There comes a point in many a long-running TV series when the writers run out of credible ideas and, in desperation, jump the shark.
That’s why I rather welcome the comments attributed to the head of the Food Standards Agency in The Times yesterday. Speaking in a 'personal capacity' Professor Susan Jebb suggested that bringing cake into the office is as bad as passive smoking:
“If nobody brought in cakes into the office, I would not eat cakes in the day, but because people do bring cakes in, I eat them. Now, OK, I have made a choice, but people were making a choice to go into a smoky pub.”
Although she admitted the two issues (cake in the office, passive smoking) are not exactly the same, the point she was making (I think) is that while people may have chosen to go into a smoky pub, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to.
Even educated people, she seemed to be saying, need to be protected because "we undervalue the impact of the environment".
Leaving aside the suggestion that passive smoking is a serious threat to health, which many of us would dispute, what's staggering is how little willpower she has. Worse, she seems to think that everyone else should be delivered from temptation too.
I’m reminded of an argument trotted out by some ex-smokers in the run-up to the smoking ban. Speaking in support of the proposed ban, they argued that the presence of people smoking in pubs and clubs might tempt them to start smoking again, and that wouldn't do.
A similar argument was used to justify the tobacco display ban, the argument being that the sight of cigarettes behind the counter might tempt ex-smokers to relapse. Seeing tobacco on display might also make it harder for smokers who were trying to quit.
Jepp's comments have rightly been mocked but it's not hard to imagine a future in which government issues guidelines about cake and other 'unhealthy' treats, with some employers introducing their own ban. After that, a tax on cake? A ban on the display of cake in shops? Standardised packaging for cake?
Elsewhere a health agency (Health Canada) is backing a report that says that if people insist on drinking alcohol we should restrict ourselves to just TWO drinks a week.
Inevitably it comes with the type of scaremongering we've come to expect from public health crusaders. In this case we're told that that "at three standard drinks per week, the risk for head and neck cancers increases by 15%, and further increases with every additional drink."
There is of course no context to this figure. We're not told for example about the risk of head and neck cancers if someone is teetotal or has fewer than three drinks a week. In other words, a 15% increase on what I suspect is a very small risk is still a very small risk.
Statistical sleights of hand are far too common because they appeal to the media, the headline writers in particular, and that generates the coverage that institutions need to raise more funding for more research.
Meanwhile, back in the real world ...
See: Cake in the office should be viewed like passive smoking, says food regulator chief (The Times) and What's behind Canada's drastic new alcohol guidance? (BBC News).