2007: The Year of the Food Police

Dr. Wes has a great piece on the insanity of banning ‘unhealthy foods’ that is spreading across the country.

Isn’t it reassuring to know that if you cannot control yourself, or are victimized by making politically incorrect choices, others will be there to save you from your own behavior?

Comments

SarahW
Just one problem with the piece – Foie gras isn’t banned in Chicago as a public health measure to get saturate d fat out of Chicago eating eatablishments – it was at least as much an animal rights issue – and people aren’t “narcing” to protect the health of diners, as to express disapproval of the way the gooselivers are fattened up.
Anonymous
Hi Sarah,
I believe Dr. Wes was speaking to the larger issue of the gov’t attempting to regulate personal behaviors. The alarming trend that concerns us, is that a select few city council members are eroding personal freedoms in the name of “public health” (or in this case, animal rights). The slippery slope that NY has started us on could lead to banning anything that is deemed detrimental to your health. Will this lead to banning junk food entirely, alcohol, bakery’s, Starbucks?
You mentioned the animal rights angle, but we still have veal, which is often objected too. Although thats a different topic, I’d be interested in your thoughts on the health angle.
SarahW
Even not sticking to the health angle, I tend to agree with Mayor Daley that the Chicago foie-gras bill was “the silliest law ever passed” by the council…even though I find foie gras one of the top five disgusting foods I’ve ever encountered in person.
That said, Dr. Wes might have used an example that was actually related to his argument.
Well, to be generous to Dr. Wes , the fact that Foie gras has little redeeming nutritional value, probably aided the passage of the bill – bad for geese and bad for people too….ok, by the power invested in us, BANNED!
I’m sure the fact that foie gras is not seen as a staple, but an expensive delicacy that no one really needs and which most people would be better off avoiding, made banning it for cruelty-prevention seem more reasonable.
Note, however, that horse-meat bans are in effect in some places, despite the healthfulness of the meat…the legacy of adulteration
of beef with horsemeat probably has as much to do with that as the idea that you cannot eat my little pony.
Human consumption of horsement simply has a history of “wrongness” in this country, and that history probably contributes to the ease with which bans are passed.
Veal is probably the most cruelty-full meat on the market.
But it is seen as a traditional food (knee jerk public response – you can’t ban veal parmagiana!), is not particularly unhealthy, and is not inherently icky or an aquired taste of the privileged just trying to show off. So bans of veal get less traction in silly city council meetings than bans of horsemeat or engorged-by-force gooselivers.
As long as I don’t have to eat the stuff, I’m much more a proponent of labeling requirements to keep ingredients from being hidden from consumers, and personal responsibility.

2007: The Year of the Food Police

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels