Editorial Comment: "Natural" Does Not Mean "Better"

(Don't forget, my daily editorial comment airs weekday mornings at 6:20 with Bruce Kenyon and the Morning News, and again at 12:20pm with Wayne Nelson and Today So Far.)

Thursday's editorial comment: 

Short of describing your product as "green", there's probably no more popular marketing buzz words these days than "organic" or "natural".

There's plenty of nasty and dangerous stuff that occurs naturally, mind you - but these days it seems we get all warm and fuzzy when something's described to us as "natural".

 

We seem to get the exact opposite feeling when it comes to anything "artificial" or "synthetic", though it's unclear why

Chemicals are chemicals - some are safe, some are dangerous. It's irrelevent whether they are natural or artificial.

 

We've certainly seen this juxtaposition throughout the debate in Calgary and elsewhere over whether to ban the cosmetic use pesticides.

We were frequently told about how important it was to phase out the use of these dangerous, man-made chemicals that are wreaking havoc on the environment.

We were also frequently reminded that there are nice, safe natural and organic alternatives to these nasty chemicals.

But is that really the case? Not so, it would seem.

 

A new study out of the University of Guelph finds that natural pesticides could actually cause more environmental damage. Not only that, but they were less effective, too.

For example, when it came to killing aphids, the aphids had to be practically smothered by the natural pestidice - which also have the effect of killing other bugs who prey on aphids.

"Natural" and "organic" might sound better, but it does not necessarily mean better.

 

Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?

Helen Lovejoy strikes again, as anti-smoking groups huff and puff (no pun intended) once again about flavoured tobacco: 

Cigar distributors are squeezing through loopholes in a new federal law banning candy-flavoured cigarillos so they can continue to sell smokes that appeal to kids, QMI Agency has learned.

The Tories pledged to get rid of the cigarette-size cigars – in flavours like grape, tangerine and vanilla – because they target children. But with the legislation set to kick in July 5, distributors have found plenty of ways to get around it – a move critics call reprehensible.

(...)Manufacturers have slightly increased the size and weight of the product, changed the label from cigarillo to cigar and removed the filters so they can still sell them in different flavours.

(...)Dr. Anne Doig, head of the Canadian Medical Association, says she expects lawmakers to fix any loopholes.

(...)The Canadian Lung Association will work with MPs to fix the law, said Louis Brill, chair of tobacco policy.

“The tobacco industry is once again clearly disrespecting the will of the Canadian people and certainly disrespecting the direction of Parliament and clearly disregarding the health of Canadian children,” he said.

 

 

You'll notice that the article states as a matter of fact - without offering even a shred of supporting evidence - that flavoured tobacco "targets children" and that dealing with the matter is about protecting "the health of Canadian children".

 

But is that the case?

 

As I wrote last year: 

Last week, federal legislation to ban flavoured tobacco received royal assent, meaning that such products will be prohibited as of next year. Those being "protected" by this measure are said to be children--anti-smoking groups and now the federal government all allege that these products are being marketed to children. Of course, any "marketing" of tobacco is all but illegal, and the sale of tobacco, flavoured or otherwise, to minors is most certainly illegal. Anti-smoking groups claim that one in three Canadians aged 15-19 have "used these products," a figure derived from Health Canada's Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey.

However, that 30 per cent figure is the response to the question of  "have ever tried." The "tried in the last 30 days" question elicits a response closer to 10 per cent. Flavoured tobacco is also lumped in  with "little cigars" in the survey, so the reality is much more muddled. Regardless, rather than take steps to keep such products out of the hands of minors, the response is to simply ban a product on the basis that it might appeal to teens. Once again, such logic can creep well beyond this specific instance: peach coolers and Playboy magazines might also appeal to 17-year-olds. Perhaps all wine coolers should taste like Chardonnay and all Playboy models should be older than 30.

 

Meanwhile, south of the border, flavoured tobacco was banned in 2004 - officials in the US are still making the case that it was about "protecting children".

 

However, as tobacco policy analyst and anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel points out: 

It is well known that I disagree with the views of the FDA, Department of Health and Human Services, and Representative Waxman on the merits of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. There is certainly room for alternative opinions on the merits of this new law.

However, what I do not believe there is room for is misleading the American public about the scientific facts. It is tantamount to lying to the public to tell us that candy flavored cigarettes are a gateway to youth smoking. It is disingenous, if not an outright lie, to assert that flavored cigarettes are alluring and enticing kids to smoke. It is demonstrably false that the ban on flavored cigarettes will break the cycle of addiction for 3,600 youths a day. It is untruthful to state that candy-flavored cigarettes were being used by the tobacco industry to hook youths. And it is outright false to claim that the ban on candy-flavored cigarettes will lower youth smoking rates, as the law applies to virtually no brands actually smoked by youths.

 

 

Read the whole thing. More here.

Herald Column: It Matters Not Whether We "Need" "Fox News North"

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the debate over Quebecor Media's proposed "Sun News TV" - also known in the media as "Fox News North" - and why the word "need" has no place in that debate: 

Perhaps the most irrelevant question regarding Quebecor Media Inc.’s (QMI) proposed cable news channel is the question of whether Canada “needs” such a channel.

