BCT Editorial – 1/28/08

This page was last updated on February 10, 2008.

Food fight; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 28, 2008.

2/10/08 – The day after I posted this critique I read an article entitled “A food fight over calorie counts” in BusinessWeek (Feb 11, 2008; p. 036). In the third paragraph we read, “… and in Los Angeles there has even been a discussion of ‘food zoning’ – barring new fast-food eateries from high-obesity neighborhoods.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The New York City Board of Health has made a fundamental mistake in adopting a measure that requires major fast-food and casual dining chains to post the calorie counts of their foods on the menu.”

[RWC] As you read this editorial, see if something doesn’t sound familiar.

“Its members actually believe people are going to pay attention to these warnings.

“They won’t.

“Some chains already make that information available. They have posted the information at their restaurants, on menus and/or online, and it hasn’t changed America’s eating habits. Fast-food still rules.

“But the other aspect of this is that many people know the food they consume at fast-food and casual dining chains is stuffed with fat and/or salt. Yet they still chow down the calorie-laden meals.

“And those who don’t are the kind of people who go through life being clueless. No amount of information is going to penetrate their craniums.”

[RWC] Have you figured it out yet?

“It’s akin to the advice about Type 2 diabetes. If you eat right, exercise and make other lifestyle adjustments, your chances of coming down with this form of diabetes are greatly diminished.

“Yet many Americas ignore these preventive measures, thereby greatly increasing their risk of contracting this insidious disease.

“The board of health’s intentions to combat obesity are well intentioned. It’s just that human nature being what it is, it’s hard to see how it is going to have any impact.”

[RWC] Yep, change a few words and add “secondhand” this could be one of the at least 26 editorials since March 2005 supporting a smoking ban on private property.

If the Times is to be consistent with its smoking ban stand, shouldn’t it publish an editorial advocating a ban on serving fast food in “public places?” Further, to show its commitment to aid the health of its readers, will the Times begin to refuse advertising from “fast-food and casual dining chains” and other food-serving “public places” until they serve Times-approved menus? Maybe not. The Times still accepts advertising from “public places” that permit smoking, doesn’t it?

There’s an alternative the Times would likely prefer over a ban on serving fast-food in “public places.” That alternative would be a “sin” tax on “unhealthy” food, like those we have for alcohol, gambling, and tobacco. I suspect the Times would prefer this alternative because it has the potential to take more tax dollars from consumers to feed more government spending.

Instead of just “fast-food and casual dining chains” and other food-serving “public places,” the tax would cover all “unhealthy” food, whether purchased in restaurants or grocery stores. After all, we wouldn’t want consumers to eat their Fruit Loops, Twinkies, whole milk, hamburgers, hot dogs, etc. at home to avoid the tax, would we?

Rich Laughlin of Ambridge took issue with my comments and wrote, “Cox. There’s one really conspicuous difference between smoking in public places and eating fast-food there. It’s the secondhand smoke others have to breathe when smokers are around.

“Unless you’re snatching french fries off the plates of other diners your health won't be affected by what they're eating. There’s no such thing as secondhand cheeseburgers.”

I replied, “Mr. Laughlin, you wrote, ‘There’s no such thing as secondhand cheeseburgers.’ Can we afford to make that assumption when it comes to the health of children and the elderly? The mere smell of a cheeseburger may induce someone to buy a burger, fries, and a sugary Coke instead of a nice salad with a glass of water. And what about kids? Without a ban or high taxes on ‘unhealthy’ food, how can we protect the children? Since we’re told we can’t trust parents not to take their kids into private properties that allow smoking, how can we trust them to feed their kids only ‘healthy’ food? Come on, Mr. Laughlin; let’s do it for the children.

“Now to be serious. You mentioned ‘one really conspicuous difference’ but failed to mention the overriding similarity. Choice. Just as we have the ability – at least for now – to choose what we eat, we have the ability to choose where we eat, drink, work, et cetera.”

Mr. Laughlin still disagreed and proceeded to use one of his usual tactics, changing the subject. Mr. Laughlin wrote, “Cox. I actually agree with your libertarian stand when it comes to personal choices. As long as you're not intruding into someone else's space then go ahead and knock yourself out doing what you wanna do.

“The part I don't get is how you conservatives can jive that laissez faire thinking as applied to cigarette smoking with the rest of the repressive righty program. You guys want the freedom to light up and smoke like Bogie anywhere you are, but when it comes to the freedoms that really matter, like abortion rights, medicinal (or non-medicinal) pot smoking, the use of stemcells for medical research, same sex marriage etc, you’re suddenly talking about tight restrictions and regulations. You pick the freedoms you like and outlaw the ones you disagree with.

“I think lighting a cigarette in a public place IS an obvious intrusion on other people’s space. You tacitly tell them to either breathe your fumes or get the hell out. That’s not a freedom… it’s rude.”

Note Mr. Laughlin still treats it as a smoker vs. non-smoker issue, not one of property rights.

Anyway, my response was, “Mr. Laughlin, once again you demonstrated a knack for making incorrect assumptions.

“First, I don’t believe anyone has the right to ‘light up and smoke like Bogie anywhere [they] are.’ I’ve said repeatedly I completely support a property owner’s right to prohibit smoking (as a nonsmoker I do) and the government’s right to ban smoking on taxpayer property. Of course, I also believe a citizen has the right to allow smoking on his private property.

“Second, I have no problem with making marijuana (and probably some other drugs) legal. No, I’m not a user. Third, I support stem cell research, though I have a problem with the branch requiring embryo destruction. Fourth, if two persons of the same sex want to enter into some kind of legal contract/union, that’s fine by me. Just don’t call it marriage. As a reminder, that ‘repressive righty’ Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (over 60% of House/Senate Democrats voted ‘yea’) and implemented ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell.’

“You did get one thing right; I oppose abortion as a substitute for contraception. This ‘repressive righty’ believes killing an unborn baby is wrong.”

As of the date I updated this page, Mr. Laughlin had not responded.