If You Cant Stand the Fat, Stay out of the Restaurant - Term Paper Example

here English 4 October If You Can’t Stand the Fat, Stay out of the Restaurant In a society where people are indoctrinated in modern psychology from preschool through college graduation to blame everyone but themselves for their poor choices and predicaments, it is not surprising that fast food restaurants are now being blamed for “making” people fat. And this is exactly what the government is doing in New York City, as Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently passed a regulation banning 22,000 businesses from selling soft drinks exceeding 16 ounces - to wage what he considers a fight against obesity (Bella 2012). Bloomberg has created a nanny state in an attempt to eradicate his city of what he calls “beasts,” (overweight people). This is by no means the first measure taken by the state to control consumption, but many believe it is justified since two-thirds of American adults and 25 percent of children are obese, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that obesity is the number one health problem in the United States (Ozersky 2011). Is there research confirming that the government regulation of consumption results curbs obesity - and even if it did, should it have the right to enforce taxes, bans, and penalties in an attempt to bring about a healthier society? It all comes down to personal responsibility and accountability - values that have been traded in for victimization and reliance on government. Individuals - not restaurants - make the decisions to purchase and consume food, so the ones ultimately responsibility for obesity are the consumers, not the purveyors of food. Those ascribing to a smaller government and less intervention in citizens’ daily lives argue that personal freedoms are taken away when responsibility for one’s health is projected onto others. Regulations such as the one recently enforced in New York City, that do not allow restaurants and other businesses to serve fountain drinks over 16 ounces, raise major objections from citizens, who contend that the “government cannot legislate eating less or exercising more,” (Zernike 2003). To stop this tide of over-regulation that mandates restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus and requires stores to charge increased taxes on junk food, legislation such as “The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Bill” and “The Commonsense Consumption Act” have been presented to statehouses so that lawsuits - waged against restaurants for “making” their patrons fat - will be prohibited by law. Those advocating personal accountability point to the failing premises behind socialized healthcare to prove their point, noting that such big government programs make Americans “troublingly tolerant of government trespasses on our freedom,” (Balko, Brownell, and Nestle 2004). Punishing restaurants for consumers’ obesity does not motivate customers to make healthy dietary choices, just as citizens are less likely to stay physically fit when others are forced to pay for their healthcare. Whether it is President Barack Obama pouring what will become trillions of dollars into Obamacare or former President George W. Bush designating $125 million of his budget in 2004 to encourage healthy lifestyles, using taxpayer money to bring about a fit America is by no stretch a panacea for an overweight America. On the same note, blaming and punishing restaurant owners for fattening their customers will not lean-down their clientele. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence supporting that exorbitant government programs and intrusive regulations result in a slimmer America, advocates of such measures maintain that they are necessary. They believe that restaurants and other purveyors of food are the problem that must be put under government control in order to bring citizens’ weight down. This was the exact reasoning behind the San Francisco City Council voting to ban fast food restaurants from giving kids’ toys with their meals - if they did not measure up to a certain health criteria. Little confidence is put in personal choice to make informed decisions. From Michelle Obama’s programs to slim-down school lunches to state legislatures banning soda, snacks, and vending machines from public school campuses, Americans seem to have bought into the agenda of the government controlling what citizens put into their bodies. Those advocating intervention point to research indicating that increased costs discourage the consumption of unhealthy food and that menus displaying calorie counts result in customers choosing entrees with an average of 250 fewer calories, while also noting that cigarette taxes decrease the number of smokers (Dailey 2010). However, public health officials are still in a quandary as to what has caused widespread obesity across the U.S., and it is not even known whether obesity leads to chronic diseases, as other factors such as sleep, pollutants, race, viruses, bacteria, and even going on food stamps are reported as having connections to escalating obesity rates. Therefore, many of the decisions putting expensive government programs into action in an attempt to slim down America are based on nothing more than speculation from the minimal information available - not as a result of conclusive scientific research. Because many restaurants - especially fast food ones - serve a wide array of fatty and processed foods, they are often the first in line when it comes to blame for America’s obesity “epidemic.” To bolster this contention, arguments have been made for increased government intervention when it comes to America’s health. These contentions use statistics from abroad that compare natural diets from years past in comparison to current diets that incorporate packaged food from major companies. The World Public Health Nutrition Association’s World Public Health journal asserts that as these companies are increasingly replacing traditional foods in Brazil with “fatty, sugary or salty ‘long-life’ ultra-processed products [which] has the potential to undermine public health by increasing the incidence of chronic disease and obesity,” (MacVean 2012). The report notes that since the 1980s, the intake of ultra-processed products in Brazil has soared from 20 percent to 28 percent in total calories consumed. This is given as justification that government intervention must betaken on food distribution in order to bring Brazilians back to health. South Africa is another example often given in the argument that businesses are responsible for an unhealthy society. This nation has seen a 40-percent increase in the sales of noodles, ready meals and snack bars from 2005 to 2010, according to a report produced by the University of the Western Cape’s public health school. In order to mitigate health problems resulting from the newly introduced unhealthy diets, the South African government has stepped in to enforce harsh regulations for food labels that make healthy claims, with more restrictions soon to be enforced when it comes to marketing to children under the age of 12 via television commercials and ads in schools. This trend placing the responsibility of consumer obesity on businesses is sweeping across the globe, giving everyday consumers the message that they are powerless to control their weight when faced with companies that offer unhealthy food choices. Just as the U.S. government through Obamacare tells citizens that they are not responsible for finding their own healthcare, the government tells restaurant owners that they are responsible for their customers’ obesity. In a recent article, the Los Angeles Times posed the question, “Does Americas’ right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include eating ourselves to death (Whitefield 2012)?” Advocates of more government regulations - like those enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency that cripple the economy - essentially want the state to limit their food and drink options and penalize them for making decisions the government considers “unwise.” The question is, “Where do we draw the line?” Will this lead to the “fat police” taking obese citizens into custody for taking in a few too many helpings of turkey at Thanksgiving? Will customers see the number of choices on menus at their favorite restaurants drastically decrease and the number of their favorite items at the grocery store plummet? Will this end up as the eventual complete government takeover of the food industry in the near future? Will the government take over the entire auto industry using environmental concerns as justification? Statistics showing that $147 billion is spent annually on healthcare to treat obesity-related diseases fuel arguments for a “fat tax,” which would require Americans to pay the government for their extra weight. In other words, this reasoning says that citizens don’t have the right to be overweight. What other unsightly things could this kind of thinking get the government to regulate? An un-tuned engine, a leaky roof, and a loose sole on one’s shoes could all qualify under such a penalty system, since risks to others could be increased by a failure to attend to these potential hazards. Continuing to open the door to more overregulation will only end up diminishing citizens’ freedom to deal with their lives as they see fit. Because citizens have the free will to purchase or not to purchase food at fast food restaurants, the individual is responsible for his or her own obesity. Taking into consideration that there is no conclusive evidence showing that government regulations - or a lack thereof - determine whether citizens become obese, spending untold millions or billions of taxpayer dollars to counteract the current obesity crisis is not justified. Should people simply be able to sue restaurants because they become overweight after eating at these establishments? And who is to know that the weight gain was attributed to eating a meal at that particular restaurant? Many factors - not just diet - play into people becoming overweight, including genetics, activity, diseases, and the environment. And even if determining the causes of obesity were perfected to an exact science, would that warrant the government’s violation of individual freedoms? Not everything the average person does is healthy, and much human behavior is harmful to others - behavior that the government simply cannot regulate without being too intrusive. Should the government be able to fine, persecute, or tax citizens for not washing their hands, for going to work sick, or for not eating enough food? For the same reason, the ultimate responsibility for obesity must be placed on the consumer, not purveyor of food. If it is put on restaurants, the entire nation will become more and more of a nanny state, where the government takes over virtually every aspect of citizen’s lives in both the private and public sectors. When citizens take accountability for their own actions and behaviors, they will experience the greatest amount of freedom and self discipline, while avoiding collateral government over-regulation. Works Cited Balko, Radley, Brownell, Kelly, Nestle, Marion. “America’s Obesity Crisis: Are You Responsible for Your Own Weight?” Time Magazine. June 7, 2004. Web. 4 October 2012. Bella, Peter. “Mayor Bloomberg calls obese people “beasts.” The Washington Times. June 2, 2012. Web. 4 October 2012. Dailey, Kate. “Can Laws Fix the Obesity Crisis?” Newsweek. November 16, 2010. Web. 4 October 2012. MacVean, Mary. “Critic says ‘Big Food’ needs regulation to curb obesity.” The Los Angeles Times. July 2, 2012. Web. 4 October 2012. Ozersky, Josh. “Fine Food and Fat: Are Chefs to Blame for Obesity?” Time Magazine. May 18, 2012. Web. 4 October 2012. Whitefield, Paul. “Let fat Americans pack it on – but make them pay for it, too.” The Los Angeles Times. June 27, 2012. Web. 4 October 2012. Zernike, Kate. “The Nation: Food Fight; Is Obesity the Responsibility of the Body Politic?” The New York Times. November 9, 2003. Web. 4 October 2012. Read More