokers, then we may expect restrictions or bans on fat, sugar, salt, in public places (i.e. restaurants, hotels, take-aways). The idea will be to ‘denormalise’ traditional foods, and replace them with ‘healthy’ alternatives. which will all be vegetarian.

The result will be that, instead of just a few restaurants being vegetarian (as at present), they all will be. And the food in them will be served in ‘healthy’ small portions. It will be hailed as a ‘great success’ from Day One, particularly among meat-eaters, 70% of whom will claim to want to quit eating meat. There will be numerous studies showing how heart attack or cancer cases drop after the introduction of the anti-obesity bans.

But the result will be that many people will stop going to restaurants, and many of them will go bust. Most people will continue to cook whatever they like at home, but taxation on meat, fat, sugar, and salt will mean that people will be forced to cut back, unless they can get smuggled meat or sugar. There’ll be a revival of Sunday Lunches, when after a week of eating rice and lentils, a roast leg of (Hungarian) lamb will appear on the dinner table, followed by (Estonian) black forest gateau with (Siberian) double cream. Friends will come round with strings of real sausages, and little bags of sugar and salt,

What meat and sugar and salt that is still available at inflated prices in shops will come in plain packaging, and plastered with health warnings. “Meat Kills.” “Sugar Blocks Your Arteries.” “Salt Can Damage Unborn Children.”

Lots of people will become meat-haters, and declare that they can’t stand the ‘stench’ of frying bacon. The President of the United States will publicly give up eating meat, largely at the insistence of his/her wife/husband – but will in fact eat cheeseburgers in secret,

Meat-eating will now be described as an ‘addiction’, and Big Pharma will market expensive Meat Replacement Therapies, which will actually be minute amounts of fat, to stick on your arm with plasters. These won’t reduce cravings for meat.

Instead e-food will appear. This will be food that looks just like traditional food, but is actually wholly synthetic. An e-chicken will look just like a chicken, but will actually be a cleverly woven soy bean product. The WHO will outlaw e-foods because they ‘look like traditional foods we’re trying to de-normalise’.

Big Meat – cattle farms and their distributors – will be demonised, and excluded from policy debates.

As the War on Obesity mounts, obesity will indeed dwindle. Nearly everyone will become thin and emaciated. But this will be described as being ‘leaner and fitter’, even though the leanest and fittest will tend to die off quicker than others. Diseases of malnutrition will re-appear.

As the ‘health crisis’ deepens (and by now there really will be a health crisis), there will be calls for tighter controls and further restrictions. Portion sizes in restaurants will be halved, and home cooking outlawed…


That’s about as far ahead as I can see.

Did I miss anything?


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to A Framework Convention on Obesity Control

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Yep,Now they got the whole damn world against them………………They so gonna lose their asses!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The letter states that ‘the governance of food production and distribution cannot be left to economic interests alone,’

      They are literally going to attempt to control the world food supply!

  2. Barry Homan says:

    So how do we respond

  3. About four years ago, Forum for the Future released four cartoons about “Megacities on the Move” – different scenarios about urban living in the year 2040. I wrote about it at the time, but I’ll save my link for their more recent article about meat by Jonathon Porritt: https://www.forumforthefuture.org/blog/farm-animals-bigger-system

    In one of the cartoon depictions of life, now just 25 years away, meat was such a rarity, you were fortunate if you could have some as a birthday treat.

    Now, Porritt writes,

    “But the problem is that we don’t connect. For all the amazing work being done by scientists and NGOs all over the world to ensure that a really substantial climate deal is done by the end of 2015, as part of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, you will rarely hear even a passing reference to the population connection; and although the meat connection is surfaced rather more often, there’s never a set of policy prescriptions to go with it.”

    He worries that with the world’s population projected to rise to nine billion before possibly starting to drop, the “emissions” from more farm animals will increase global temperatures. That means we’re at risk of dangerous climate change.

    It’s not just a ‘health’ issue, but a ‘climate change’ one as well, so yes, meat is destined to become a rarity.

    Four years ago, I wrote:

    “It would be easy to brush this animation off as just a scenario and not to be taken too seriously, but as I wrote about a few weeks ago when highlighting the Optimum Population Trust’s campaign for a huge reduction in the UK’s population, Forum for the Future offers students the chance to turn their environmental dreams into our common nightmare,

    Since 1996 our Masters in Leadership for Sustainable Development has been training the sustainability leaders of the future. Last year we celebrated the graduation of our 165th student, and many graduates are already making their mark as think-tank directors and government advisers.

