Food police not far off

By Stewart Truelsen

Picture yourself in the future, the not too distant future, on a bright summer day. You are grilling hot dogs at a picnic with your family in a park. You pay little attention to the drone flying overhead. It’s probably a UPS or FedEx drone making a package delivery. But it’s not. It’s the food police and they are monitoring the items you brought to the picnic. The hot dogs, buns, potato chips and soda pop exceed your family’s maximum caloric allowance for the day. Besides, non-diet soda pop has been completely outlawed because it contains sweetener. You are in trouble with the food police.

If that Orwellian view of the future sends chills down your spine maybe it should, because it is not far-fetched at all. Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, already tried to limit the sales of soft drinks. Some said he did it to enhance his image as he left office. Whatever the reason, it didn’t work. The Supreme Court of New York blocked his efforts, calling the limits on soft drinks “arbitrary and capricious.”

The mayor vowed to appeal the ruling. He did, and he lost again. Had the rules taken effect, they would have limited the size of sugary drinks to 16 ounces at restaurants, theaters and food carts. What’s interesting to note is what the first court said about the sugar rule.

Justice Milton A. Tingling wrote that the Bloomberg administration had interpreted its health board’s powers broadly enough to “create an administrative Leviathan” that could enact any rules “limited only by its own imagination.”

The defeat in New York hasn’t stopped other advocates of similar regulations. Deborah Cohen, a senior natural scientist with the Rand Corporation, believes we need regulations to keep Americans from overeating. She dismisses many of the causes of obesity: genetic predisposition, lack of self-control, lack of access to fresh fruits and vegetables, a sedentary lifestyle and the need for better education about diet and nutrition. To her, these are myths or misunderstandings. Writing in the Washington Post, she said, “Education can help, but what is really needed is regulation.”

Something like this was already tried with alcoholic beverages from 1920 to 1933. It was called Prohibition and it was a massive failure. Do we want bootleggers baking sugar cookies and peddling soft drinks a century later? No, probably not.

Farmers, who already face more than their share of regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal and state agencies, would not be exempt from obesity regulations. The rules would ripple up and down the food chain. For farmers and ranchers, there would be rules affecting the crops they grow and the meat and milk they market.

The food police we all had to deal with growing up were mom and dad. We don’t need to turn more parenting over to government. There are many ways of attacking obesity without trying to outlaw it in some fashion. Farmers and ranchers are entirely supportive of healthy lifestyles, and the right of the public to choose from the variety and abundance of nutritious foods.

The above is a reprint of Focus on Agriculture, an opinion piece from the American Farm Bureau Federation. Stewart Truelsen, a food and agriculture freelance writer, is a regular contributor to the Focus on Agriculture series.

2 Responses to “Food police not far off”

  1. Anita Byley says:

    Please stop with the scare tactics. Texans are not children and I believe most are intelligent enough to make their own choices. Citing Prohibition is kind of a joke in the face of the War on Drugs. Look at the water pollution crisis in West Virginia. There is a real need for industries to be regulated, and agriculture is no exception. For example, I would prefer there not be arsenic in Texas rice….yet it is allowable to keep growing rice in fields where arsenic was once applied to cotton crops.

    • Gene Hall says:

      Anita if you interpreted that we advocate that agriculture be “unregulated” let me hasten to reassure you. Agriculture is among the most heavily regulated of all producers and up to a point – we like it that way. The point my friend Stewart is maiing is that there is clearly a cadre of food elites that – despite considerable evidence that its a bad idea – would like to shape consumer food choices by taking away their other choices via regulation. I’ll be writing more about this. It is in fact, a little scary. A blog is a place for opinion – mine and yours. Thanks for responding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>