Nanny State
Tuesday, May 13, 2008You Will Eat Healthy and You Will Enjoy ItBy John LaPlanteCategories: Nanny StateOne year I lost 8 pounds on a family ski trip. One reason was that I didn't eat every portion of every meal, a trick I picked up from a story on CNN that revealed just how calorific restaurant meals are. CNN was helpful by telling me information I could act on, or not. But as Ian Mount writes in Fortune Small Business, some cities are rather impatient: They want to require restaurants to put calorie count on their menus. Why? Oh, the community aspect, you know. My health has become the mayor's business, it seems. Government fascination with controlling behavior is nothing new--think back to Prohibition, for example. But it's an overstep, a blurring of the appropriate lines between government and civil society. As the story notes, some restaurants are voluntarily disclosing such information, though it's hard to know to what extent that's happening as a way to appease government nannies who are making noises about requiring it. Cities with personal dietary police include New York; San Francisco,; and King County (Seattle) Washington. Of course, these requirements also impose financial costs to restauranteurs, who must pay for nutritional analysis and redo their menus. And presumably they may lose some business once customers find out that the plate of cheesy fries contains more calories than nutritionists recommend for an entire day. If a businesses wants to use disclosure as a marketing advantage, I say go for it. But with NYC banning trans fats, we may be on a greasy slippery slope to a world in which cities and states create a Department of Approved Food. Then we'll be transported to the joke about heaven and hell. In heaven, the cooks are French. In hell, they're English. And in modern America, the bureaucrats decide what the cooks serve.
|
Thursday, May 8, 2008Minnesota County to Scan ResidentsBy John LaPlanteCategories: Minnesota, Nanny StateOfficials in Carver County, Minnesota, are thinking of screening all residents. From the Minneapolis StarTribune:
Sounds a little too much like Big Brother--or maybe Mighty Mother--to me. Is health a good thing? Obviously. Should the political process ("health officials" are paid by tax dollars and supervised by politicians) be the means? Granted, we're talking slippery slope here. But we've already slipped, from the mere exhortation (say, FDA food dietary recommendations) to prohibitions on consumer choices (bans on trans fats) in the name of health. Think of all the things that affect your health: the foods you eat, how much you eat, when you eat, what sorts of leisure activities you engage in, whether you work inside or outside, at a desk or on your feet, whether you .... The net is cast pretty widely, isn't it? To continue from the article:
Personal habits ... Yeah, just the kind of data that government ought to have on people in a free society, don't you say?
|
Thursday, March 13, 2008Trans Fat Ban Marches ForwardMaryland, Boston moving forward with bans By Marc KilmerCategories: Maryland, Massachusetts, Nanny StateBoston's health care commission voted to ban trans fats from city restaurants, stores, schools, and hospitals. In another bastion of "progressive" thinking to the south, Maryland legislators approved a study of whether or not the fats should be banned (a likely precursor to a future ban). My wife and I were in Montgomery County in Maryland today and stopped at a Krispy Kreme for a doughnut. Montgomery County has already approved a ban on trans fats and the Krispy Kreme trumpeted the fact that its doughnuts had 0 grams of trans fats. Does anyone really think this makes their doughnuts healthy? I'm sure the doughnut I ate there is just as bad for me as a doughnut I eat in any county where trans fats have not been banned. But I guess as long as the legislators see it as their duty to play our nannies, this type of legislation will continue.
|
Thursday, March 6, 2008Baltimore Set to Ban Trans FatsSome doctors question health benefits of the ban By Marc KilmerCategories: Nanny StateIt looks like Baltimore is heading down the road of banning trans fats from being used in city resturants. An article in today's Baltimore Sun indicates why this may not be the best use of Baltimore city leaders' time:
Of course, this critique leaves out the dangers these bans pose to personal liberty, but it's hard to criticize one of the few instances of negative press these trendy bans receive.
|
Friday, February 22, 2008Defining Fat UpBy John LaPlanteCategories: Nanny StateYou've heard of "defining deviancy down." How about "defining fat up?" Changing the definition of "overweight" can instantly put millions of Americans in that category. Though nothing in that act changes the fundamentals of national health, it does contribute to a sense of panic--and further regulatory actions and nanny-state activity. Writing for the Mackinac Center, Diane S. Katz a provides a reminder of the federal government's weight guidelines:
Katz mentions several factors leading to weight gain, including increased use of labor-saving devices and decreased smoking.
|
Friday, September 14, 2007Frequent Fatty Cards: The Answer to NHS' Problems?By Christie Raniszewski HerreraCategories: Nanny StateIn a move that turns the "no-hassle rewards" idea on its head, British conservatives proposed the much-maligned National Health Service (NHS) issue "Health Miles Cards" through which patients can earn reward points for healthy activities such as losing weight, or be penalized for "unhealthy" activities such as binge drinking. Earning rewards can help NHS beneficiaries (if you can call them that) get discounts on fruits and vegetables, or even move to the top of the list for public housing. Not following the NHS' guidelines could mean the loss of some routine treatments, such as hip replacement surgery. Although the Tories should be congratulated for even this half-hearted attempt at NHS reform, further nanny-fying the NHS isn't the way to do it. Public health activists worldwide often call for seatbelts, helmets, smoking bans, and trans fats restrictions because of the costs they impose on others. But the problem isn't that people smoke, eat trans fats, or drive without seatbelts. The problem is collective health care, which restricts personal freedom in the name of socializing costs. That's why all of the "health miles" in the world won't fix the inherent problems of socialized medicine. When Britons can take full responsibility (and accept the consequences) of their health decisions, healthy behaviors will follow.
|
Thursday, September 6, 2007Trans Fats & the County FairCan't the health scolds let us have a little fun? By Marc KilmerCategories: Nanny StateThe Baltimore Sun had an interesting story a few days ago about the desire of so-called "health advocates" to ban trans fat at the hallowed ground of unhealthy eating, county and state fairs. I worked at a food vendor at the Spokane Interstate Fair during high school, so I know something about this industry. In the land of funnel cakes, corn dogs, elephant ears, and deep-fried twinkies, it would seem to me that trying to force people to eat healthy is a lost cause. And, frankly, it should be. I generally eat pretty healthy, but when I go to the fair I want some good-tasting, high-fat, unhealthy food. I don't think I'm alone in this. Julie Greenstein, who works at the mis-named Center for Science and the Public Interest (motto: Trying to Kill Everyone's Good Time Since 1971) says about trans fat, "People just realize it's not good for you. People don't want it in their food." Really? As the Sun article points out: "At the Maryland fair, Pearl Levengood helps manage the Little Richard's booth, where they fry everything from Oreos to Twinkies in creamy liquid shortening thick with trans fat. "'I say, "Oh, I take all the calories out. I just fry it in greasy oil."' "Levengood has never had a customer walk away. In fact, they line up." At the food booth I worked at, the only healthy thing we had on the menu was Diet Coke. We were busy pretty much from 10 in the morning until 10 at night. Why? People like the taste of unhealthy food. It's a main attraction of these fairs. CSPI and other do-gooders should relax and enjoy themselves, even if it's for only one day of the year. Unfortunately, it appears their quest to police the eating habits of others will continue unabated. So during this fair season, eat all the funnel cake and fried twinkies you can. You may soon be denied the pleasure.
|
Thursday, August 30, 2007Advice to the Healthy: Dump Your Fat FriendsBy Christie Raniszewski HerreraCategories: Nanny StateThe New York Times reported last month the results of a study which claimed that obesity can "spread" like a virus, because when one person gains weight, close friends tend to gain weight, too. I have long said that obesity has more to do with personal responsibility than happenstance; you can't gain an extra 10 pounds by being in the same room with an obese person or a bunch of cookies. In catching up on some summer reading, I found this hilarious (and on-point) response from Cafe Hayek's Russell Roberts:
|
Friday, August 24, 2007Go You Chicken Fat GoBy John LaPlanteCategories: Nanny StateIt's Friday, so it's time for a little silliness. If you think that government nagging about public health is relatively recent, think again. In the early 1960s, the Kennedy Administration got Meredith Wilson (he of "Music Man" fame) to record a song for use in public schools across the country, as an aid in gym class. It was called "Go You Chicken Fat Go" (or at least that's what its popular name is). You can read about it on the 365 days project, and, if you so choose, download an Mp3. But it's an earworm, so you've been warned!
|
| SPN Headquarters: 2020 North 14th Street Ste 250 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 243-1655 | West Coast Office: PO Box 5208 Richmond, CA 94805 Phone: (510) 965-9700 |
