The
Food, the Fat, and the Ugly
by
Karen De Coster
The
latest outrage in America is the fight against fat and the "capitalist
swines" that produce and market such sin. After all, fat taxes
are in the offing as the ultimate spanking in the direction of those
consumers who choose twinkies or potato chips over government-approved
bird seed. The politically correct food fascists, from D.C. and
elsewhere, are even trumpeting studies that prove American children
to be fat instead of fit. And Caesar Barber, fatso extraordinaire,
is going to make the junk food producers pay.
Mr.
Barber, while naming Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, and KFC as
defendants in his legal grievance against his own sagging waistline
and wilting health, has rejuvenated the anti-capitalist outgrowth
amongst the it-ain’t-our-fault crowd. This time, the malicious perpetrators
appear to be the beastly marketing types who have the nerve to make
their products appealing to the masses. And the consuming masses,
along with Mr. Barber, can’t possibly be held responsible for their
own actions.
Mr.
Barber claims he is fat and unhealthy and it is a lifetime junk
food habit that is to blame. Barber and his speculator lawyer, Samuel
Hirsch, base this notion of no accountability on the fact that ignorant
consumers need perpetual warning of the possible consequences of
digesting fast food-type chow. Mr. Barber’s obesity, high blood
pressure, diabetes, heart disease, and cholesterol are, according
to Hirsch, the result of deception on the part of greedy moneymakers.
Therefore, Hirsch seeks a class-action lawsuit with compensatory
damages.
Are
we not yet sick of these shyster lawyers and their court scams?
The
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is applauding this
legal action, and in fact, its spokesman, Dr. Neal D. Barnard, holds
the fast food industry accountable for America’s "diet-related
epidemics." Even granting that fast food necessarily begets
ill health, one must set aside the causal factors and instead focus
instead on deliberate human action.
Humans,
after all, act to make specific choices. These choices are purposeful
in aiming at securing certain ends. The ends we humans drive at
ultimately aim at happiness, because such a state has managed to
alleviate some set of uncertainties in our lives. Human action,
then, is at the core of economic decision-making. The act of eating
is quite often an economic decision. Not only is cost an issue,
but time preference – the degree of preferring present satisfaction
to future satisfaction – is, quite typically, very high among those
that are too lazy to take care of their immediate physical condition.
Eating
when we are hungry is a happy thing. It may be blatant laziness
or just plain happiness that makes individuals choose quick and
easy food in the first place. Let’s admit it, even owing to him
being too lethargic to steer away from easy food, every time Mr.
Barber walks into a McDonalds, he has a choice between Big Macs
and salads, or between fries and fruit yogurt. He likes the burgers
and fries because they smell yummy and look juicy, while the salad
or healthy yogurt looks bland and tasteless. So Mr. Barber chooses
to stuff his face with that which he makes a direct choice to consume.
He eats what makes him happy. The yogurt will not make him happy.
Am
I missing something here?
Also,
taking the time to prepare meals through the means of choosing a
recipe, shopping for ingredients, making the meal, and cleaning
up afterwards can often impose tremendous opportunity costs on an
individual. They miss out on the opportunity to be doing something
else they consider important. After all, the time spent preparing
food can be time gloriously spent not exercising, for goodness sakes.
A
guy like Mr. Barber purports that he has no responsibility whatsoever
to inform himself on matters pertaining to his own body. Nor is
he under any code of responsibility for weighing his high time preference
against the likely consequences of negligent choices. The producers
of fatty foods, according to his charges, shall be responsible for
guiding individuals through the motions of decision-making.
However,
it’s tough to fight the common sense notion of eating. We know we
should not eat too many calories or too much in the way of fat or
carbohydrates because they all cause fat to accumulate in the body,
and fat causes blood pressure, cholesterol, and heart blockage problems,
and those problems cause unhappiness. Death can be an unhappy thing,
after all.
But
it’s Mr. Barber who wanted the immediate happiness for all these
years, and now that the price of instant gratification has come
to bear upon him, he wants to turn the tables of responsibility
onto the producers of fatty foods?
Previous
court tomfoolery has shown us that hot McDonald’s coffee balanced
on one’s lap can be traced back to corporate culpability, yet the
notion of individual stupidity never entered that legal fray. As
to Caesar Barber, I say that a man who ignores the wealth of information
available to him and shrugs off the virtue of exercise has bought
his own ticket to the flab farm.
And
of course, the court and its associated costs is a public good which
Mr. Barber can use to his heart’s content. He will incur little
if any costs as the defendants and the taxpaying public foot the
bill for yet another case of individual idiocy.
In
a further attempt at the absurd, on a recent MSNBC interview, both
Barber and his lawyer attempted to make his case a racism issue
by charging that the fast food industry is aggressively marketing
its evils toward minorities, specifically in minority neighborhoods.
This, they hinted, was a plot to suck in all of the poor minorities
that are, apparently, less capable of making buying decisions than
non-minorities. But when major pizza chains and other food business
do not locate in high-crime minority areas, the racism charges therein
are rampant and unforgiving.
The
charge of wickedness in advertising is preposterous and is rooted
deeply in an anti-capitalistic mentality. The Leftist economist
Kenneth Galbraith has said that advertising is the villain that
creates artificial wants that heretofore did not exist. The Galbraithian
view, one that is reasserting its popularity, is that all consumers
actually have a tendency toward life at a bare subsistence level;
that without businesses preying on consumer weaknesses, individuals
don’t desire products that make them happy or affluent.
And
Mr. Barber, I suppose, never truly desired the latest Wendy’s triple-decker
or McDonald’s value meal. It was all coercive marketing that swayed
his otherwise prudent sensibilities. Without such bullying, we are
to deduce that he’d rather have shopped for and cooked some far
healthier meals.
This
legal mockery is just a small fraction of the war against free enterprise,
and with it comes the usual blame games to excuse the lack of individual
accountability in society nowadays. It appears that a person’s lack
of physical activity, genetic make-up, and insatiable appetites
for instant happiness can never be the culprit in a blame society.
August
9, 2002
Karen
De Coster, CPA, [send
her mail] is a paleolibertarian freelance writer, graduate student
in Austrian Economics, and a business professional from Michigan.
Her first book is currently in the works. See her Mises
Institute archive for more online articles, and check out her
website, along with her
blog.
Copyright © 2002 Karen De Coster
Karen
De Coster Archives
|