    “Anyone who has studied the area of think-tanks and government advisory bodies soon realises that these tiny cabals making their plans in private have far more sway over government policy than public opinion and even backbench MPs’ wishes.”

    BTW, Porritt is also a patron of “Population Matters” – formerly the Optimum Population Trust – which held a eugenicist conference at the Scottish Parliament, calling for Scotland’s population to be reduced by a quarter and the UK’s by more than half to just 30 million by 2150.

    These people hate the fact that there are so many human beings on the planet and will make any excuse to make life more miserable for us while devising excuses for reducing the population under the guise of health and global warming (Porritt is still talking about it after 18 years without a rise).

    I see the Population Matters website has “Family planning & women’s rights” at the forefront. Feminists are too Bolshie and dumb to realise that they are just being used as tools by population control social engineers and are missing out on children and grandchildren because they have been brainwashed into worshipping their body and “controlling their fertility” and having all these wonderful “rights” while men like Jonathan Porritt laugh at how gullible they are.

    • P. Ondrin says:

      (Porritt is still talking about it after 18 years without a rise).
      Impotent then? That’s good.

      • Interested to learn that my efforts to educate prove to be a complete waste of time, energy and becoming needlessly frustrated. Considering shaking off the dust from my feet and spending my time more wisely.

        Probably my final treatise here. Thanks for the wake-up call.

        • Barry Homan says:

          Stewart, fact is we ALL should be spending our time more wisely; we’re embroiled in this whole saga over petty tyrants, petty issues, petty politics – migod, don’t we all got better things to do than fight the stupid Nanny State??

          But they’re not defeated yet. The loonies have taken control, and something needs to be done about it. I for one read your contributions, and I feel they’re composed rather well.

        • Thank you for your vote of confidence, Barry. Frank provides a valuable service, but what do the rest of us do (the majority who take things seriously)?

          I know some are proactive. I have tried getting through to politicians on a host of issues, but they are just puppets as we know. Some utterly disdain us. Ask Frank about Tom Harris MP. With me, everything was a “conspiracy theory” to him, from world government to false flag terrorism. I remember people on his blog rebuking him for the way he would talk down to me: http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2013/04/tom-harris-mp-and-other-useful-idiots-can-and-should-arrests-be-made

          Harris is reasonably intelligent, not your usual leftie loony, but the result is the same. He claims to be a ‘born again Christian’ yet ridicules scripture, votes for abortion, ‘gay marriage’, etc. Anything his leftist chums desire because that’s his real religion. Politicians are the problem, not the solution, but you’re no doubt aware of that.

          In my opinion, it needs many thousands of us reporting them to the police for treason and dragging them through the courts for anything and everything they have done, like the Aberdonian man re. the smoking ban ruining his social life.

          There have been successes, like Stewart Dimmock – one man – taking the Dept of Education to court over Al Gore’s fraudulent film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, being shown in every secondary school when it is in fact, as he claims, leftist propaganda and the judge agreed it was scientifically flawed and was not allowed to be shown without children being given the opposing viewpoint as well.

          Anyway, I wasn’t going to leave any more long comments, as it gets nothing done and some people just look to make jokes or dismiss me as being a “conspiracy theorist” even though the things I’ve been saying for the past 13 years have and continue to come to pass, but whatever degree of cognitive dissonance allows people to get on with their lives…

        • nisakiman says:

          Stewart, you know and accept that we often have differing opinions on various subjects. What unites us all is a rejection of the social engineering that is being carried out by fanatics using gullible and vote-hungry MPs as their proxies. And what we do here in comments is share knowledge. And knowledge is power.

          Sometimes it seems that we are wasting our time, that we are just a bunch of dissatisfied dissidents venting our frustration. It seems that we are achieving nothing. But that’s not true.

          It’s slow, yes, but it will accelerate. Every comment you or I make is read by many. If for every hundred views of a comment you have made, you persuade one person to investigate further, it’s a big gain; because you aren’t just making that one person question the orthodoxy – they then become the centre of a ripple effect, spreading the scepticism further. It’s why I comment on articles in all sorts of obscure publications worldwide. Sure, some, probably many fall on stony ground. But I know for a fact from responses I’ve had that in some instances I’ve made an impact, made someone think. And I’m sure there must be many who I don’t know about. Frank makes a considerably larger impact with his blog and his thoughtful and perceptive posts. But we all have a part to play.

          You write well and bring many interesting insights to the conversation. It doesn’t matter that we have different views on religion. That’s peripheral. It doesn’t even matter if I think you’re a nut-case with your conspiracy theories (I don’t actually, although I don’t agree with everything you write). That’s peripheral, too. Why we gather here for conversation (like people used to in the pub) is because we refuse to be cowed, we refuse to be lied to, and we reject the attempts to ‘socially condition’ us.

          Don’t lose heart. It does sometimes seem like we’re on a hiding to nowhere, but our options are limited. We do what we can. And it does make a difference.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Well said, Nisakiman.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        You get out and fight the battles and RE-EDUCATE the people against all th propaganda.

        If people don’t get a chance to read it without having to go look for it they wont ever hear the truth……….Its our job to make sure they know the truth and watch us fight the battles!

    • beobrigitte says:

      Feminists are too Bolshie and dumb to realise that they are just being used as tools by population control social engineers and are missing out on children and grandchildren…

      I would have to agree with you there, Stewart. The latest “offer” for women to freeze their eggs at the cost of the company as to “allow women to pursue a carrier” just means that the company has looked at the cost of maternity leave (which is set to increase) and all the interfering ‘hassle’ of e.g. extra time off work/flexible hours to fit everything under one hat.
      I am very much an equalitarian – if a woman puts a carrier in place of having a family it is her choice. I wanted both – a family (although I did not want to get married) and a carrier to support my family independently – just in case the relationship with my then partner did not last.
      But there is one major problem these days: one wage rarely covers all bills and leaves enough for the family to survive. Both parents will have to go to work – and it is mostly the woman who takes on a little part-time job (which affects her pension!).

      … because they have been brainwashed into worshipping their body and “controlling their fertility” and having all these wonderful “rights” while men like Jonathan Porritt laugh at how gullible they are.

      The body worship is very much driven by men, many of whom, incidentally, do not object to the women controlling their fertility. I do wonder when these women start thinking a little….. Women’s lib….. WHAT is women’s lib? Being conned into becoming a new form of blow-up doll (with never-to-be-used-frozen-eggs) isn’t “liberation”. It’s degrading.

    • smokingscot says:

      @ Nisakiman

      “It’s slow, yes, but it will accelerate.”

      May I suggest a tiny, itsy bitsy little amendment? Please? Pretty Please?

      It’s slow, yes, but it is accelerating.

      (and eventually we get to critical mass, when politicians, the establishment and MSM decide it’s time to back another gee gee).

  4. Tom says:

    “… Big Meat – cattle farms and their distributors – will be demonised, and excluded from policy debates….”

    Well, in Berkeley, California, USA, 8 miles across the Bay from San Francisco, Big Meat already IS being demonized – in a most vociferous and public manner – by those who hate it and want it destroyed. This after outdoor smoking has LONG been banned and a Sugar Tax was just implemented this last election. Big Meat, that is next on the agenda.

    The story and video is at:


  5. carol2000 says:

    Here’s the charlatans’ latest fraud pretending that secondhand smoke causes obesity:
    By Nicholas Bakalar. November 17, 2014
    And my response:
    It’s deliberate quackery, fraud and charlatanism, designed to promote their political agenda of tyrannizing over peoples’ lives and unnecessary regulation. And they’re getting millions of our tax dollars to perpetrate this fraud on the public. Gilliland or McConnell got parts of an NIEHS slush fund of $1,537,757, another of $29,055,721, and another of $7,520,033; Berhane, Gilliland, or McConnell have gotten parts of a $30,222,663 NIEHS slush fund; McConnell has gotten $1,995,702 from NIEHS; Berhane has received $79,070 from NICHD plus $300,000 from the “Office of the Director,” meaning the NIH Director’s slush fund. But best of all is the money they got from project number P50 CA 180905, $7,977,518 from the National Cancer Institute, which went to Jonathan M. Samet, whose name is not on this study. Samet has been the ringleader of the Surgeon General reports for decades, as well as most of the main secondhand smoke reports, which means that he’s directing our tax dollars to known sympathetic cronies, for studies whose outcome is pre-ordained, to be used in his bogus Surgeon General reports, as well as by the FDA committee on tobacco, whose scientific committee he heads. And they’ll all claim with straight faces that they have no conflicts of interest, as they cynically manufacture politically corrupt “evidence” at taxpayer expense.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Carol for some reason the Nazis are going into full FANATIC MODE! All at one time exposing all their plans at practically one time…………….

