« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Can Government Fix Obesity? No, But Liberals Don’t Care That It Can’t

Newsweek has a piece entitled “Can Laws Fix the Obesity Crisis?” It starts out by identifying a couple of places where government is imposing itself in order to force the people to eat healthy. The piece also points out that there haven’t been any good studies to determine if these laws are effective. But the key comes in near the end of the article when an associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell said this [emphasis mine]:

In most cases, a little experimentation in the name of public health is a good thing, says Cawley, as long as the stakes are low—building public sidewalks is a costly project that would require a lot of evidence of efficacy before it’s implemented, he argued. “As an economist, I’m much more willing to experiment with a policy when there’s no apparent downside—it may end up being ineffective, but there’s no down side to the government or doesn’t harm anyone.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter if laws fix this “crisis” as long as the people are directed to follow these dictates. The people’s freedom is immaterial. Increased costs to producers and consumers aren’t a concern. The only thing that matters is that “there’s no downside to government.”

These types have been trying to tell us what to eat for years. Yet if the numbers are true and there is a crisis, it’s the fault of supposedly “well-intentioned” liberals (the well-intentioned part is debatable), although they would never admit it.

People eating healthy has been a concern of the government for quite awhile. Back in 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (the bill and amendments were passed by voice vote in both Houses and signed by President George H. W. Bush) to direct the FDA to apply new standards for labels that food producers put on their products. This was done with the usual liberal line for such things, to “give people an informed choice.” So how has it worked out? If this chart at the National Institute of Health, based on CDC data, is any indication, the NLEA is, not surprisingly, a failure:

Apparently, government educating the consumer hasn’t worked. So now liberals are content to impose their beliefs upon the rest of us, regardless of the harms to the Constitution or freedom. And it isn’t me saying it; liberals admit it openly in both words and actions. Even Newsweek doesn’t bother to discuss either the Constitution or freedom. Now with Obamacare being the law of the land (for now), it isn’t a stretch to say that the federal government will issue more unconstitutional dictates upon the people, for “their own good.”

Newsweek repeats the question:

These policies—and others like them throughout the country—are imposed with the best of intentions: designed to improve wellness, reduce health-care premiums, and help citizens lose weight and eat healthfully. But do they work? The answer, for now at least, is “who knows?”

Wrong answer. The right answer is a resounding “no”. But liberals don’t care. All that matters is that they control the people.

COMMENTS

  • Menlo

    Why are they okay subsidizing the corn used to fatten people up? Why have they been funding a marketing effort aimed at increasing the consumption of cheese products and touting their health benefits (including “weight loss”). And if the only criteria is that it causes no harm, why on earth then are they (and so many other people) okay tainting people’s water supply with fluoride, some of which comes from China?

    Next thing you know, it will be like England where overweight children are actually sent to “fat camps.”

  • GregInFla

    One: Are the same people who are obese the same people who are food-insecure? I see more poor obese folks around town and on TV. My kids will say “I am starving!” I reply “Let’s get the National Geographic and I’ll show you what starving means. Care to revise your comment on your hunger?”

    Two: If someone had only TWO DOLLARS to spend on food for the day, would not a buy-one-get-one-free-whopper-deal be the best value for the dollar? Dollars-per-calorie can be an important metric when shopping for a meal. These politicians have NEVER been in this position in their lives.

    While travelling, I’ve made many meals out of a single 5-arbys-roast-beef-sandwiches-for-five-dollars special and saved lots of money, without becoming obese.

    Three: the folks at the next table appreciate the child playing quietly with the happy meal toy. Then again, these politicians never eat there, so what do they know?

  • satin

    I think the Obama Administration is ridiculous for creating such policies on eating better. American’s eating habits and obesity may ultimately stem from culture. America is built on fast-food, couch potatoes watching reality TV, and dependability on automobiles instead of cleaner, more active methods of transportation. This is the image, and if the government wants to do anything, they should be trying to promote active ideas to the public that may influence this image in a positive manner. Not many success stories can be given from forceful, absurd policies. Why not more social groups to help obesity problems? I thought Obama would be more amped to do something like this with his socialist tendencies.

  • renny

    Pimp starve their who*es and substitute drugs. Stalin starved the Ukraine and killed 10s of millions to force collectivization. Eritrea and Zimbabwe ave used starvation as a national policy to subdue dissident populations.
    little o and the left ares merely tiptoeing around the fringes of these disasters to see how far we will let them go.