The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

French Fries as Contraband

23 Comments

September 4, 2008 by Kathy McManus

Should government be responsible for deciding what kinds of food you can—and cannot—eat?

The city of Los Angeles recently sank its teeth into the issue by banning any new fast food restaurants from opening in a 32-square-mile area of low-income South Central LA for at least one year.

South Central has the city’s highest concentration of fast food outlets—and the highest rates of diabetes and obesity. 30% of adults in the area are overweight. Saturated by food that experts link to health problems, and with few supermarkets or green grocers offering healthier food and fresh produce, the area has been labeled a ‘food desert.”

The goal of the moratorium is to stop the fast food clock while the city tries to attract grocery stores, sit-down restaurants and other fresh food sources to set up shop in the neighborhood.

But do the new regulations serve up food for thought, or food police? The intent is not to crush food choices, says the city councilwoman who sponsored the initiative, but to encourage variety and more nutritious options. Supporters of the ban say making healthy decisions about food is difficult when low income residents must choose between the nearest grocery store five miles away or a cheap cheeseburger from around the corner.

Critics of the measure say legislating eating habits won’t work. “Limiting people’s food options is not really the way to go,” says a prominent community leader. “Nor is the role of government to tell people what they should or should not be eating. French fries aren’t contraband.” Opponents also scoff at the suggestion that residents are “intellectually incapable” of deciding what to eat.

The fast food industry says the moratorium is misguided. “What’s next?” asked a spokesperson. “Security guards at the door saying ‘You’re overweight, you can’t have a cheeseburge

The food-and-government debate is being played out far beyond South Central LA as states and cities across the country seek to limit other food choices by banning trans fats in restaurants and bakeries and mandating that calorie counts and nutritional information be publically posted.

“But let’s face it,” said a West Virginia newspaper editorial, “until egg-white omelets are cheaper and tastier than doughnuts, it will remain a gargantuan challenge.”

Tell us what you think: Are food choices a personal responsibility or a matter of public health? Should government ever have the right to dictate what you should or shouldn’t eat?

23 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• September 5, 2008 by Grayce

  While I can sympathize with the impulse to institute such laws, it goes beyond the pale of reason for government to become so involved in the intimate lives of the electorate. Every fast food restaurant has healthy options on their menus and while they may not be as appealing as the cheeseburgers or hot wings, they are a way for people to vote about what options they desire to have in their neighborhoods.

  Reply

  • September 10, 2008 by David Winter

    Grayce's assumption is that in a democratic society consumers will decide what is good for us and what is not. I'm only taking a guess that you are a Republican? Unfortunately, the majority through purchasing power is heavily manipulated by the corporate powers that either subliminally or actively "control" the choices that people make. Thus, they are not freely choosing what is best for them. Because they are making poor choices it is for the benefit of society that we narrow their choices or add healthy ones. It goes without saying that we have a very serious obesity problem in this country. It's not a matter of making people into catwalk models; it is saying that if people can't look out for themselves, then society is obligated to look after them.

    Reply

    • September 11, 2008 by Grayce

      If I’m a republican, then you must sit somewhere between socialism and communism. Actually David, I fall into the category of “Unrepentant Hippie”; with a very strong belief in personal responsibility. The Democratic Republic in which we live was founded on personal liberty – with that liberty comes responsibility. Do you remember "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"? Thomas Jefferson was talking about keeping government in its place and as far removed from our daily lives as possible. You claim that people are manipulated – that is only because they choose not to think. A close look at the last couple of national election cycles clearly demonstrate how mentally lazy an incredibly large number of Americans have become. The lemmings believe what they are told and never check the facts. This does not mean, however, that you or I or anyone else is entitled to tell them how to vote; or what car to drive or how many children to have or where to live or what to eat. When we choose to live in a free society we also choose to live side by side with the life style choices of our compatriots and the inevitable consequences of all our choices.

• September 7, 2008 by Laura Beth

  The US government already has way too much tax money to fund the agency that has complete control over food politics, the USDA. Anyone who thinks the government, and congress, with many voted in by agri-business farmers and the many industries tied to it, does not affect the foods being promoted, is naive and uninformed. The creation of the USDA alone was intended to expand the trade, sale, consumption of the MOST UNHEALTHY and UNSUSTAINABLE commodities. I feel this is inextricably linked tied to skyrocketing rates of preventable, debilitating, chronic diseases. Our entire "health care," (misnomer for early disease detection and treatment)system is the result of government promotion and support of those behind the creation of the food pyramid, agri-business commodity producers. Anne Veneman herself was a direct placement from Monsanto and pushed meat and dairy relentlessly, like all USDA secretary's do. From commercials filling the airwaves (funded from check-off money from beef, pork, dairy, egg and poultry industry)to school food commodity programs, to all the food sent to military and other government food programs, WIC, etc...the US government, BUILT on the age old cattle industry, ALREADY has a profound and tragic influence on what Americans, and sadly now other nations, consume. As the western manufactured SAD, Standard American Diet, takes hold in China, we see disease rates for diabetes, cancers, heart disease skyrocketing. Food police....American tax dollars are already used, stolen in my opinion, to fund USDA R&D;for genetic manipulation of plants and animals to make them more "efficient," for mass production. We already PAY for the diseases people without insurance succumb to and we pay dearly for the developmental problems also skyrocketing in children who, from conception to birth, are bombarded by chemicals used in agri-business , now over 200 being found in fetal cord blood. I'd say our government has taken full control over what "foods" are eaten, and our disease rates are the consequence. Abolish or overhaul the USDA/FDA to promote and support fresher, non-irradiated, non-genetically altered, non-chemically nutritionally dense foods, and see a dramatic reduction in diseases and a dramatic healing of the environment already on the fringe of imploding from livestock agribusiness. We have all been part of the largest FAILED experiment in government take-over of "food."

  Reply

• September 7, 2008 by Daphne Georges

  As someone posted, fast food places already have healthy options - having said that, I object strongly to anyone limiting fast food restaurants or any other type of business. This 'nanny' state business is getting out of control. When you consider that heparin is made in filthy sheds in China (as photographed in the NY Times),pet food is contaminated, salmonella is on the rise, don't these government agencies have more pressing obligations to the public than trying to dictate where/what people eat???? Yes, agribusiness and advertising have to take the hit for the food preferences and choices people make. As long as a fast food burger is 99 cents and a melon is three dollars, a tomato is at least a dollar; people are going to make these wrong choices. More support should go to local farms. And people really should smarten up and take back control of what they eat, where it comes from, etc. Good luck with that plan.

  Reply

• September 25, 2008 by TerryB0521

  Sometimes I think the government gets involved with silliness just to avoid working on important projects. Our country has critical issues that require resolution and we want the government to decide whether or not we can have fries with that??

  Reply

• September 26, 2008 by Brandylynn

  How in the world is this supposed to change anything? If they cannot get 5 miles up the road to the grocery store, they probably cannot afford to eat at a sit down, fresh food restaurant. If they do not have the money flow in that area, those types of places will not be there.

  Reply

• October 1, 2008 by Bea Jones

  I loathe fast food; it is so over-processed that it has no nutrients, only waste products, no matter how hype-rinjected it is with artificial vitamins and additives. Even the white bread you eat in the store's basic flour has been bleached and stripped of all nutrients and fiber that are normally in wheat, and then they artificially add them later. Government has already taken away the healthful benefits and natural defenses of food by decreeing that all food meet certain standards of 'purity' and so we end up with 'acceptable' levels of bugs and rodents in our food instead, and food is reduced to mere vitamin enriched fat. Know what makes the color 'red' in many foodstuffs? Ground up and dried bugs! All that said, government involvement in fast food is closing the barn door after the escaped horse has died of old age. People who do not take responsibility for what they eat, who eat the overcrowded and footless chickens, the 'roundup ready' grain fed beef, are ingesting more hormones and more poisons than they even imagine - or are informed of. The whole "fast food" involvement is horse hockey, wolf cookies, bat guano. So what if that food is more fatty, less wholesome, and has even less nutrients than most? Government caused the problem by demanding that food prices be kept artificially low,(even today in the US we pay far less for food than any other countries) by giving farmers subsidies for cramming as many cattle into feedlots or chickens into huge metal buildings as possible. Quantity over quality has become the issue, and is poisoning our children and our population - fast food is not that big of an excretion from that.