      • carol2000 says:

        So did you miss the most important point – that Samet is actually directing money to “studies” that are tailored to serve his intended uses in SG reports, etc., which he then selects while pretending that they’re impartial and independent, simply because his name doesn’t appear on them! But as the Project Director of their funding source, he had a direct role in their funding! And nobody, least of all the “media watchdogs,” ever comments on this. Just look under the “Publications” tab of those results for #P50 CA 180905, and there’s this latest study that the New York Times is trumpeting. Under the search results for Samet, Jonathan, there are 112 publications, many of which likewise don’t acknowledge Samet’s involvement. Such as: “The prevalence of household second-hand smoke exposure and its correlated factors in six counties of China,” which claimed that “Of 6972 respondents, 84.4% supported all the three tobacco control policies (banning smoking in public places, banning the selling of cigarettes to minors, banning all cigarette advertisements).”
        Samet’s hand is behind this one, too: “Exploring barriers to implementation of smoking policies: a qualitative study on health professionals from three county-level hospitals.” (In China) pubmed/18714826
        “The impact of taxation on tobacco consumption in Mexico.” Propaganda to raise cigarette taxes, pubmed/18285383
        “Passive smoking in China: contributing factors and areas for future interventions.” pubmed/18188996
        “[Before and after the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Mexico: a comparison from the 2003 and 2006 Global Youth Tobacco Survey].” pubmed/17607478
        “[Household tobacco consumption in Mexico, 1994-2005].” pubmed/17607489
        “Costs of medical care for acute myocardial infarction attributable to tobacco consumption.” (Mexico) pubmed/16971228
        “[Costs of medical care attributable to tobacco consumption at the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS), Morelos].” pubmed/16983991

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Nope I didn’t miss it at all. He even backed the phony cell phone brain cancer study 2 years ago………..But his ilk has been busted by the courts finally as Frank showed on his blog not long ago………

  6. waltc says:

    You missed nothing and had me rotf. The literary term for it is paranoid surrealism which has been described as paranoid realism that merely seems surreal but reveals that reality itself has become surreal. And if you don’t submit this to Spiked forthwith, I’ll be tempted to submit it for you, under your name of course, tagged with your email address and phone. For Gods sakes, do it. You might even make a few bucks.

    Meanwhile don’t forget the proposed state law that Harley has posted that would have forbidden restaurants from serving the obese, and the NY state law that proposed banning salt from the cooking process in all restaurants in the state. Neither of them passed, but we can only say “yet.”

    I merely add that, aside from the Low Salt For All theory being a total –and even counterproductive, crock, food that’s cooked without enough salt is totally inedible and no matter how much you try to pour on later, it doesn’t help at all. I’ve learned this from occasionally picking up a can of something I usually like, finding it awful, and then, too late, noticing the fine print at the bottom of the label that reads “low salt.”

  7. PJH says:

    Shouldn’t that “Framework Convention on *Food* Control”? (In an allusion to Tobacco, rather than smoking/smokers.)

    Because, as anyone should know by now, it’s got bugger all to do with obesity, and everything to do with controlling food.

  8. waltc says:

    Just saw that you asked yesterday about Obamacare and what made it bad. Latest poll shows only 37% of the people like it and figure that’s the percentage that’s not being screwed. It’s likely the % that’s either getting free or all but free insurance or hasn’t yet, but soon will be, negatively affected. The rest of everybody under 65 is not only paying much higher premiums but also newly faced with deductibles so high that unless during any given year they’re struck with a $10,000 + disease, the policy will reimburse them for nothing — nothing till they’ve laid out 10.000 bucks.

    And it doesn’t stop there. Despite Obama’s explicit promise that “if you like your current plan, you can keep current plan; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” most people have lost the plans they had and liked and could afford, and lost the doctors they may have been seeing for 20 years. Then too, the new Obama policies have refused to deal with large numbers of hospitals, so people who once might have gone to an emergency room down the block are being forced in some cases to drive 20 or 40 miles. Nor can they go to the nearby place and pay –exorbitantly–out of pocket because, as I understand it, the nearby hospital isn’t allowed to treat them.

    So, yes, it’s a success for the previously uninsured who are now getting free or greatly subsidized ( by the screwed) insurance, but they’re also increasingly finding that doctors won’t see them at all because the Obamacare reimbursement is so paltry, and many good experienced older doctors are simply retiring as two of my longtime specialists did, each giving O’care explicitly as the reason — not only the money, but the bureaucratic demands and the fact that they’re now supposed to prescribe by the book (as written by remote DC boards ) instead of by their own intuition and their knowledge of the individual patient.

