America's Junk Food Debate Heats Up

[Guest guest]

America's Junk Food Debate Heats Up

 

 

America's Junk Food Debate Heats Up

U.S. News & World Report

World At Large 7/1/02

Fat Nation fights back-sort of

 

In a nation where " supersize " is used regularly as a verb, it's no

surprise that our national waistline is expanding. Rapidly. More

than 60

percent of American adults are overweight-27 percent severely so.

Obesity among adolescents has doubled to 13 percent since the early

'70s. Last week, Southwest Airlines drew fire for charging wide-body

fliers for two seats if they couldn't fit into one. But this is no

time

for fat jokes. The surgeon general has declared obesity a national

epidemic, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says

it's

fast replacing smoking as public-health enemy No. 1. Beyond the human

costs, the financial costs are staggering: some $117 billion

annually in

healthcare and lost wages.

 

So how can America trim the fat? It's way too late for treadmills and

Diet Cokes alone. First, we must tax all those Twinkies and french

fries, health advocates say. And if higher prices won't do it, we'll

sue

the junk-food vendors. That's right, fresh from slaying Big Tobacco,

some trial lawyers are now hungry to take on fast food and the snack

industry-known collectively as " Big Fat. " These companies, the

lawyers

say, use manipulative strategies to market unhealthful products that,

when consumed regularly, can lead to disease and death.

 

Sound crazy? Not to John Banzhaf. A law professor at George

Washington

University, Banzhaf was a pioneer in the tobacco wars. When he

suggested

30 years ago that Big Tobacco could be sued to recover healthcare

costs

for smokers, people laughed. Billions in settlements later, no one is

laughing. Now some legal scholars say Banzhaf just might achieve his

latest cause: holding fast-food joints and junk-food producers at

least

partly responsible for our expanding girth.

 

Bloated ad budgets. Has it really come to this? Where is the line

between personal responsibility and public health? Must trial lawyers

and government bureaucrats separate Americans from their

cheeseburgers

and Pepsis? Some health advocates say we have little choice. The food

environment has become so suffused with fat and sugar, they argue,

that

only the government can bring some balance to the national diet.

Overall, the food industry spends some $30 billion a year on

advertising. By contrast, the entire federal budget for nutritional

education equals one fifth the advertising costs for Altoids mints,

according to Kelly Brownell, a Yale psychologist who specializes in

eating and weight disorders. In that environment, Brownell says,

" willpower will take you only so far. "

 

Brownell has long pushed for a " fat tax " -a tax on fast food and

snacks

based on their propensity to contribute to obesity. The tax would

raise

money to subsidize healthful foods and promote fitness education.

But so

far, there are no takers in Congress-legislators generally try not to

anger their largest constituency.

 

Which brings us back to Banzhaf. Like Brownell, he'd like to see

Congress-not lawyers-take action. But as the old saying goes, if you

can't legislate, litigate. The legal hurdles are no small thing. How

to

prove, for example, that Sally Smith's heart attack was caused by

McDonald's Big Macs and not Dunkin' Donuts' breakfast treats? There

are

potentially hundreds of defendants. And unlike tobacco, food isn't

addictive. Why didn't Sally just stop eating junk food? Banzhaf

plans a

gradual approach. First, initiate class action suits against

companies

that misrepresent fat content, for instance. Some litigation is

already

in the works. Next, move on to the issue of misleading advertising:

Sue

the manufacturer of " energy health bars " for passing off a candy bar

as

health food. Last stop on the litigation train? Sue Burger King, for

instance, for not clearly warning that its Double Whopper value meal

may

contain more calories than the government recommends an average adult

eat in a day. By that point, Banzhaf feels, there should be some new

studies strengthening the links between obesity and disease. Public

opinion would begin to shift, and soon states would sue fast-food

companies to recover healthcare costs. Observes Banzhaf: " There's

blood

in the water. "

 

And that has restaurateurs worried. So worried that their own

advocacy

group, the Center for Consumer Freedom, has launched an ad blitz to

combat what it describes as the " lunatic policy fringe " -folks like

Brownell and Banzhaf. Cofounder John Doyle acknowledges there is a

national weight problem and supports health-awareness and fitness

programs. But just mention taxes and lawsuits, and his blood boils.

 

Over to you now: Is our appetite for litigation more dangerous than

our

appetite for junk? Should personal freedom override public health

even

if it means higher insurance and taxes for all? How to strike the

proper

balance? We look forward to hearing your thoughts. We can be reached

at

letters. -The Editors