  Reply

• October 14, 2008 by Cynic75

  Here is the basic point: just because something is a good idea does not mean it needs to be a law. No one is pointing a gun to people's heads and forcing them to eat hamburgers. People WANT to eat them, because they taste good. If someone chooses to eat something that tastes good and is cheap rather than something that is good for them in the long run, but costs more, that is their decision. In no way does the government even remotely fit into that equation.

  Reply

• October 15, 2008 by David Winter

  First, I believe we've had some very intelligent comments in the preceding posts. There is more than a lot at play when we make our choices. To an overwhelming degree government is already controlling what we eat. Why not make it healthy? I might be wrong but I don't think people necessarily like hamburgers. Advertising, the government, obesity and cultural imprinting leaves very little choice to the individual. Thus, I believe we do have guns pointed at our heads. When America lost thousands of small, independent restaurants, it lost individuality in food preparation and choice. Today, just driving down any road in America you have to search out an independent restaurant. Even what is often perceived as independent, isn't. So, we are left with which burger do we want: McDonalds, Burger King, Arby's, Wendy's or In and Out and On and On? It seems that all of the restaurants have the same menus with a corporate twist to attract us. Restaurant ownership is a financial undertaking that few people can manage. Banks run in the opposite direction when a small restaurant owner wants to apply for a loan. Historically, as an independent restaurant owner, you are far more likely to fail than succeed. Why couldn't the government provide assistance to this sector if they would like Americans to eat better? It's a completely different way to look at the obesity problem, but it's viable. Why not try to look for solutions in more creative ways?

  Reply

• November 6, 2008 by sue robbins

  I am on Social Security and pensions - also a diabetic. I try to eat healthy, but every food that is sugar-free or low carb cost a lot more than ordinary food. I try to avoid fast food but when counting money. A hamburger is $1, but a fat-free meal is $4. Which would you choose?

  Reply

• December 31, 2008 by

  The issue with fast food restaurants is going way out of control. You cant tell me that when your really busy on a certain night and have no time to sit with family and have dinner, you don't get something from a fast food place. Everybody is going to eat food like that whether you make a law against it or not. Fast food has been a part of life for years taking it away now will just make people upset.

  Reply

• April 24, 2009 by Joe Mama

  You should be able to eat what you want.

  Reply

• May 20, 2009 by Catherine Horn

  This is a real problem. I would say that if the government has a hand in things, they should try to regulate WHAT the restaurants use to cook their food, and make the restaurants serve more salads and healthy sandwiches. Then, they should continue to sponsor ad agencies with commercials that show good food choices. Then, the networks should utilize documentaries on good nutrition and the like. Then, the rest falls on personal responsibility. I don't believe that parents should be monitored like someone in a police state for what their kids eat. I mean, if the kid is eating three cheeseburgers a day, then someone might want to call social services, but an occasional burger isn't going to hurt, I would not think. As well, in the workplace, there are a lot of exercise programs and contests. Why can't the Department of Education give grants to schools for walking contests or walking programs for students?! How hard would that be?! And, I will say that I also believe that Americans will turn this trend of obesity around. I believe in the American people, and I believe that if we arm ourselves with education in how to eat healthfully, then we can make a turnaround. Catherine Mississippi

  Reply

Tell us what you think.