    So yes, statists love it. Libertarians and individualists and people who think government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers and robbing Peter to pay Paul think it’s an abomination. (And look how I refused to make the obvious pun.)

    • nisakiman says:

      When I went to Australia in 1971, it was all private healthcare. You paid a (very reasonable, I remember) monthly premium, and if you went to the doctor, you’d have to pay $10, then you took the receipt to the insurance office and they’d give you $8 back. In those days, although $10 wasn’t a large sum, it wasn’t loose change either, so doctors surgeries were relatively free of time-waster hypochondriacs. The system worked, and worked well. In fact it was a superb health system.

      In 1972, Gough Whitlam was elected Prime Minister – the first Labour government for about 30 years, I think, and one of the first things they did was to create a nationalised health service modelled on the NHS. Almost overnight the system morphed into a bureaucratic behemoth. It still cost the same as the private system, except contributions came directly out of your wage packet before you got it. The previously peerless healthcare service we had come to take for granted descended into a barely functional mess. Waiting lists grew and corruption was rife. After a year or so, I went back to paying private health insurance (I had two young sons by then, and wanted them to have a decent medical system available to them).

      So the upshot of this wonderful, national health service that had been introduced with great fanfare to Australia was that it was costing me more than double for what had now become (even in the private sector, as the infrastructure had been absorbed into the state system) inferior care.

      It was about that time that the quip “I used to be a socialist, but then I got mugged by reality” started to apply to me.

  9. prog says:

    Sounds like another recipe for social division – the majority would despise fatties given that sanctions would apply to everyone.

  10. margo says:

    Crikey! The dairy farmers will all go bust, there’ll be hordes of sheep-rustlers all over Wales and gangs foraging for road-kill to flog off on street corners. None of it will work, anyway – people will still get fat; you can get fat on low-calorie soya beans if you eat enough of them.

    • Rose says:

      Not necessarily.

      “Let me tell you the story of a classic Whitehall farce, a tale of how the government came within a whisker of advocating bovine genocide.
      It all began when officials at the Department of Health decided to part-fund a piece of independent research looking at how health professionals could help combat the effects of climate change.

      The scientists came up with a rather courageous idea. Why not kill 30% of Britain’s cows and sheep?
      Not only would this help save the environment; it would also make us healthier.

      The theory goes like this: if you have less ruminant livestock, you emit less climate-damaging methane into the atmosphere.
      You also have less meat to eat, which means less saturated fat in our diets and thus less heart disease.

      Policy on the hoof?

      Officials liked the wheeze so much they decided Health Secretary Andy Burnham should give a speech at the launch of the report by the Lancet medical journal.
      There Mr Burnham congratulated the Lancet on its “timely report”.

      The Department of Health put out a handy press release summarising the report’s conclusions.
      It even rang up the Department of Energy and Climate Change and got it involved.
      A useful quote from Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband was included on the press release.
      Not to be outdone, a quote from international development minister Mike Foster was produced. All agreed that health and climate change could be two sides of the same coin.

      There was only one problem: no one had bothered to tell the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and, as its name suggests, it is in charge of cows.
      Defra officials gently pointed out that perhaps the “kill-a-cow, save-the-world” policy might have a few flaws.

      First, the farming community would be a tad unhappy. And sure enough the National Farmers’ Union was apoplectic, raging at the “ill-informed and simplistic report”, condemning ministers for their “poor judgement”.

      Second, cutting livestock in this country will not mean people eat less meat.

      We will just import more from places like Brazil and Argentina, who will cut down more rainforest to satisfy this lucrative extra demand from Europe.
      Third, how exactly was the government going to go about culling 30% of Britain’s ruminant livestock?

      Not surprisingly the media began asking questions. Was Andy Burnham really advocating killing cows?
      For the Conservatives, shadow environment secretary Nick Herbert said that “careless demands like this don’t just undermine farming, they erode public support for action on climate change”.

      As the penny slowly dropped, the screech of brakes could heard across Whitehall. ”

      less saturated fat in our diets and thus less heart disease

      The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease

      “”Saturated fat does not cause heart disease”—or so concluded a big study published in March in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. How could this be? The very cornerstone of dietary advice for generations has been that the saturated fats in butter, cheese and red meat should be avoided because they clog our arteries. For many diet-conscious Americans, it is simply second nature to opt for chicken over sirloin, canola oil over butter.

      The new study’s conclusion shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with modern nutritional science, however. The fact is, there has never been solid evidence for the idea that these fats cause disease. We only believe this to be the case because nutrition policy has been derailed over the past half-century by a mixture of personal ambition, bad science, politics and bias.”

