Banning Junk Food
The Onerous War on Obesity
By Daniel Muniz

For years, public health experts in Los Angeles have been increasingly alarmed by rising obesity rates in their city especially since they are far higher than what is currently the nationwide average. Accordingly, Los Angels County, the most populous county in the United States, has far steeper obesity rates concentrated in the southern half of the county (adults 30 percent and children 29 percent).

In addition, the Los Angeles Times has determined that the southern half of the county also has the highest density of fast food eateries compared to the rest of the county. Naturally, experts feel that there is a correlation between fast food joints and residents being overweight.

So in an effort to combat obesity, Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry proposed a city ordinance to establish a two year moratorium to prevent new fast-food eateries from opening. The ban would not impact existing restaurants although she would like Los Angeles to use the two years to plan long range strategies for dealing with the rest of the city’s fast food joints (which would include more invasive restrictions). According to Perry:

Now that is an interesting rationalization that postulates that I will buy something and use it just because it is there especially if it is legal. But what is more convoluted is her understanding of what individual freedom truly is. People are free to decide whether or not to eat a cheeseburger even if it is bad for them.

But more to the point, if people don’t want to buy something like a Big Mac, then they won’t buy it and that product or service will simply cease to exist (unless it is propped up by corporate welfare). That is how our free market system has always worked and there are millions of products that have gone the way of the dinosaur because there simply wasn’t the demand to make selling it profitable.

The purpose for a business to exist is to make money and to sell what the public wants to buy. Perry’s assertion that people are forced to eat junk food is patently false and totally absurd if not bizarre. People will eat whatever they want to eat without Perry’s input or anybody else’s.

However, it is the very concept of individual freedom and personal responsibility that irks and frightens Jan Perry and other food activists. As an ethical consideration, people ought to eat healthy meals because that is the right thing to do. There is absolutely no doubt that everyone should also make fresh produce an integral part of their diet. Although eating right is certainly half of the equation to maintaining a healthy lifestyle, the other half of the equation to a complete solution is exercise but we will get to that later.

But what is truly disturbing is what certain activists are willing to do if people do not follow their advice. With the war on food in full swing, activist organizations have no problem restricting personal liberties in order to prevent people from eating junk food. They feel that if an ordinary person is unable to make the decision to eat healthy, then the government ought to make the choice for them.

Such a ban has good intentions and there is no question that some of these “healthy food” supporters are decent people who want to see the common good prevail for all of society.

And of course, there are already plenty of precedents where government intrusion has occurred such as seatbelt laws. This is nothing new particularly since the public generally agrees with sensible laws when they involve personal safety. Although the legal justification may be fuzzy at best or blatantly dishonest at worst, the general public does have a tolerance, albeit limited, to such legislation as long as it is not embarrassingly invasive.

But the real problem is when individual freedoms and personal liberties are eroded in which people can no longer make such simple decisions on their own because the government has already made it for them. And what is truly disturbing is that activists feel that ordinary people are absolutely incapable of making very basic choices, like what to eat for lunch.

And more to the point, what I am eating at McDonald’s is none of your business. Although I do appreciate your concern that eating my Big Mac may very well be harmful to my health, sticking your nose in my lunch will certainly be more a lot more harmful to your health.

Besides, eating right is only half of the equation. What about the other half?

Obesity rates are not going to plummet just because everyone all of a sudden stopped eating Big Macs. People also need to have active lifestyles that involve plenty of exercise. Is the government also going to ban the sedentary way of life and outlaw couch potatoes? Are elevators going to be removed so people will use the stairs? Are television sets going to be tossed into landfills?

What the activists don’t understand is that making war on food is not going to eliminate obesity because there are a number of other factors involved that cannot be overcome unless more invasive restrictions are implemented. And if that is the case, where will these government mandates end at?

It is time for this trendy crusade to come to an end. Helping people become an informed consumer is a noble cause but having a nanny state that makes all of their decisions for them is not.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.