Tobacco control and supranational government: EU revision of tobacco directive 'debate'

Tobacco control and its policies are described in this video as an instrument of supranational government: of the United Nations millenium goals and Agenda 21. In both these areas my knowledge is limited but they both seem to be at odds with nationally based democratic politics. The video is UK Column's news broadcast of 25 February 2013, reproduced below, and the discussion is about Vladimir Putin's recent introduction of legislation restricting smoking in Russia, 25.50 minutes in:

 

 

The presenter Mike Robinson sounds almost apologetic about discussing the smoking ban in the context of this programme, which deals with news and current affairs in the context of UK sovereignty (and the sovereignties of other states) being undermined. (I personally found it quite difficult to find the various parts of the piece 'Lifting the veil of secrecy' that were recommended, and did not actually succeed, but will post links if I can get hold of them.)

The revision of the EU tobacco directive came up for debate yesterday (BBC report here). If you have time to see this video (almost 90 minutes) it will give you a fresh view of what is meant by 'debate'. There is more to come but it seems doubtful whether opponents to the directive will manage to make any impact.

 

 



The fact that tobacco control is pushed by authorities at the supra-government level makes opposing it very difficult – it is also a good reason to oppose it, because it claims to over-ride national democratic government and accountability. This is not a simplistic issue (it was not intended to be a long post!) but at the basis it means that people have to negotiate with each other on many issues through the medium of an authority who sets the rules, where they should be able to deal with each other directly. And our governments accept this: because they lack power over policy it reassures them to gain authority over personal interactions and habits.

Freedom to grow food in New Zealand

My introduction to this issue in New Zealand was 17:28 minutes into the latest edition of UK Column News:

More detail is available here, a NZ site that urges opposition to both the Food Bill and the Natural Health Products Bill (which seems to echo the European version). Ostensibly on the grounds of food safety it purports to reserve to the state the right to define what is healthy and natural.

Opponents of this bill link it to Codex Alimentarius, and predict that all governments will attempt to implement it, unless they are resisted. Readers are free to google the actual terms of Codex, everything is in plain view. A critical analysis of Codex is here. The agreements regulates food and nutrients and can be enforced by the World Trade Organisation. Everything that people eat must meet the specifications of the authorities. The New Zealand Bill codifies this into a national law, and it seems natural to assume that other governments will want to follow.

The US has seen raids on farms in recent times, in federal actions that seem anything but even-handed. More here.

There seem to be numerous parallels between restrictions on freedom to grow food and restrictions on smoking. Both are done ostensibly in the of safety, both seek to undermine if not actually people's own views about what constitutes safe consumption. Under both food safety and non-smoking regimes the wrongs perpetrated by relevant mega-corporations are ignored while the small farmer/smoker comes under intense scrutiny without being adequate means to oppose the government's arguments. In each case the mega corporation bravely takes on the small trader.

That said, this area is new to me. I'm reserving further comment until I have read more on this.