      Personally I wouldn’t trust them to make me a sandwich.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    A must read,somebody finally figured out what the hells been going on!


    Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

    Westminster, Mass., and the well-tended grass roots of tobacco bans

    by Walter Olson on November 19, 2014

    Townspeople came out loudly and in force to oppose the proposed Westminster, Mass. ban on all tobacco sales, and that has thrown advocates back a bit [New York Times, MassLive, earlier]:

    “They’re just taking away everyday freedoms, little by little,” said Nate Johnson, 32, an egg farmer who also works in an auto body shop, as he stood outside the store last week. “This isn’t about tobacco, it’s about control,” he said.

    Right he is. And despite the Times reporter’s lifted eyebrow at the notion that “outside groups” are encouraging town officials to go forward with the ban, it’s worth asking how Westminster, Mass., population 7,400, came to have its very own “tobacco control officer.” Do you imagine the townspeople decided to create such a position with local tax funds? If so, read on.

    WestminsterSealFor well over a decade the Massachusetts Municipal Association has run something called the Tobacco Control Technical Assistance Program, assisted by grant money from the state Department of Public Health. It does things like campaign for town-by-town hikes in the tobacco purchase age to 21, and town-by-town bans on tobacco sales in drug stores. It will surprise few that it has been in the thick of the Westminster situation.

    This article, written for a friendly audience of public health advocates, frankly describes how the MMA project, with assistance from nonprofit and university groups as well as the state of Massachusetts, worked to break down the reluctance of town health boards to venture into restrictions on tobacco sales (scroll to “Roles of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program, Local Boards of Health, and Tobacco Control Advocates”);

    Local boards were enticed into hiring tobacco control staff by the DPH’s tobacco control grants. As a participant in the process explained, “[L]ocal boards of health looked at it as ‘oh, it’s a grant. Let’s apply for this grant. So now, what do we have to do, now that we’ve got it?’” … The grants dictated that local boards use those community members they had hired as their staff to assist them in enacting and enforcing tobacco control regulations…

    The staff paid for with money from outside the town seem to have seen their job as, in part, lobbying the local officials: “We’ve had to work on each individual board [of health] member to get them to come around,” said one.

    The account continues with many revealing details of how the outside advisers managed to orchestrate public hearings to minimize critics’ voice, deflect challenges with “we’ll take that under advisement” rather than actual answers, and in the case of particularly intense opposition, “back off for a couple of months” before returning. “Grant-funded regulatory advocates were able to counter all of [opponents’] arguments and tactics.”

    In other words, an extra reason for the townspeople of Westminster to be angry is that they have been paying to lobby themselves. And it’s worth knowing exactly how the game plan works, because similar ones have been rolled out to localities in various states not only on “tobacco control” but on “food policy,” environmental bans and other topics. Grass roots? If so, most carefully cultivated in high places.


    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Local boards were enticed into hiring tobacco control staff by the DPH’s tobacco control grants. As a participant in the process explained, “[L]ocal boards of health looked at it as ‘oh, it’s a grant. Let’s apply for this grant. So now, what do we have to do, now that we’ve got it?’” … The grants dictated that local boards use those community members they had hired as their staff to assist them in enacting and enforcing tobacco control regulations…

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Then the Devil came to collect his due and OMG the locals came with pitchforks and buckets of tar with feathers for the health board monsters!

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Scared you’ll gain weight if you quit smoking? Cigarettes are more deadly than carrying extra pounds, doctors say
    Ex-smokers who gained weight after quitting didn’t increase risk of dying
    Average person puts on up to two stone (around 13kg) a year after quitting
    Scientists believe nicotine suppresses appetite and speeds up metabolism

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2840620/Scared-ll-gain-weight-quit-smoking-Cigarettes-deadly-carrying-extra-pounds-doctors-say.html#ixzz3JWnI94PL

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      They changed the bar NOW ITS RISK OF DYING……….

      Instead of risk of diseases like diabetes or pick your disease these days!

      • Rose says:

        It’s not the weight, it’s the diabetes that worries me.

        “Quitters face an almost doubled risk of developing diabetes in their first three smoke-free years.
        Researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, studied 10,892 adult smokers, none of whom had diabetes at the start of the study.

        “Extra weight put on by new quitters explains around a third of the increased risk, the researchers said. A further third of the excess risk is accounted for by systemic inflammation, as assessed by increased leukocyte counts.

        However, after adjusting for this weight gain and inflammation, new quitters were still at higher risk compared with participants who continued smoking.”

