Are we really living in a Nanny State?

[Rheghead]

I've been reading a book these last few days called The Arsenic Century by James C Whorton.

Within its pages are the account of how compounds of arsenic were allowed to permeate into the very fabric of Victorian life from confectionery to wallpaper with vivid descriptions of how those people suffered and died due to the chronic and sometimes acute poisoning.

Aresenic was in everything but when physicians started to complain to their MPs they got a wall of excuses why Government should not regulate against manufacturers putting arsenic into their products.

The bulk of the excuses came from the time honoured tension between a Government's duty to act in order to protect its citizens and the right of laissez-faire economic policy to allow private profiteering to go on unfettered thus allowing the citizen to make their own mind what is good for them.

Imagine it, we are talking arsenic here, one of the most toxic substances known!! :eek:

Well anyway, how many times do we see this tension between the Government's duty to protect and that of laissez-faire economics being played out today? Tobacco? fossil fuels? supplementary medicine? etc etc?

And yet I'm still baffled why some of today's citizens are still taken in by the same propaganda that was given out by Victorian manufacturers of arsenical wallpaper and sweets that says we should not live in a nanny state and the Government should allow the citizen to make up their own mind.

Those Victorian purveyors of arsenical foods even succeeded against any attempts that got them to label their food in terms of arsenic content which seems crazy to me.

So the next time you see of a case where a consumer or environmental group is holding a scientific or epidemiological study in one hand and complaining of a product that contains something bad, give them due consideration instead of listening to all the corporate excuses.

It may one day save your life one day, think arsenical lollipops!

[grumpyhippo]

Its OK aspiring to improve safety, but the modern slant on safety is to try and elliminate all risk, when all that you can practically achieve is reducing relative risk. So many persons response to the modern world is to try to live a 'life in tune with nature', remember there's nothing more natural than botulism.

[Kenn]

Common sense has often been thrown out with the bath water, may be that should be a school subject so that people can judge matters for themselves and not have to be wrapped in cotton wool.
With regard to historical practices then no doubt the book was fascinating Rheghead but I don't think there are many who come into contact with arsenic these days and whilst I appreciate that is most probably due to stringent legislation, we and manufacturing have moved on.

[Aaldtimer]

Watched the documentary on heroin/morphine/laudanum with the Dundee actor Brian Cox last night, absolutely amazing! How the Brits introduced addiction to the western world. Eye-opening!

[Errogie]

But if we can't stop the greater part of our population over eating themselves to death what chance have you got of achieving penetration of the selective psyche on these other more difficult to grasp issues?

[RecQuery]

Most tabloid examples of 'health and safety gone mad, innit' upon closer inspection turn out to be a council - or whatever governing or authoritative body - banning something and then using health and safety or the EU as things most average people will get annoyed about but not argue with or look into deeper. It's just them banning or restricting it for another reason then using that as a catch-all.

On a side note society is rife with hypocrisy on these issues, some things that are way too dangerous are permitted while others which are relatively safe aren't. As with everything else follow the money, special interests and biases of people in charge.