http://publichealth.columbia.edu/degree-programs/columbia-mph/integration-science-and-practice
Glad to see Mailman is making the rigorous study of pointless crap even more central to its curriculum. Highlighting soda tax as an exemplary case study does not bode well for the promise of making a positive impact on public health through an MPH education. Worst case scenario: an obese person who drinks a two liter of soda every day. The soda can’t possibly be in the top 10 list of behaviors and factors most impacting that person’s health. Soda tax, calorie postings, salt regulations – give me a break. Sick days aren’t protected for many people, minimum wage is a joke, 3% of Americans are in jail or on probation and ¾ of those people are there for non-violent crimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html?hp), states spend as much or more on prisons than education, poor air quality, increasing frequency of natural disasters that cities are towns aren’t prepared for, rising income inequality and a shrinking social safety net – these are the huge things reducing public health. Look at the example analysis questions for the soda tax:
• How do you weigh the value of individual choice against the public good of preventing obesity?
• Will the economic impact of this plan be equitable?
• What is the evidence that such a tax would change consumer behavior?
The answer – it doesn’t even matter because taxing soda is such a limited and trivial tactic. Addressing the big issues: health insurance that covers the services and prescriptions a person needs, drug policy and sentencing, labor laws, education policy, and effecting change in state and federal legislation are all topics that demand issue-specific knowledge. I for one would like to see Mailman enshrine that into its curriculum rather than expanding the study of crap initiatives like soda tax. Spending class time studying soda tax might not seem like such a big problem, but I see the profession as a whole getting distracted by trivial initiatives rather acting as a strong voice addressing these destructive societal problems in a meaningful way. Reorienting the profession will probably begin with reorienting the education of public health professionals.
No comments:
Post a Comment