Everyone I know, and some, is taking a mouthful of pills every day nowadays, which they never used to.
Some of these are what I might classify as “real medicine”, meaning chemicals typically requiring a prescription and designed to either treat a specific ailment, manage a chronic illness or prevent (or at least defer) the onset of afflictions that are likely to get to all of us in the fullness of time.
I’m not a doctor (as may become obvious), and this column is not about medicine. I’m also not going to fall into the trap of trying to define “illness”. However, it does seem clear that there is an increasing plethora of supplements that we are urged, if not persuaded, to take every day. One might even suggest there’s a predominantly commercial undercurrent to all of this.
A recent estimate put the global annual turnover in supplements at $150bn-$200bn — that’s a lot of little capsules containing stuff that our forebears managed quite well without. The only people I know over the age of 90 will tell you that they grew up on healthy doses of braaivleis, Coke and chips (and that they were tough, or so they would have us believe).
In truth they were probably tougher than we are. I’m not convinced that taking non-prescription, common or garden vitamins, oils and other diet- or health-influencing additives achieves the virtues their pedlars would have us believe.
Sure, they may help (or even be necessary) when their need is scientifically diagnosed as necessary — to fill a gap, to augment, temporarily heal — the wonderful, incomparable, resilient, self-strengthening, efficient system that is the human body. But do they cure or ultimately weaken the very host they’re supposed to be helping?
If taken chronically, it follows (logically, if not medically) that any excess supplements beyond the body’s needs would simply be allowed to pass through. I’m more concerned about those that get absorbed, and stay, essentially substituting the body’s need to produce its own, to optimal levels (even if there is a natural decline in the absolute levels as we age — that too has a purpose, surely?).
It is therefore preferable to get your body fit to do its job than to help it when it doesn’t. I think there may be some analogies here with perpetual, broad based, non-cause-specific financial assistance. The social relief of distress (SRD) grant had a specific purpose, and was initially for a fixed period of six months (like an extended course of antibiotics). The SRD grant has now been extended until end-March 2024. I doubt it will ever be withdrawn; it may just get a different label (don’t try this with antibiotics).
There can be no doubt that some level of social support is required, particularly given our worst-in-the-world levels of unemployment and inequality. But vitamins don’t cure everything. What we have in SA now is social rescue, not social development. The focal points of social investment should fall outside the 18-59 age group, rather than within it. We should be investing in a future for our pre-18 population, and providing support for our after-60s, but with as much (if not more) funding for the creation of jobs for people of employable age.
At least then there will be a prospect of a commercial return as we generate taxpayers who will ultimately ensure the sustainability of the whole system. If budget restraints come into play investment should be favoured over rescue, within limits — one is not sustainable without the other.
The object must be to move towards developing independent individuals who require less state support, and away from a population of dependent citizens. It is misguided, ultimately flawed and fundamentally wrong to seek to entrench political power by weakening the electorate.
It surely makes more sense to get fit than to take more supplements?
• Barnes is an investment banker with more than 35 years’ experience in various capacities in the financial sector.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.