The lost political skill of saying ‘No’

Friday February 10, 2012

The idea that the sale of sugar should be restricted on public health grounds lays bare the cowardice of our politicians, says Martin Cullip

When California University’s Robert Lustig announced last week that sugar is “toxic, easily abused and harmful to society” and called for regulation like that of tobacco and alcohol, it was too alluring for the world’s media to ignore. From Wapping to Wellington they rushed to publish, mindful that a scare affecting a commodity enjoyed by every living human couldn’t fail to sell newspapers.

Another attractive aspect for the press of Lustig’s claims is that they came hurtling out of the blue. Every editor has seen plenty of studies condemning the usual unhealthy suspects, but apart from a few muted references to fruit juices, sugar was largely considered a benign substance. For an academic to state bluntly that the time had come for age restrictions and prohibitive taxation, with no longstanding campaign preceding it, was startling in its ambition.

The regulations to restrict the availability and affordability of tobacco and alcohol have been the result of decades long campaigns. Even today’s pariah status for smoking and smokers was a long time coming, with governments historically concerned to protect the liberties of the public.

Public health advocates would previously recommend stronger health warnings, or merely fewer adverts, rather than heavy-handed intervention. Many an expert would receive the hair-dryer treatment from MPs in committee if they overstepped the mark and attempted to badger for tougher measures. Personal responsibility and the rights of the individual to make their own decisions was a prime concern for politicians, and those who sought to interfere in lifestyle choices were careful not to overreach for fear of being branded eccentric, or worse.

The approaches of both sides in these debates, however, have changed dramatically in recent years. Once well-meaning campaigns have been hijacked by professional, salaried lobbyists who forensically construct information to suit their pre-formed conclusions. Meanwhile politicians have forgotten how to say a firm ‘no’ to safeguard the personal freedoms of their electorate.

The fragile balance which had served society well for many years, weighing rights and liberties of the individual against the severity of the health threat in question, has been skewed overwhelmingly in favour of those with a prohibitionist agenda.

Increasingly weak scientific evidence is now sufficient to persuade politicians to wave through ever harsher legislation. So much so that, even in an age where information is all around us like never before, mere advice and education have largely been discarded as a public health option. Experts now come armed not only with studies and research, reasoning, and moral suasion, but also recommendations of urgent prohibitive regulation for politicians to rubber stamp, safe in the knowledge that they will encounter little resistance.

Politicians of old would no doubt view their successors as distinctly lacking in backbone. Where is the recognition of the public’s ability to assess risk for themselves? Instead, modern government meekly surrenders when faced with challenging lobbyists, and all but hands legislative power to self-appointed moral guardians.

Lustig’s basis for branding sugar as toxic is extremely weak to say the least, but emboldened by other areas of public health, where equally poor evidence has resulted in illiberal legislation far in excess of the threat posed, he is confident in bringing ready-made policy to the table as part of his presentation.

It’s a common theme, but one which should not occur in a robust society overseen by politicians brave enough to put the public’s self-determination first. By allowing themselves to be brow-beaten by single issue fanatics, policymakers across the globe have created a rod for their own back with incessant demands for laws which deny individuals the right to make adult choices for themselves.

It is well past time that our elected representatives rediscovered the confidence and ability to say a firm and unconditional ‘no’ to those who seek to dull our lives even further. When it gets to the point where a unanimously enjoyed ingredient such as sugar comes not just with a health warning, but with a raft of ready-made laws and regulations, contemporary political cowardice is laid embarrassingly bare.