clr

Food Police

Journalist H.L. Menken once characterized Puritanism as the "haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."  Modern day food puritans have taken Menken one step further -- they have the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be enjoying a soda, or a bag of potato chips. And in many cases, legislators and regulators have alarmingly taken up their cause.

Declaring a "public health crisis," this well-funded army of zealots has launched an assault on consumers’ ability to pick the foods they want to eat.  Organizations like the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Public Health Institute have brazenly appointed themselves the public's version of the food police and often employ scare tactics and junk science to advance their extremist agenda.  They have sought bans on certain food ingredients and label any food they don’t like as "junk food."  Where they can’t get regulations to directly dictate consumer behavior, they seek regulations intended to shame consumers into submission.

For example, the self proclaimed food police are seeking regulations to require that menu boards at fast food restaurants display calorie counts. In doing so, they disregard the fact that the government mandated labeling of food products a generation ago with little effect on the weight or health of Americans.  They also disregard that fact that the same information they want posted plus even more detailed and useful information is already available to or can be made available to consumers through other methods.  Consumer polling consistently ranks factors such as convenience, cost and taste as deciding factors in their choice of foods.  In fact, consumers ranked lack of knowledge of the nutritional value dead last as the reason they choose to consume “junk food.”

It would be easy to fall prey to the argument that there is no harm in simply posting the information even if consumers don’t want or won’t use it. But government mandates like this produce significant economic and social costs. The expense of implementing these programs will increase the cost of food and the cost of enforcing these regulations will cost taxpayers countless dollars. After all, the “Office of Food Tsar and Consumption Content Regulation” won’t be a cheap operation.

If consumers already have or disregard the information then why are the food police running such a costly campaign to mandate a costly regulation that won’t solve the problem? The short answer is that they want to control and conform your behavior to their standards. Current menu labeling regulations are more likely aimed not at informing consumers but rather at bullying them into submission by announcing the caloric content of their order to their fellow consumers. This is nothing more than social engineering through peer pressure.

But the ultimate social engineering goals of these groups seem to be not in public health or food content. Despite claims of health and safety, many proponents have hidden ulterior motivates.  The National Center for Science in the Public Interest advocates a plant-based diet because of the environmental impact. Their quiz even helpfully informs readers of the amount of water it takes to raise a cow. But while expert nutritionists and doctors debate the healthiness of such diets and common sense mocks them, these groups forge ahead with their campaigns to regulate food choices for American consumers.

The policies sought by the food police are slowly setting dangerous precedents about the role of government and the food police in consumer choice.  If the goal of forcing people to be healthier is more important than consumer freedom and justifies the government’s seizure of consumers’ right to choose food items, then where does the justification stop? 

Will the food police seek to limit the size of our meals?  Will they ban fried food, cookies or hot dogs?   Who will decide what food is banned and what food is allowed? 

Studies have consistently shown the effect that exercise and an active lifestyle plays in fighting obesity and improving overall health.  The justifications being offered for the imposition of regulations on food choice could apply equally to justify mandates on exercise and limits on time spent on passive activities such as watching TV, playing video games or surfing the net.

Americans are intelligent enough to make their own choices and they are certainly smart enough to decide what foods to put into their mouths.  Food bans and government mandated menu changes have had no impact on American dietary behavior.  Healthy lifestyles cannot be mandated by government fiat.  Bottom line, it’s not their business.  American consumers should be free to make their own choices -- good or bad.

The food police are pushing us down a slippery slope of "fork control."  America was founded upon the premise of freedom and liberty.  That must extend to the freedom of choice of what to eat.