Log In | Register
I'm writing this article because the two existing articles are so flooded with comments from MSNBC (most of which say pretty much the same thing) that it's almost impossible to follow a discussion over there. If you're unfamiliar with the story, you can read it here.
The obvious response is, "This is stupid. Who is the government to tell us what we should and shouldn't eat?" While I am leaning toward this view, for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate and spawning a more interesting discussion than everyone repeating the same thing and then arguing over just how communist this does or doesn't make California, I want to try to look at this from the other side of things and get your thoughts.
There's a market for fast food, so companies are building more fast food restaurants. What's the problem?
Obesity is a huge problem in the U.S. 30.6% of adults in the U.S. have a high enough BMI to be considered obese. Compare this to, for example, 14.3% in Canada, 23% in the UK, 21.7% in Australia, and a whopping 3.2% in Japan and Korea. (In case you were wondering, no, there exists no country with a higher percentage than the U.S.) Why is this a problem? Because obesity carries severe health risks such as diabetes, heart problems and stroke. "Obese" individuals have a 10-50% increased risk of death over individuals with lower BMIs.
We have no right to legislate healthy practices!
We already are. Individuals under 18 are prohibited from purchasing tobacco products, and anyone under 21 is prohibited from drinking alcohol. Many states impose a special tax on tobacco products, artificially inflating the price of cigarettes and thereby discouraging purchases. On the federal level, tobacco companies are prohibited by law from using many different forms of advertising and marketing. A portion of your tax dollars, every year, go to TV, billboard and radio ads reminding everyone that smoking is bad in effort to discourage people from starting and convince smokers to quit.
Does anyone really like eating fast food?
The obvious (and legitimate) response to these issues is: If people want to eat unhealthily or smoke, they should be allowed to, as long as they know the risks. While I agree with this, I don't believe people eat fast food because they really enjoy eating it. When was the last time you bit into a Bic Mac and said to yourself, "Man, this meal is amazing. I can't wait to do this again tomorrow"? The reason a market exists for fast food is not because it is quality eating material, but because it is cheap, it is fast, and it is adequate enough to make you not hungry anymore when you finish eating it. There are a lot of poor, working individuals out there making barely enough money to keep a roof over their heads, and being able to get a full meal, complete with a side and a beverage, for $2.99 is an attractive option (and sometimes the only one).
So what about the people who can't afford not to eat fast food?
Here's where I'm going to somewhat step out of my normal liberal mindset and trust market forces. When fast food restaurants become sparse in poor neighborhoods, the poor are forced to travel farther away from home to obtain affordable food. This leaves a market of individuals who need to eat on the cheap and are sick of having to drive into the next town for food. Enter the entrepreneur willing to start a business selling higher-quality food at lower prices in greater quantity thanks to the newly created higher demand. So the poor are fed, small businesses are profiting, and the city becomes more healthy. The only party suffering are the fast food corporations. Cry me a river?
So, what do you think? Am I off my rocker?