        “Patients should, however, be made aware of the risk and advised to consider countermeasures, particularly for heavy smokers, they said.”

        Increased Bodyweight After Stopping Smoking May Be Due to Changes in Insulin Secretion

        “ScienceDaily (May 7, 2012) — Fear of putting on weight is one of the major reasons why smokers do not give up their habit.

        The reasons for this weight gain are believed to be in part due to metabolic changes in the body, but until now precise details of these changes were not known.”
        http: //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120507210042.htm

        Oh and this.

        Quitters finish first
        Health warning: giving up smoking can kill


        “The danger of cigarettes is mostly not in smoking them, argues a study by three doctors at the KS Hegde Medical Academy in Mangalore, India. Or, put another way: the danger comes from not smoking. Figuratively blowing smoke in the face of conventional wisdom, the study asks: “Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?”

        Arunachalam Kumar, Kasaragod Mallya and Jairaj Kumar take little for granted. They begin: “The clinically high correlation between smoking and carcinoma of the lungs has been the focal point in societal campaigns against the habit and the tobacco lobby.” But their experience with patients suggests to them a different, seldom-told story. “We are struck by the more than casual relationship between the appearance of lung cancer and an abrupt and recent cessation of the smoking habit in many, if not most, cases.”

        Experience is their guide, numerically speaking. Of the 312 lung cancer patients they treated during a four-year period, 182 had recently quit smoking. The report goes into detail. “Each had been addicted to the habit no less than 25 years, smoking in excess of 20 sticks a day. The striking direct statistical correlation between cessation of smoking to the development of lung malignancies, more than 60% plus, is too glaring to be dismissed as coincidental.”

        And this.

        Many Lung Cancer Patients Stopped Smoking Years Before Diagnosis

        “July 14, 2010 (Los Angeles, California) — Much of what people think they know about smoking and lung cancer might be wrong, according to findings presented here at the 11th International Lung Cancer Conference.

        For example, many if not most patients with a history of smoking quit decades before. In a retrospective study of 626 people with lung cancer treated at a tertiary-care facility in Southern California, 482 (77%) had a history of smoking. Of those, only 71 patients (14.7%) were still smoking at the time of their diagnosis. Of the remaining 411 patients, 245 (60%) had not smoked for a mean of 18 years, 8 of whom had quit 51 to 60 years earlier. The other 166 (40%) had stopped smoking within 10 years of their diagnosis.

        “Sixty percent of our cohort developed lung cancer despite doing the right thing by stopping smoking over 1 decade ago,” according to the researchers.

        These findings contradict the popular perception that most people with lung cancer are ongoing smokers who did not kick the habit until cancer symptoms appeared, the researchers note”

        “In 1995, California passed one of the first antismoking laws in the nation when it banned smoking in enclosed workspaces. This might have encouraged more people to quit smoking than in other parts of the country and might help account for the preponderance of patients in the earlier stages of cancer.”

        “Lung cancer suffers from a stigma because most people assume that the patients did it to themselves,” said David R. Gandara, MD, professor of medicine and associate director of clinical research, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine.

        However, that perception is changing rapidly, and funding for lung cancer research is growing, added Dr. Gandara, who was not involved in this study. “Although smoking cessation is important, it is not the total answer. One third of lung cancer patients have never smoked and have never been exposed to second-hand smoke.”

        Identifying the cause of these malignancies is now the focus of intense interest among investigators. “Is it viral? Is it something else? We still don’t know,” Dr. Gandara said.”

        http: //www.medscape.com/viewarticle/725138

        So I remain unconvinced.

    • PJH says:

      “Ex-smokers who gained weight after quitting didn’t increase risk of dying”

      You mean their risk of dying didn’t increase from… 100%?

      I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya. What’s the risk of dying if you keep smoking?…

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ive a feeling since the losses at the election the Nazis are in full fledged SCARE MODE. They are literally pushing every objective they ever had on the horizon right now at one time everywhere and pulling out all the stops.

    The people are rising up and fighting right along side of us………………………

  14. lleweton says:

    A new question for the Practice Nurse perhaps: ‘How many ‘units’ of meat do you have in a week?’

  15. Rose says:

    Now here’s something I didn’t know.

    Smoking cessation drug more harmful than previously thought: report


    “Bupropion was approved by Health Canada in 1998. But a dozen years ago, reports started surfacing that it was being used as a recreational drug because of its potential to cause a cocaine-like high. It has been snorted up the nose and injected into veins, mostly by those with a pattern or previous history of substance abuse.

