LETTER OF THE WEEK
I’m a New Zealander who has lived in Australia for six of my 18 years and I feel there is a risk that taking cues from that country on how to celebrate Waitangi Day could trivialise the occasion by surrounding it with Australian beach-holiday charm ( Bulletin from Abroad, January 28).
If we were to celebrate the day by giving awards to distinguished New Zealanders, the honours should preserve the event’s important, if difficult, discussion about race unity and relations. Awards for people who foster bicultural understanding would achieve that. In contrast, honouring the likes of Richie McCaw’s Rugby World Cup leadership
would be irrelevant.
As for Prime Minister Bill English, he should attend what is an important event. Not being allowed to speak would give him the chance to listen and show that he understands the importance of acknowledging the Treaty and its associated complexities. Even if he gets politically attacked, he should take it on the chin, in the knowledge that he is there for something significant to the country, rather than to fuel himself politically. Alfred Cathro (Maori Hill, Dunedin)
I agree wholeheartedly with the editorial on the shambles that Waitangi Day has become. The day should be divorced from the spectacle of politicians and Maori activists tearing themselves to pieces.
Other countries manage peaceful celebrations – why can’t we? Changing the date for announcing New Zealand’s honours to February 5 would be good start. A committee of prominent people headed by someone well regarded by the public should be set up to advise the Government. Jerome O’Malley (Blenheim)
Norman Kirk’s Labour government renamed Waitangi Day New Zealand Day, which was celebrated first in 1974. This made the day more inclusive and celebrated by everyone – not, as now, by just a small number in the Far North. Mary Robertson (Ocean View, Dunedin)
Let’s move the Queen’s Birthday Honours announcement (or the New Years Honours, if there is too much fuss) to Waitangi Day and also name the New Zealander of the Year on that occasion. It is a pity we didn’t manage to get a new flag, which would have made the event even better and
more our own unique day. Iris Durney (Papakura, Auckland)
I am pleased Bill English has shown strength in the matter of marking Waitangi Day and is planning to attend functions in Auckland. To be somewhere on the day where the Prime Minister would be unable to speak and in all likelihood would have to be wary of hurled missiles would be foolish indeed. The media might enjoy the excitement, but personally, I cringe with embarrassment. AN Christie (Rotorua) James Young has a perverse take on the observation of Waitangi Day at Te Tii marae ( Letters, January 21). He accuses members of Parliament and the media of “cheapening the occasion by engaging in politics”. He overlooks the actions of activists who, over recent years, have insulted and assaulted distinguished guests, including MPs, Cabinet ministers, various Prime Ministers, Governors-General, and even the Queen.
Regardless of the opinions of the protesters, it is a gross breach of protocol, both
Maori and Pakeha, to fail to greet visitors with respect and
courtesy, especially those who carry the mana of high public office. As for the “right” to speak at Te Tii marae, no such right exists, but the lack of an invitation to do so suggests that the debate would have been a one-sided harangue, which Bill English is wise to avoid. Gordon Gandy (Taita, Wellington)
TRUMP THAT
I have to confess I had a chuckle while reading the essays by Paul Thomas and Jon Johannson on the Trump presidency (“Hocus Potus” and “It was a dark & stormy night”, January 28). They both appeared largely pessimistic about what lies ahead, yet the Dow Jones broke 20,000 for the first time in its 131-year history and global stocks reached a 19-month high. This continues a rally since Trump’s surprise election in November.
Clearly, those with skin in the game are optimistic about Trump’s pro-growth policies. Brian Richards (Khandallah, Wellington)
SLIPPERY BUTTER RESEARCH
New Zealanders did not start using olive oil or canola instead of butter until well after the late 60s period when heart disease rates began to drop, and margarine first became available in 1972 (“Spreading the word”, January 28).
Do associational studies, which use self-reported memories of foods that no one measures exactly in the first place, support the use of margarine? None of the associational studies that claim to find a benefit from unsaturated fat so far has tried to measure whether this benefit came from margarine and cooking oil or whether it was linked instead to a combination of all the other, less processed, food sources of unsaturated fat, such as chicken, nuts, pork, olive oil and so on.
There are also studies that have come to different conclusions – a 2016 paper published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, based on 35,597 people in the Netherlands, found an increased risk of heart disease if energy from saturated fat was replaced with unsaturated fat, and other recent studies have found no difference, indicating that associational studies need to be taken with a grain of salt, if this is still allowed.
The criteria proposed by Austin Bradford Hill and commonly used by epidemiologists to evaluate associative evidence stress that correlations need to be strong and consistent to even begin to indicate causality; the evidence for butter, or indeed saturated fats, causing heart disease involves weak, inconsistent associations.
The article failed to mention that many spreads have replaced trans fats with palm oil, which contains a greater amount of the supposedly “bad” saturated fat palmitic
acid than butter.
The European Food Safety Agency has warned that palm oil contains higher levels of the carcinogen glycidyl than those found in other processed oils. New Zealand is still awaiting legislation for the mandatory labelling of palm oil, which often appears on labels as “vegetable oil”.
We have only been exposed to trans fat and palm oil products because locally produced animal fats such as butter have been supposed, on inadequate evidence, to be harmful. Grant Schofield
Professor of public health George Henderson Research officer, Auckland University of Technology