Red Clay Citizen

Another End Around by the Left

Those of you who thought the battle over comprehensive sex education curricula in North Carolina schools was over when HB 879 and SB 1182 failed to the pass the Legislature last session, think again. The week before Christmas, the North Carolina Division for Public Health issued a proposed rule change requiring pregnancy prevention programs funded by state grants to “provide comprehensive sexuality education,” including teaching not just about abstinence but also, “complete and medically accurate information about contraceptive methods.” If approved, the new rule would make current abstinence only programs ineligible for state funding and reverse the state’s longstanding commitment to teaching only abstinence before marriage.

Ten years ago, the General Assembly passed legislation setting abstinence education as the preferred standard in school curriculum. The General Assembly’s commitment to abstinence education has been reaffirmed in every state budget since then. This proposed change attempts to do through rule making what the legislature and the people of North Carolina would never approve by vote. Let’s hope the North Carolina Commission for Public Health gets the message. The public comment period closes on January 14. Comments can be sent electronically to:Chris Hoke, rule making coordinator at the North Carolina Division for Public Health.

Battling Public Health Nazis in Britain

The fight for personal freedom and property rights has already been lost in much of the US and Europe. One rocker gives a two-fingered "up yours" to the draconian enclosed building regs. Pete Docherty's second-hand smoke may have given as many as forty people lung cancer.

Fishy Fears and 'Buy Local' Fetishism

Andrea Verykoukis over at the Progressive Pulse urges us to "buy local" in light of the feed scare created by a Chinese company having adding chemicals to animal fodder.

First, there is no reason to think that local farmers might not have bought the feed, themselves. To think otherwise would suggest a deep faith in local farmers' also buying local -- particularly when they can buy more cheaply abroad (and - gasp - profit).

Second, the "buy local" fetish is based on a very narrow understanding of how wealth is created and concentrated as these bright economists discuss (posted here before). Obviously Verykoukis should be free to shop where she likes -- and I certainly love my local farmer's market -- but encouraging people only to "buy local" as a matter of principle misses out on the gains from buying abroad (notwithstanding the miniscule risks associated with tainted feed from China). [Oh, and poor people in other countries live better lives when we trade with them.]

Finally, the "dose makes the poison." Irrational fears of chemical toxicity underlie almost all liberal warnings for people to buy local and organic.  But even water can be toxic if consumed at a certain level. Most pesticides and other agents are not toxic at the concentrations found in foods. Such is not to apologize for this Chinese food fraud, but for heaven's sake -- go, eat, and buy what you like. You have a better chance of having your health adversely affected by your drive to the farmer's market.

(Note: We should probably be more concerned about germs like e Coli found in organic food.)