In fact, not only is the question irrelevant, it’s hugely presumptive and arrogant on the part of those raising it.

(...)

So all we really know at this point is that sometime in the near future, presumably, Canadians will have an additional option when it comes to cable news and current affairs programming. Whether Canadians want such an option remains to be seen. Whether Canada “needs” such an option need not be asked.

But alas, it is being asked.

Veteran CBC journalist Don Newman made quite a splash with his provocative online column which declared that this proposed new channel is “the last thing Canada needs.”

A poll at the CBC website asked its readers whether “Canada need(s) another all-news network?”

In other columns and blog posts and their respective comment threads, phrases such as “where’s the need” and “Canada does not need” are common refrains.

Of course, none of this discussion took place when Al-Jazeera English became available in Canada. No one questioned whether Canada ‘needed such a network – nor should such a question have been raised.

Al-Jazeera English will succeed or fail based on whether enough Canadians choose to watch it. So, too, will QMI‘s venture. If ``need`` is the determining factor, then I suppose we could all make do with the CBC and its cable news offspring.

It’s not unlike a businessman proposing to open a new restaurant. Even were it a brash businessman dismissing Calgary’s existing restaurants as stale and boring, it would be foolish to task city bureaucrats with deciding whether Calgary “needed” another restaurant.

Who exactly gets to determine – and then enforce – what that “need” is? Sorry, Mr. Would-be-Restaurant-Owner, but we already have “enough” Italian restaurants. The market will make that determination – not some government bureaucrats.

Ditto for “Fox News North” – Canadians will either watch it or they won’t. If the demand exists, then any question over whether the supply should be allowed to exist is outrageous. If the demand does not exist, then all of this debate is moot. It is strangely ironic that those who are most convinced that this network will fail are the ones who are shrieking the loudest about it.

It is a dangerous path to go down when we allow the state use “need” as the basis for decisions on what citizens have access to.

Why do you need to smoke? Why do you need to own a firearm? Why do you need to draw a picture of Mohammed? Why do you need to watch a right-wing cable news channel?

The implication, of course, is that unless you can demonstrate a “need”, the choice you should be entitled to make of your own accord is made on your behalf by the state.

What we should really fear is not “Fox News North”, but rather those who profess to know whether we “need” such a thing in the first place.

 

Why Alberta's Minimum Wage Should Remain Frozen

Back in February, the Alberta government announced that the province's minimum wage would be frozen. As I wrote at the time: 

...The ostensible purpose of having, and then increasing, a minimum wage is to "help" those holding low-skill, entry level jobs.

In order to accept the premise that they are being "helped", one must look solely at wages: going from $8 to $10-an-hour, for example, would indeed appear to be an improvement.

However, if that increase has been forced upon your employer, and your employer's earnings are stagnant or worse, where is that increase going to come from?

It may mean that positions are cut, or that hours are reduced. It might mean that benefits are trimmed or training opportunities eliminated.

If you go from 40 hours a week at $8 an hour, to 30 hours at $10 an hour, simple math tells you that you've actually just received a pay cut. Factor in lost benefits and/or on-the-job training and it's hard to see how you've been "helped".

Of course, another way an employer would cover the cost of a mandated wage increase would be to simply raise prices. So now the employee working fewer hours (assuming he still has a job) and earning less now has to pay more for goods and services.

As the late Ronald Reagan so aptly put it, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

The negative impact of minimum wage policy can be seen through the research on the subject.

As the Fraser Institute has pointed out, a major review by two economists of more than 100 studies from 20 countries found that the "overwhelming majority" consistently show decreases in employment stemming from minimum wage increases.

As we all know (or should know), it is the marketplace which determines the value of certain skills, and therefore the value of certain jobs.

 

 

Today, a government committee met to review the decision to freeze the minium wage. Not surprisingly, there were calls for the wage to increase: 

...Public Interest Alberta wants the province to re-establish annual increases to the minimum wage. Other groups in attendance include the Catholic Archdiocese of Edmonton. They pointed out that the amount of people with jobs who use the food bank in Alberta is twice the national average. 

As noted above, raising the minimum wage is not the answer, and may be just as likely to hurt those it's aimed at helping. The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has helpfully summed much of this up in this new video:

 

 

More here.

 

Prince of Wales, King of Woo

Ladies and gentlemen, our future king (NSFW: may be sleep-inducing or cause severe brain numbing):

 

 

In order to spare you a wasted 51 minutes, here's the complete transcript, and here are some choice excerpts: 

This imbalance, where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo's assertion that there is nothing in Nature but quantity and motion. This is the view that continues to frame the general perception of the way the world works and how we fit within the scheme of things. As a result, Nature has been completely objectified – “She” has become an “it” – and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo’s scheme

 

(...)

 

Our spiritual perspective has been flattened and made earthbound and we are persuaded to channel all of our natural, never-ending desire for what Islamic poets called “the Beloved” towards nothing but more and more material commodities. Unfortunately we forget that our spiritual desire can never be completely satisfied. It is rightly a never-ending desire. But when that desire is focussed only on the earthly, it becomes potentially disastrous.

