The Food Scout

For years now, I’ve been saying that it’s only a matter of time before the government starts SERIOUSLY going after the food industry the same way it went after the tobacco industry over the past 40 years: What started as a warning label on cigarettes, grew to advertising restrictions, heavier taxes, then public smoking bans, until today when smoking cigarettes in public is downright socially unacceptable and nearly considered the equivalent of brandishing a loaded gun at others. Get ready, food industry.

Keep in mind, first of all, that the government’s impetus for wiping out smoking (to put it bluntly) was not to restrict personal rights, per se; it was simply trying to stem the tide of rising numbers of heart disease, cancer, emphysema that threatened to overwhelm America’s healthcare system in coming decades. Hmmm, that sounds familiar today, doesn’t it?

We needn’t look far to determine what today’s No. 1 threat to the healthcare system is: Obesity. Again, the government probably doesn’t care whether people are skinny or fat; what the government cares about is how sustained increases in Americans’ waistlines significantly increase the chances he or she will need to check into the hospital to treat diabetes, high blood pressure, strokes, heart attacks, even cancer, gallstones, and arthritis. Add to that the Baby Boomer population effect, and we’re talking hospital lobbies that look like rush hour on the subway.

One way to limit consumption is to instill fear about something. In essence, the 1992 NLEA (National Labeling and Education Act) was the equivalent of mandating warning labels, the initial attack on cigarettes and then alcohol. We’re supposed to be “afraid” of a food that has too many calories, or too much salt, fat, or other culprit substances. In the past year, local governments have been going a step further, either banning certain foods (fois gras, trans fat, etc.), or mandating nutrition labels on restaurant foods.

As far as product-based taxation as a means to limit consumption, Congress has certainly tried to tax snacks and other “bad” foods over the years, but even nutritionists have bristled at this at this move, for no food in itself is inherently dangerous to our health; just the overall quantities we choose to eat of these foods seems to be our problem. We haven’t seen the last of this, however, I am sure.

Now on to advertising. Because advertising is a proven method to stimulate purchase and consumption, it appears the government is now looking into this arena to see how obesity might be curbed with some strategic tinkering. Last week, the FTC subpoenaed nearly 50 food companies, including restaurants and food manufacturers, to find out more about their marketing activities and expenditures targeted toward children and adolescents (Remember that this was a concern many years ago with cigarette advertising). So far, several companies, particularly those in the cereal industry, have been making announcements about voluntarily altering their advertising strategies to be more selective in what, and how, they advertise to children. But obviously, this wasn’t enough to appease the government.

Like Dolores Umbridge at Hogwarts (sorry, couldn’t help the Harry Potter 5 analogy), the government is simply “compiling a report” at this stage; but mark my words, the screws are going to start turning in coming months and years, and before you know it, we’ll see issues like “second-hand obesity” and building perimeters where high-fat and high-sugar foods cannot be eaten on the premises (okay, maybe it won’t go this far). Certainly, future moms will get as many cold stares and chides for feeding young ones soft drinks and cookies as they do now for being caught with a glass of wine while obviously pregnant or not fastening their children’s seatbelts.

It’s an interesting coincidence, by the way, that a new study came out this past week showing that kids prefer just about any food that has the McDonald’s brand on it (even when the foods are identical except for the package). Some see this as a bad thing. Personally, I think it’s a potentially useful finding: Few companies have been as diligent in recent years as McDonald’s in figuring out how to mass market healthier fast-food alternatives (milk, apples, salads, etc.). Now that we have kids hooked, perhaps this brand preference could be used to shift them to better foods under this kid-approved brand.

As they say, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water: Now, don’t throw the red-and-yellow box out with the fried potatoes!