    In street parlance, the medication is variously called welbys or wellies. When injected intravenously, it can cause severe skin lesions and vascular complications or even death. In September 2013, Global News reported that it was increasingly being used as a street drug in Toronto, gaining a reputation as a “poor man’s cocaine.”

    • nisakiman says:

      Blimey, Rose, I used to be quite keen on recreational drugs, but I can’t see myself ever considering Zyban as a potential high. Given the way it’s supposed to work, I can’t think of anything worse! More of an anti-high than a high. There must be some real desperadoes around…

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    John Stossel on Government Control Freaks

    Nov. 19, 2014 12:00 pm
    Control freaks want to run your life. They call themselves “public servants.” But whether student council president, environmental bureaucrat, or member of Congress, most believe they know how to run your life better than you do.

    I admit I was once guilty of this kind of thinking. As a young consumer reporter, I researched what doctors said was bad for us and what products might harm us. Then I demanded that the state pass rules to protect us from those things. The concept of individual freedom was not yet on my radar screen. I apologize. I was ignorant and arrogant.

    But at least I had no real power. I couldn’t force consumers to avoid unhealthy things or pay for certain kinds of health care. I couldn’t force any business to stop selling something. Only government can do that. Only government can use force.

    Sadly, government is filled with people just as ignorant and arrogant as I was.

    Economist Matthew Mitchell of the Mercatus Center likes to point out that governments impose regulations without acknowledging that the new rules will have unintended consequences.

    Bans on smoking in restaurants and bars is one of the control freaks’ favorite campaigns. “A recent Cornell study,” Mitchell says on my show this week, “found that in those areas where they introduced bans on smoking, you saw an increase in accidents related to alcohol. The theory is that people drive longer distances in order to find bars that either have outside seating or are outside the jurisdiction.”

    I selfishly like smoking bans. I don’t like breathing others’ smoke. But the majority of us shouldn’t force our preferences on the minority, even if they do things that are dangerous. Smokers ought to be allowed to smoke in some bars, if the bar owners allow it. But today in about half the states, no one may smoke in any bar.

    It’s totalitarianism from the health police. If secondhand smoke were dangerous enough to threaten non-smokers, the control freaks would have a point, but it isn’t. It barely has any detectable health effect at all.

    Rule-makers always want more. At first, they just asked for bans on TV’s cigarette ads. Then they demanded no-smoking sections in restaurants. Then bans in airplanes, schools, workplaces, entire restaurants. Then bars, too. Now sometimes even apartments and outdoor spaces. Can’t smokers have some places?

    So far, smokers just … take it. But maybe that’s changing. The town of Westminster, Massachusetts, recently held hearings on whether to ban the sale of tobacco products altogether, and 500 angry people showed up.

    One said, “I find smoking one of the most disgusting habits anybody could possibly do. On top of that, I find this proposal to be even more of a disgusting thing.” Good for him.

    Mitchell warns that “we are accustomed to thinking about the federal government and federal overreach. But a lot of the most intrusive regulations happen at the local level,” as in Westminster.

    In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, police charged two pastors and a 90-year-old volunteer with giving food to poor people in public. Florida law declares it illegal to give away food in an outdoor location without providing public toilets. The restrictions were instated in the name of “public health and safety.”

    In New Jersey, churches were forced to stop offering Thanksgiving dinners to poor people because they didn’t have “properly licensed commercial kitchens.”

    A court threw out a soft drink ban imposed on my city, New York, by then-mayor Bloomberg, but my new control-freak mayor, Bill de Blasio, plans to reinstate the ban.

    The rules keep coming. Another New York regulation, banning trans fats in restaurants, led to stringent bans on which foods people were allowed to donate to the hungry. I’d think the poor have bigger problems than trans fats. Their biggest problem is the same one we all have: too much government.

    • nisakiman says:

      I’ve just spent some time reading the comments there, Harley. A lot of witty and intelligent stuff. All is not lost!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The people have been awoken to say the least. So we need to strike while the iron is hot!

        Give them enuf info to fuel hatred of the Nazis so deep that riots might even happen as could easily have been the issue in Westminster MassHole as I saw it called today on a radar in speed signs story by many people.

        Mass. the people are basically up in arms over the whole damned state of nanny politics and laws!

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Truly the people of Massachussetts and California have suffered the worse under Nazi control. But then Im talking about the folks who didn’t vote for them and then also about those who finally saw the light and error of their ways and thinking………Finally the Nazis fucked even theyre base of support and hell has to be paid now!

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.