References that Republican Gov. Jeff Landry made in his state of the state speech earlier this week to “Make Louisiana Healthy Again” may have puzzled many viewers, but it could become a significant game-changer for both state finances and its population’s health if done right.
Landry mentioned only three specific agenda items in his address, spending much time on insurance reforms, and briefly mentioning the reorganizing the Department of Transportation and Development, with references to the offshoot of the national government version of Make America Healthy Again in between in duration. Its goal is to have government incentivize nutrition consumption habits that produce positive health outcomes.
Half a century ago, the concept bowdlerized as “you are what you eat” was backed with little study and took on the aura of being nothing much more than an extension of anti-capitalist hippie musings (perhaps it didn’t help that one of the earliest progenitors of advocacy for dietary ingredients as a significant contributor to health and longevity, Dr. Andrew Weil, then was involved heavily in research involving psychotropic drugs and using them personally). There’s still quite a bit of shaky (“nutty” also is accurate but too bad of a pun) sentiments pronounced by people associated with this, such as a belief that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will come if people keep eating meat (too much methane from livestock) but removing evidence-free and politicized hyperbolism allows genuinely scientific-based elements to come forward.
Now the field, backed by a burgeoning amount of research made possible by increased sophistication in understanding and measuring biological processes, has matured into what now is termed “integrative medicine” that takes a holistic view of health in part emphasizing dietary choices in ameliorating threats to or encouraging healthier and longer healthy lives. The consumption aspect is somewhat nebulous (for example, perhaps the biggest controversy is eggs vs. no or few eggs in a diet), but has become, with the volume of evidence, mainstream enough in the area of heart health that, for example, Medicare now pays for adherence to a dietary plan along these lines developed by another pioneer in the field, Dr. Dean Ornish, to reduce health problems associated with the heart.
Actually, bills that would place limits on sale of food, raw or prepared, by ingredients in the past often emanated from Democrats. But as the field has matured, Republicans have taken an interest in these because with evidence backing their content these promise to reduce government spending on health care, especially as the specter of single-payer systems has crept closer with Medicaid expansion. The leading version this session is by GOP state Sen. Patrick McMath’s SB 14. It stands as a good example of both the possibilities and pitfalls of legislating in this area.
Much about the bill is good. It mandates nutritional education to health care professionals, prohibits tax dollars from paying for “ultra processed” foods (those that use certain ingredients for reasons of esthetics or cost-reduction in processing) to be distributed at schools, for manufacturers if a product has any of a number of ingredients banned elsewhere in the world to label these, and calls on the state to apply to the federal government to disqualify the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds for clients purchasing soft drinks.
None of this infringes on liberty. Taxpayers should choose how their largesse takes place, and the cost of expanded warning labels is microscopic while leaving it up to individuals to choose whether to look for this information. The one mistake in the bill concerns its mandate to food service establishments of posting on menus if they use various seed oils. This is unwise not only because costs to businesses would be greater than trivial (the real purpose would be to shame establishments from using such items by giving these a stigma) and it’s something a concerned customer could ask, but also because the literature reveals considerable disagreement over just what seed oils are considered “bad,” with widespread agreement on some but disagreement on others (although the bill’s list includes the so-called “hateful eight” that has earned widespread condemnation, plus flaxseed).
For that reason, SB 117 by Republican state Sen. Blake Miguez might be better, in that it only prohibits ultra processed food served in schools and limits just safflower oil. But it also is missing some of the other salutary aspects of McMath’s bill, so a melding of the two perhaps is in order.
The Landry Administration, however, hasn’t waited on the Legislature. Taking advantage of the national effort sponsored by the GOP Pres. Donald Trump Administration, the state successfully petitioned to be part of a national pilot program, apportioned to six parishes good for use at Wal-Mart, that gives SNAP users a bonus if they pick fresh fruits and vegetables that could last the remainder of the year.
Because evidence suggests the behaviors backed in these bills can create a healthier, longer-living population, eventually state government will realize tax savings. Not now, as some may suggest, and not even in a few years. It’s a couple of decades at least before the real impact of reduced obesity and less-harmful food consumption patterns that reduce chronic illness will be felt, but the sooner we get started, the sooner taxpayers will reap the benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment