In the first round, the food cops scored a body blow by convincing local governments across the country to ban margarine — or, if you prefer, trans fats.
In the second round, they got a standing eight count when New York contemplated a ban on salt.
In the third round, soda taxes across the country left proponents of consumer freedom staggering under a constant barrage of blows.
And it continues on and on. Government interference in our soda drinking is expanding, as New York City is proposing a ban on allowing food stamps for soft drinks. Elected officials in Iowa are urging the Food and Drug Administration to force makers of adult beverages containing both alcohol and caffeine to both cut back on the caffeine content and affix labels to the cans warning customers of potential health risks.
And with help from self-anointed food police activists, establishments are often up against two foes at a time.
Government creep into our restaurants and into our kitchens will apparently never end. This is a fight with neither a round nor a time limit. There’s no appeasing this opponent: You can either throw in the towel, try to absorb the blows or come out swinging.
It’s important to fight back against busybody nannying by relaying the facts on food issues to your guests. The best defense, as they say, is a good offense. Take the recent hysteria over the common ingredient high-fructose corn syrup. Despite the vaguely ominous and industrial-sounding name, the simple fact of the matter is that it’s just a sugar made from corn and is the same thing — nutritionally speaking — as processed table sugar made from beets or cane. And, curiously, it is not higher in fructose than cane or beet sugar.
As more and more consumers understand that they’ve been duped by activists who unfairly demonized this sugar, companies that swapped out corn sugar for table sugar in an effort to piggyback on consumer misunderstanding are increasingly getting called out. Holding people accountable is one way to prevent food scares from rising from the dead.
Or, we can attack the way the government is trying to frame the obesity issue. They consider it a public-health concern; with the state assuming a greater burden of the health care coverage in this country, the government thinks it has the right to tell us what to eat in order to try to get control over the obesity “epidemic” that is sweeping the land. As such, they feel justified in using zoning regulations to ban fast-food restaurants from opening in certain neighborhoods or banning the fast-food restaurants that already are there from including toys with their kids’ meals.
Weight gain and weight loss are governed by a pretty simple formula: If you consume more calories than you burn, you’re going to gain weight; if you burn more calories than you consume, you’re going to lose weight. The government has decided to focus much more of their efforts on the consumption than the burning.
But trying to legislate caloric intake is a fool’s errand and an ineffective way to cut down on obesity. A far more effective remedy would be to ensure that kids have a place to play. An Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis study from last year found that “living near a fast-food outlet had little effect on weight,” but living near recreation sites like fitness centers or soccer fields correlated to a three-to-six-pound loss in an 8-year-old boy. And childhood obesity has skyrocketed as physical-education classes have been slashed. The National Association for Sport and Physical Education says that only 8 percent of elementary schools and 6 percent of middle and high schools require their students take a P.E. course every day.
Keep these factoids in mind the next time you’re forced to go another round with the food police. They won’t be happy until you’re knocked out, so you have to be ready to counter with everything you’ve got.
Richard Berman is president of Berman & Co., a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm.
