In about one month, the new year has been ravaged by political shock-waves, such as the inauguration of the 112th Congress, the Tucson shooting and the next phase of California’s menu labeling law.
Though passed with the good intention of ending obesity, it nonetheless is unnecessary and provides another example of California’s growing nanny state.
Signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sept. 30, 2008, California’s menu labeling law (SB 1420) became the first statewide mandate that forces restaurants with 20 or more outlets to display calories on the menu and make nutritional information available to customers.
The second phase of the bill, forcing restaurants to post calories on the menu, went into effect at the beginning of 2011.
Though California’s state lawmakers insisted that the additional nutritional information would help consumers make healthier choices, a study by New York University for New York City’s similar menu labeling law proved otherwise. While half of those surveyed had noticed the new menu, only slightly more than one-fourth stated that it had influenced their ordering.
While additional information of any kind to consumers is certainly beneficial and is one of the few positive regulations, the real issue lies in the size and scope of what government should be. Government should only regulate what is absolutely necessary to protect American liberties as stated by the Constitution, not control people’s actions, whether it be for better or for worse.
Imagine what other future regulations the state legislature could adopt from local models trying to further their goal of lessening obesity, such as San Francisco’s ban on having toys in meals that do not meet health requirements. And like many other social programs, no study has even proven that such measures will effectively combat childhood obesity.
Like many advocates of the nanny state, proponents of California’s menu labeling law only focus on controlling obesity without stopping to consider whether such actions infringe on individual liberty, are effective or even constitutional. State lawmakers should learn the fate of the Prohibition Amendment before introducing further regulations.
Like many other political issues, obesity is the result of personal choices and should not be seen as a societal problem. Americans should be free to make decisions affecting their lives and should accept the consequences for their actions.
For more political opinions, read the Jan. 27 column, State of the Union 2011: A student’s perspective.
