The Great Minnesota Get-Your-Gluttony-On
Soda is not the problem. Chips, Doritos stuffed tacos, ring dings, also not the problem. We know the problem.
“Stop the government from taking away our french fries!!!” Goes the rallying cry. “Mayor Bloomberg can stuff it, we don’t need more laws, more governments telling us what to do!”
The reason that governments need to intervene in the obesity epidemic is that we cannot be trusted to our own devises. We need laws to keep us from hurting ourselves.
Proof abounds that we can’t control ourselves in the face of this delicious and tasty shit that’s readily available. But if more proof is needed, the biggest example of food hypocrisy is our own state fair.
The Great Minnesota get together is a celebration of the bounty of the land, and the harvest. A time to get together and celebrate the greatness that is this state, the ingenuity, the farming prowess, the extraordinary talents of bakers, and all things that are good, and right and wholesome about where we live.
Yet we choose to celebrate this by eating fried snickers on a stick. Why? Because we can’t help ourselves. Not only that, the culture says, “cram as much junk as you can into your pie hole. It’s all in good fun”.
When was the last time you say a sign that said, “hey consider controlling portion sizes today”? Or how about, “you are not entitled to eat a certain way because you can, show some maturity.” Perhaps calorie counts should be displayed on every item. There should be a considerable emphasis placed on the health, and welfare of the people. Information kiosks and discussion forums on obesity, health, and diet tips should be the standard. Healthy eating choices should be not only available, but heavily promoted.
As it stands now the short term financial profit is put ahead of the greater good, state fair organizers should feel compelled to change but they apparently could give a rat’s ass.
So government intervention is required, there is no other solution at this point, greed and gluttony rule the day, and that’s not good enough.
I’ve tried all the horrible/delicious foods at the State Fair, but you gotta split them. One bit of a deep fried Snickers or whatnot is the trick.
Most of the foods at the State Fair are pretty well portion controlled. Outside of the cookie and french fry buckets, which are for sharing, very few items clock it at over 600 calories.
So what is government going to do? Force families wanting to share cookies to buy multiple little funnels? Set a limit on how much money families can bring to the fair?
Those are unrealistic solutions, so here’s what they will do instead. Whatever special interests tell them to do. If Amy Klobuchar is willing to censor the Internet to obey her corporate masters, you can betcha she’ll censor Harry Singh’s.
Some bad laws ruined it for the rest of them. Or so the story goes.
Oh my G-d what’s next is the government gonna tell us to stop having sex with hookers! Are they gonna take our sex away!?! Seriously dude, some behavior is illegal, cause it reflects our morality. Nobody wants to get rid of sex, or eating, but some laws can help direct behavior.
What the State Fair should do is have signs every ten feet with health tips, and openly talk about healthy choices. The funnel cakes are not the problem, we are, and our behavior is out of control.
Government intervention is required when the ‘public good’ and ‘public health’ are at risk or endangered. i can cite chapter and verse on this issue in terms of things i see every year at the state fair that at times fall into the classification of child abuse when i see parents buying their clearly unhealthy kids a quart of a milkshake or a bucket of somethig fried. I am a civil libertarian, and the idea of legislating personal choices is never something i am comfortable with doing, but the public health risk here is an obvious leg to stand on.
Along those lines Andrew, I would propose a “speed limit approach” to law enforcement. Call it the “State Fair Law”
A child is only allowed to consume a certain number of calories per day, a caregiver is required to monitor that consumption and be able to present minor evidence that they have done so.
Should that child’s weight exceed certain limits without extenuating reasons, the state would have the right to set up an appointment with the child’s family in home, the focus should be on education, starting with calorie counting. Yes the law should have some teeth, and if the situation became such that the caregiver could not provide the child with the appropriate environment, counseling could be provided, and in very extreme circumstances the child could be removed from the situation until the caregivers could demonstrate having made the necessary changes.
By forcing parents to be responsible for the eating choices of their children, hopefully we can re-train our adults to eat better as well–but it’s not our place to take away the choices of adults. In light of these crazy fantastically delicious foods we are figuring out how to make really what we need is to press the re-start button. Not by punishing, but by working with folks and working together.
There is the public health side, but also consider the military side. History teaches us that a strong military is a foundation to a strong country, this is a great country whose principles and values must be preserved by any means. The public requires an able bodied youth should situations require, it is a patriotic duty.
So we should have the government monitor families’ calorie intake, on the basis of preserving the future of our military? What is this, Romania?
A civil Libertarian should consider a Libertarian solution to the problem. Before we start sending the Ministry of Nutrition to everyone’s doorsteps, how about we, and I know this is crazy talk, STOP SUBSIDIZING THE CRAPPY FOOD.
We cannot trust government to stop providing free advertising for juice, milk and corn syrup, but we can trust them to decide whether our kids are getting the proper nutrition, such that we shall be allowed to keep them?