 

(...)

 

The utter dominance of the mechanistic approach of science over everything else, including religion, has “de-souled” the dominant world view, and that includes our perception of Nature. As soul is elbowed out of the picture, our deeper link with the natural world is severed. Our sense of the spiritual relationship between humanity, the Earth and her great diversity of life has become dim.

 

(...)

 

The task is surely to reconnect ourselves with the wisdom found in Nature which is stressed by each of the sacred traditions in their own way

 

(...)

 

How else can we heal the divide between East and West unless we reconcile the East and West within ourselves? Everything in Nature is a paradox and seems to carry within itself the paradox of opposites. Curiously, this maintains the essential balance.

 

(...)

 

All of the mounting evidence is telling us that we are, indeed, on the wrong road, so you might think it would be wise to draw on the timeless guidance that comes from our intuitive sense of the origin of all things to which we are rooted. Nature's rhythms, her cycles and her processes, are our guides to this uncreated, originating voice. They are our greatest teachers because they are expressions of Divine Unity.

Um, with all due respect, Your Royal Highess - just what the hell are you talking about? Is this just a bizarre comglomeration of pandering to his audience and his own environmental views? Or does he really subscribe to this strange beliefs?

 

As Times of London columnist Oliver Kamm aptly puts it: 

...When the Prince argues for homeopathy you can at least understand the case he’s making and respond that there’s nothing in it. His call for the recovery of the soul to the mainstream of scientific thinking is, by contrast, pure mumbo-jumbo.

 

(...)

 

The Prince’s invocation of “sacred traditions” is utterly opposed to scientific inquiry — for if truth is already known through revelation and sacred texts, why bother with fallible human reason and inquiry?

 

The Prince’s prescriptions are not a call for humility but a recipe for the suppression of knowledge.

Further thoughts from PZ Myers.

 

UPDATE: More on the Prince's fondness for pseudoscience here, here, here, here, here, and here.

 

UPDATE #2   : A brilliant, must-read column from Christopher Hitchens.

Herald Column: Take More Government Meddling Off the Menu

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the move toward mandatory calorie displays and restaurants and argues that we don't need and shouldn't want such a change: 

...Ontario appears poised to become the first Canadian province to introduce legislation requiring restaurants to post calorie information.

 

A New Democrat MPP has tabled a private member's bill that would require chain restaurants to post calorie information next to the price for all menu items.

 

The Ontario government, meanwhile, says it's already working on similar legislation. Either way, it seems, the change is coming. As one province goes, so, surely will others. This follows the trend south of the border which started with New York in 2008 and is now spreading right across the U.S.

 

Many Canadian health activists are highly supportive of importing such an approach, citing our rising obesity rate -- one that remains far lower than the American rate, mind you.

 

It's also worth noting that the obesity problem has worsened despite the mandatory nutritional labelling on all products sold in stores, which is where we obtain the majority of food we consume. Forcing restaurants to thrust this information in people's faces is not just a condescending approach, it is one fraught with problems.

 

For one, it is quite limited. Fat and sodium content, for example, will not be displayed. For many people, sodium intake is just as important, if not more so, than caloric intake.

 

It is also quite unwieldy. Consider Tim Hortons, for example. Are they to display the calorie count of every doughnut they sell? The calorie count varies from doughnut to doughnut -- as one can learn after just a few minutes at timhortons.comMore important, however, is whether this approach works.

 

One major study published last October in the journal Health Affairs studied New York's experience before and after the legislation.

 

The study followed 1,156 adults at fast-food restaurants in low-income, minority New York neighbourhoods and a comparable sample in nearby Newark, N.J.

 

In New York, the number of calories per order actually went up slightly after the change, and was higher than the Newark sample.

 

Now one could argue -- and many have -- that mandatory labelling might have more impact in higher-income neighbourhoods. That, though, would seem to be an admission of defeat, since research has shown that in the U.S. obesity rates are higher in lower-income communities.

 

The other wrinkle in all of this is how people's eating habits can change when they know there are consuming something healthy, such as a lower-calorie menu item.

 

Cornell University's Brian Wansink has documented a phenomenon that's been dubbed the "health halo." It seems that when some people choose what they perceive to be a healthy meal choice, they reward that "good" behaviour with a "naughty" side dish or dessert or an extra snack later.

 

There are far more practical ways of ensuring nutritional information is available to consumers. Beyond what's already available online and in-store, why not instead ask restaurants to display that information on a separate board or on the tray liners or an insert in each to-go bag.

 

However, there are also many people for whom a night out at a restaurant is an occasional outing -- a break from what might otherwise be a healthy lifestyle. Why do we need to shame those people by rubbing their noses in this information?

 

Should we then have clerks and waiters asking customers if they're sure -- really sure? -- that they want that bacon cheeseburger or nachos supreme?

 

By all means, let's promote healthier lifestyles and help people equip themselves with the knowledge to make better choices. We don't, however, need to be ramming information down people's throats.