Laws that Babysit Us: How Should We Regulate Food?

Before writing this, for full disclosure, I must admit that I just ate almost a pint of So Delicious vegan coconut based "no sugar added" ice cream.  So, yes, I would have to admit I am wired to consume a lot. So are we all.  And that survival instinct has become our worst enemy.  But should we enact more regulations to help people eat less, eat more smartly, eat more vegetables, eat less junk? And, if so, how?

The big question is do we need government regulations that target consumers to force us to eat less?  Deborah Cohen, author of A Big Fat Crisis favors regulating food as we do alcohol and tobacco.  She recommends limiting the number of stores that sell junk (such as doughnut shops) and standardizing serving sizes, requiring big-print cancer risk labels and other warning labels, and prohibiting non-food stores from selling food.  I have always found it odd that in recent years the check out lines at the car wash and the book store sell candy.  But, is the government supposed to babysit us?  And, would these regulations work?  Her arguments draw positive attention to the pressing matter of the health crisis in America, but I think we can have our freedom and our health.

First, I really believe in a certain amount of freedom on the side of the consumer.  I do not believe in quite as much freedom for the big bad food corporation marketing chemical-ridden heavily-sweetened foods around the clock to the population that has become addicted to it.  But, if I want to waddle up to a counter and order 50 Big Macs shouldn't I be able to?  (I would never do that!) Here is the thing, the little babysitting laws like the NY soda ban limiting serving size very well might help some, but they come at a cost of freedom.  I do not really advocate for the freedom to be fat or to drain our healthcare system. I just see a different way to address the problem which is not one of personal responsibility.  Where are the biggest faults in the system and can they be changed without limiting the fundamental right to walk in an order a doughnut? 

I also see flaws in the suggested regulations themselves.  Won't every food producer try to prove their food does not cause cancer? It has historically been very difficult to get warning labels.  Presently, many groups have tried to have GMO warnings put on foods and even that is not slithering through governments without giant Monsanto wars.  It seems that things even less controversial would still face corporate  challenges. Won't Dunkin Donuts say, "if there can be a Krispy Kreme there, then I can set up shop too?"  Will it be like managing strip clubs with all the doughnuts getting zoned to Times Square?  As it is, zoning does affect fast food but it is only wealthy neighborhoods that seem able to limit chains.

I strongly think the over all structure of our food system could use a real overhaul, an overhaul that spares the consumer the brunt of the responsibility.  What I mean is, rather than penalizing the addicted food consumer, why not make it harder for the food producers to produce junk?  The taxes should be at that level.  Executives in ivory towers have been benefitting from people eating cheap food for years.  What if the actual ingredients were harder to come by? What if the companies selling final products were taxed and not able to pass the expense onto the consumer? What if GMOs, chemical additives and corn syrup were illegal, not just labeled, but illegal?  People tend to cringe at these thoughts even more than they cringe at the idea of limiting consumer choice.  I think we have become so involved in our corporate welfare structure where average Americans are so pro-profiteering (even those who do not stand to benefit) that taxes that are punitive to industry seem even worse than taxes that are punitive to poor junk food eaters who live paycheck to paycheck (if they are lucky enough to even have a paycheck).  In the European Union, GMOs are pretty much illegal, children's foods are much more strictly regulated and American corporations operating there face tougher nutrition standards.  For example, Kraft uses natural colors in certain countries where boxed macaroni and cheese with food coloring is illegal.  Americans do not have the option to buy the naturally dyed version because without a law forcing it to do the right thing, Kraft does not.  In those countries, consumers get the same benefit of consumer choice because companies offer the non-dyed version and not the dyed one.  But people can still go order whatever they want because the regulations are behind the scenes, affecting producers at the initial point of production.  Individual freedom exists, government does not babysit the constituents but it responsibly governs corporations.

Here in the United States, revising the Farm Bill would be a start.  A quick flip-flop that discourages growing corn for corn syrup, discourages factory farming, discourages our most heavily-subsidized foods (corn, flour, soy, meat and milk) and gives all that subsidy money to healthy food growers and producers would tip the scales the other direction.  Also, the SNAP (food stamp portion) of the bill could limit consumers to natural foods.  That is pure government assistance and that freedom to eat junk just might not extend to the sector relying on government directly for food.  At the very least, junk can be seen as a luxury item for which a SNAP recipient pays more.

Completely dismantling our Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) provisions would also undermine sellers of harmful foods and food additives.  All other countries require proof of safety. They do not allow marketing of new foods that are substantially like old ones.  Food is food; cheap knock offs of food are not food.  Chemicals not proven safe can not be deemed safe because they resemble the original taste they were meant to replace. Corn syrup is not safe merely because it comes from corn.  And our biggest problem with GRAS is that chemical companies argue additives that have been used for years are safe merely because they have been used for years.  In fact, health has declined so considerably during those years that it is almost ridiculous to assume safety while rates of obesity, ADD, autism, heart disease, diabetes and cancer have skyrocketed.

It will always be the case that we can fill our freezers with junk.  If serving sizes were forced to be regulated and to be smaller and healthier, couldn't people order more than one?  If a drive thru window is limited in amount it can hand one car, can it stop you from getting right back in line?  And, would laws trying to manage overeating unfairly target the poor?   There is a big correlation in the United States between health and wealth.   Isn't it true that expensive restaurants tend to serve healthier meals? Instead of targeting the poorest consumers in bills that limit their ability to buy junk food, why not target those who are contributing to and profiting from a system under which junk food is so accessible and so cheap?