‘No Nutritional Value’ is a phrase beloved by anti-sugar charlatans. Water has ‘no nutritional value’, and I dare say that salt has ‘no nutritional value’, and yet we would die pretty rapidly without either of those substances. I dare say that the lack of water would kill us more rapidly than the lack of salt, but neither of them have ‘nutritional value’, so the lack of either or both should irrelevant. But we would die without either of them quite quickly.
So, you might reasonably ask what the phrase ‘nutritional value’ means. Or is that phrase similar to ‘climate change’? We in England in have just experienced a short period of ‘climate change’ – for a couple of days, some parts of the country experienced sub-zero temperatures. I dare say that some parts of Scotland experienced periods of even more drastic climate change.
But, to make sense, one would need to know what the word ‘nutritional’ means. What are ‘nutrients’? But you could go further. You could ask the question: “Would the correct nutrients stop a person from getting old and dying?” If not, why not? But is are there such things as incorrect nutrients? Well, yes there are. Meat is nutritious, isn’t it? And yet the WHO says that eating meat causes cancer, therefore, by definition, meat cannot be ‘correct’ nutrition.
So, to be absolutely safe, we would not drink un-nutritious water or consume un-nutritious salt, or eat nutritious substances other than the recommended nutritious substances.
But what ARE those acceptable substances? They seem to be fruit, vegetables and nuts. Right. I suppose that a paste could be invented which comprises of fruit, vegetables and nuts – something like soylent green.
Would the nutritious diet include a couple of pints of beer? After all, beer is nutritious. Or is it?
It seems to me that the Charlatans have no idea what is nutritious, or even what the word means. As they use it, it is a GOLDEN word. No one knows what it means, but it sounds good. I remember, long ago, the Bank I worked for introducing a new investment bond. They called the bonds ‘Harvest Bonds’. The powers-that-be in the Bank freely bragged that the word ‘Harvest’ was used because it was a GOLDEN word. Everyone knows that a harvest is good.
What happened to funds invested in ‘harvest’ bonds? God only knows. They probably became pretty worthless, eaten away by the rats of inflation. Government loves inflation because inflation eats away at the value of money more rapidly than the interest paid on deposits.
But all that is an aside. EVERYTHING that we eat is nutritious in one way or another, depending upon the demands of our bodies at any specific time. If, for whatever reason, our bodies need a rapid supply of energy, the sugary drinks supply that rapid need for energy. But that is because sugary drinks are easily and rapidly absorbed and used by our muscles. To that extent, sugary drinks are nutritious. Tobacco smoke is nutritious in the sense that it wards off Parkinson’s disease and, to some extent, Alzheimers.
Who knows what other nutritious effects of smoking exist? How about pleasure? Is not pleasure a desirable product of food?
A recent survey by Forest has shown that smokers smoke for pleasure and not as a result of addiction per se. A previous study produced similar implications. Thus was the lie given to ASH ET AL’s 70% estimate of people who want to stop smoking. The desire to stop smoking was THE SECOND PREFERENCE. The first preference is to continue to enjoy smoking.
But what is important is that there is an element of cruelty about ASH ET AL. They espouse any and every measure to attain their aim. And what is their aim? Is it health? Obviously not! It is statistics. They want to achieve a target some 20 years into the future. That will keep their remunerative jobs in existence for another 20 years.
The problem with Government is that it sees the cost of ASH ET AL as chickenfeed as compared with, say, the NHS. That is true. But you could look at it another way. You could say that the NHS, Pensions, Defence, etc, are FIXED costs. Thus, savings will be best created via the multitude of VOLUNTARY costs, such as charities and foreign aid. What is the answer? It is simple. Show us the concrete benefits of what you have been doing, and we might just help you to extend those benefits. Have ASH ET AL produced concrete benefits? If so, why is the NHS in crisis? Smoking rates have collapsed over the last few decades, and yet the NHS cannot cope. Is it not perfectly obvious that smoking is not the problem?
Where are the studies about the problem?
Oh, wait. It is sugar which is the problem!!
Everything about Public Health stinks to high heaven of corruption, financed by taxpayers with the willing cooperation of politicians and the media. I do not understand why.
Prohibition of alcohol was confined to the USA. It was the result of politicians falling for a perceived massive public outcry. But there was no real public outcry. It was a contrived outcry – witness the demand for alcohol during prohibition. A ‘salami slicing’ prohibition will fare no better. As the screw is tightened little by little, so will resistance build little by little. That is the reason for the opposition to ecigs. They are part of the resistance.
I was unbelievably appalled by Cameron’s caving in about PP. I was similarly appalled by his sugar tax and the tax on plastic bags. How can Emperors cave in so easily to demands from Special Interest Groups which only exist because the Emperor funds them? Why do such Emperors pay to have themselves flagellated? I cannot see that the flagellation is paid for by taxation, other people’s money, matters. I personally would not like to be flagellated, regardless of who pays.
So you could easily say that ASH ET AL have no ‘nutritional value’. Their whole aim is to produce misery and ill-health. But what should be understood is that they have a higher allegiance, which is to the shadowy Elite in the UN.
Would it not be wonderful if Trump tore the UN to pieces? He could say, “We Americans fund you far more than any other nation. For us to continue to fund you, you must relocate all your offices to third-world countries. Your costs in the USA, Geneva, Brussels, etc are exorbitant. Relocate to Nigeria, Somalia, Nicaragua, and we will support you financially.
Let us see how many charlatans would relocate. Come on Mr Trump!