We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

A supplement of nanny statism with your supper

It is good to know that in these troubled times, when we feel under attack from terrorist nutters, that those considerate folk in the European Commission have refused to take their eye off the ball.

Vitamin supplements will become more expensive and many health food stores will be closed as a result of an EU directive being upheld. I find it depressing, but not the least bit surprising, that Brussels regulators should feel that ordinary folk are too thick to figure out the risks and benefits of vitamins for themselves. It is a setback for people who want to take charge of their health, and must send a funny message to people who are also constantly urged by our regulators and politicians about the dangers of obesity, smoking, booze and driving too fast.

Even if you are a sceptic about the benefits of so-called alternative medicine, it seems a fairly basic point that the substances one chooses to ingest are none of the State’s business. Period.

12 comments to A supplement of nanny statism with your supper

  • Bernie

    Look at who pushed for this and who benefits from it. In neither case is it those who use or sell vitamins.

  • GCooper

    This is a terrible decision, but if it helps the wholegrain-eating classes finally realise the true nature of the EU, so much the better.

    Personally, I can think of almost no valid reasons for the drastic levels of control over self-prescription in our society. It’s my body, not the state’s and certainly not that of some (often) ill-educated, (invariably) over-worked hack of a GP.

    For that reason (let alone civil liberties issues) I’m in favour of greater free access not only to food supplements but medications, too.

  • Mark

    Interestingly, the alleged problem (people overdosing from taking too many suppliments aka removal of morons from the population and the breeding pool) will not be addressed in any way by these measures, nor is the alleged problem supported by the research of any organisation that could even claim to be independent.

  • Rob

    More money for American Internet retailers, more jobs for Americans.

    I’ve totally “outsourced” myself from the NHS (apart from having to pay to encourage illhealth!)

  • Can the banning of schnitzel and cream-based sauces be far behind? To be followed by the banning of anything containing alcohol, salt, or sugar.

    The EU-mandated diet of tofu and water might not be much fun, but … VERY healthy!

    And such policies are the perfectly logical result of the practice of making your neighbor pay a portion of your health care costs. Socialized medicine = centralized control over what you put into your body.

  • steve

    Whatever the merits of this ban (and they seem to be few) it is interesting that the two main health threats for much of the population – namely smoking and alcohol – remain untroubled, other than ugly warnings on fags and percentage points on the booze label.

    But then these drugs earn governments great revenue so perhaps a gross tax on vitamins would allow more of them to stay on the shelves.

    Mind you an advertising campaign showing in graphic detail the horrors of too much vitamin C and D would boost the intake among the thrill-seekers…

  • Verity

    Bombadil is correct. As long as the state is in control of the health services, the taxpayer cannot become too outraged when it wants to control what you put in your body under the guise of “saving the taxpayer money”. Can’t argue with that.

    Get the state out of the health business. Let the insurance companies and actuaries assess the risks and leave it up to you what size premium you pay.

    Right now, if you’re a young man and you want to drive a bright red car, you are going to pay higher insurance premiums. If you think it’s worth it, that’s your business.

  • You guys have it all wrong: Too many of you are living too long, partly because of the inexpensive availability of nutritional suppliments. You are overtaxing your equivalent of the Social Security program. One way to ease the pressure on the system is to get people to die younger.

    Thus, less effective restrictions on vices; tobacco, alcohol, rich foods, etc. They’re disarming you to make you more easily victimized, and they’re waffling on the control of radical islamists, in addition to the attack on vitamins.

    They’re doing many of the same things here, but we’ve managed to keep them off our vitamins (they have tried to restrict access) so far.

    Best of luck, over there!

  • Someone tell those idiots that vitamin supplements are nutrition, not medicine.

    Any way to get around the regulations by parking your health food store outside of territorial waters? Or in a nearby non-EU nation?

    I guess the EU response would involve banning vitamin imports and extending territorial claims to include all the North Sea and Eastern Atlantic.

  • John Galt

    When your body and other property are not yours, the state may do anything they choose to protect you from your ignorant choices. They do know better what is good for you.

  • Its the precautionary principle again.

    Nothing can be done unless we are absolutely certain that it will cause no harm. The fact that not doing sdomething might cause more harm is ignored, as are the arguments on free choice.

    But then these are the same people who would rather Africans starve than allow them to risk their health by eating GM foods.