« Siskel & Ebert | Main | Alerting all readers to another rant in progress »
May 23, 2006
The Decline and Fall of Our Very Last Freedoms
Today's rant is going to be concerned with a topic I have addressed before: the sustained assault on our liberties brought on by public health crusaders, who think they know best and need to decide which risks we can take. Today's will be the
"what are they doing to my beloved salami?" edition. Basically, public health authorities are destroying a beautiful tradition of Italian cured meat that extends back at least to pre-Roman times.
I think that very early on, sometime in the Upton Sinclair reaches of the time fog, the idea got started that the goal of public health policy should be to protect, rather than inform, people about health risks around them. In other words, we were not viewed as responsible adults confronted with possibly inadequate information with which to make decisions, but instead as children who needed a nanny state to eliminate risk from our lives.
Sometimes, of course, this might be appropriate. For instance, individuals can engage in behavior that creates epidemic risk for others. In this case the state steps in appropriately: part of having a society where people really do have some freedom of choice is about making sure that one person's decisions do not intrude on others. In other words, we need referees in the game of life.
This is why I have generally been able to accept indoor smoking bans but not outdoor ones (the scientific evidence for a credible second hand smoke threat is far greater indoors than outdoors), although even this has its limits. Why shouldn't people be allowed to select to patronize bars where smoking occurs (in other words, allow bars pursuing various market niches to decide whether to allow smoking as opposed to banning it in all of them, as some countries and municipalities here have done)? The usual counter-argument I hear is that it places bar staff at risk on the job. This is a silly position: no one is forcing you to work in a bar and lots of occupations involve unusual risks. Why not never use our special forces in an actual battle, on the grounds that getting shot at is risky? The truth is that people select themselves into the special forces (no one is ever forced to join; on the contrary, it is hard enough to get in even when you want to do so) and bar staffs. Let them do so.
But in any case, how can one argue that there is some sort of public externality at stake with salami? The most I can possibly do is get myself sick.
I obviously cannot remember Upton Sinclair's era. But in my own life, the major turning point that led me on my own personal journey to this sorry point began in the Seventies around the time that New York's health authorities went after Peking duck as traditionally made. I remember my father's outrage at the time. I am a goddam adult, he reasoned, and can decide for myself what is a reasonable level of risk for myself. Moreover, if we let them take Peking duck on this principal, where will it stop? (Though, to be sure, by the time you go after something as exquisite as Peking duck we have moved past fat and are beginning to lose marrow.) The point is that this approach to public policy is killing us softly as a free society.
Life is risky. There is no question about that. In a free society, sovereign adults should be able to make their own value judgments about risk. If there is any scope for the state at all, it is only in cases where those decisions intrude on others.
And in any case risk is part of what makes us alive. Without risk, this whole strange spectacle is more like a long sleep, followed by the mere formality of death. In that sense, even more is at stake than liberty.
Posted by dag at May 23, 2006 11:11 AM
Comments
Well, this is a topic that I have a lot to say on. First off, during Upton Sinclair's time, there was a genuine need to protect. Many of the meat packing plants were serious helth violations that went beyond an adult's ability to choose their own risk level (mostly because the public did not have a good idea of what the risk was - the purpose of "The Jungle" was to inform the public of what was the real risk).
Today, however, things operate in a very different manner. The government has mandatory disclosure (i.e. labelling) requirements, which as a general rule, I support. However, as any foodie can tell you (much less a professional chef such as myself), there is a HUGE difference in taste between the naturally made stuff, and the commercially made stuff. The salumerias are not the first group to be confronted with this problem, nor will they be the last.
Personally, I believe that the media as a whole missed the boat in a major way with the AIDS epidemic. Ever since then they've been sounding alarms for all sorts of things that we have a very low (statistically, at least) risk of contracting (SARS, Mad Cow, Hoof & Mouth, and even E. Coli & Salmonella). Since I've actually made my own sausages many times, I will say that if someone breaks into the curing room and eats a sausage that is not fully cured yet, there is a risk of contamination. However, the curing process will kill all the pathogens, particularly because the cures are formulated based on the amount of time it will need to spend curing.
For example, making gravlax (cured salmon) takes three days, and the cure is made of of salt and sugar. This is because fish have much lower levels of bacteria, and they're killed quickly. Something like a Soppressata is aged for a year, and uses nitrates, which break down into nitrites, which then cure for longer.
Overall, I agree with your sentiments. I'd like to make my own decisions regarding the risks I take. You'd be surprised at how the government interferes with food production. If you think this is bad, you should see what they require for ice-cream production.
Posted by: The Good Rabbi at May 23, 2006 12:28 PM