That isn’t going to fly. What does fly is swatting bogeymen. State Fair? Bogeyman, even though this is the most exercise obese people will get all year. Coca-cola? Bogeyman, even though we subsidize its production.
Romania? Why pick on them, we are the ones with the issue that relates to obesity.
Who, what lobby is going to get behind ending subsidies in a meaningful way? It’s simply a pipe dream. Name 10 republicans senators from farm states that will support that, then find another 50 senators that will get on board. No such support exists to argue that folks should pay more for food.
The libertarian approach to this is like saying, “hey, why doesn’t everybody just be a little more responsible with their kids diet”. Sure that would be great. “We don’t need laws, laws are for commis”! Fantasy, pure and simple. You have zero evidence to support folks have the information to make that happen, or that they want to pay more for food. Meanwhile children continue to get type 2 diabetes at record rates.
How about suggest a real solution.
I think we should take over the food at the State Fair!!! I know we’ve talked about this before, but we need to get serious. I think, if offered great, good food at a reasonable price and a reasonable portion, (maybe on a stick,) that people would find out how great it is and may shy away from those candy bars dipped and fried! LET’S DO IT!!!
One of the reasons farm subsidies got out of control was the number of Dem congresspeople in red states. That landscape has changed appreciably in the last four years.
Another reason is the constitution of the Farm Bill, an expansive behemoth that includes everything from water regulations to food stamps. An ideologically driven congress could be compelled to parse the various contents of the bill and deal with them individually.
Cutting farm subsidies is far more politically tenable than coercing parents to provide calorie reports on their children. I can name four demographics that will reject that outright: Republicans, blacks, Hispanics, and swing-voting moms. Who’s left?
My solution is this:
Assuming Obamacare is more or less kicked to the curb in 2013, allow insurance companies to provide incentives to parents of non-fats. Then, allow insurers to provide cut-rate insurance to healthy people. Allow employers to cut off benefits to fats in order to cut costs. Workers will lose weight in a hurry.
Limit food stamp subsidies to a very narrow range of healthy foods. No prepared foods. Lot’s of beans and carrots. Lentils area cheap. Frozen pizzas are not. Strengthen enforcement against those who sell their food stamps (I have no problem removing kids from homes if their parents are selling food stamps, btw).
Each will have its objectors, and Congressional Black Caucus will weigh heavily on the Democratic party to oppose pretty much all of the above, but these are modest, effective, realistic steps that don’t require a daily report to big brother.
I object to your language, “fats” and “non-fats”, I think we should move away from vilifying, or objectifying people. When I was obese not too long ago I was scared and felt out of control of my body.
These are however some real ideas. Two years ago you would have crushed me for talking about how people should eat, and if our society has a say in that. Truthfully I am ecstatic that you are not rejecting that principle outright any longer.
I don’t really like the federal government approach, I think we can agree that not much will really happen on the federal level in the foreseeable future.
I agree that insurance companies can be a big part of the solution. Business is not the enemy, in fact it is a pillar of this country.
How about some changes we can make on the state level? At least we can make the statement that parents are responsible for the health and welfare of their children, including their weight. The argument that junk food is all a kid will eat is an abdication of parental responsibility.
Let’s make sure we are educating adults about the food choices they make for their kids with an advertising campaign during football season, state funded by a tax on soda-with a built in time limit. A 6 month bill can’t be renewed and must be resubmitted at committee level. We have some incredible ad talent in the state that will no doubt volunteer their time.
Meanwhile the State Fair should be promoting their marathon/half fun run as a kick off, beautiful body contests, and triathlons. I will volunteer my time to meet with organizers and talk healthy food options, heck I know a few other guys and gals that would love to share healthy food ideas.
We will kick ourselves in ten years if we leave it up to the fed, when they finally get off their asses it will be too late.
Between Andrew Zimmern and Governor Dayton, the social and political capital exists to make change happen, and we would be deeply respected by the country for leading. That’s always good for business, and for building communities.
just leave the Scotch Eggs alone!
I have never objected to insurance companies telling people what to eat so long as there exists a market in which insurers compete. You would largely solve the obesity problem amongst private sector employees with that one change alone.
I also have no problem telling people how they can use their welfare benefits. It’s the people’s money, the receipt of which is 100% voluntary. The people can tell you how to use their money. Again, this only works so long as one may turn down food stamp benefits.
At a state level, I am not aware of anything (other than Obamacare) that should prevent the state from allowing insurers to enact penalties on the obese.
I believe states are also compelled to regulate food stamp usage in their state, and therefore can decide which foods are included.
look at the WIC program. Only certain foods are eligible.
Kevin Sawyer should have a regular space on this site (or elsewhere) to discuss food policy. He has clear thoughts about the issue, and is able to express them in easy-to-understand ways. Also, despite often disagreeing with some of Shef’s desired methods, it sure seems like you both share common desired outcomes from food policy. Namely, an improvement in the quality and nutrition of the food which we eat.