From time to time it’s suggested (see Apr. 20) that folks like us are overreacting when we keep commenting on lawsuits that seek to blame food purveyors for obesity: obviously (it’s claimed) these legal actions are going nowhere, and to report on them as if they were going ventures merely casts the whole legal system into disrepute. The thing is, a presumably serious paper like the New York Times regularly publishes articles favorably showcasing obesity litigation and presenting long, uncontradicted quotes from its advocates — as it did once again in a business-section article yesterday (Melanie Warner, “Obesity Inc.: The Food Industry Empire Strikes Back”, Jul. 7). A sample quote, from Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest: “If someone is saying that a 64-ounce soda at 7-Eleven contributed to obesity, that person should have his day in court”. Just three days before that, Times columnist Paul Krugman, with his customary lightness of touch and respect for the good faith of his opponents, delivered a similar screed against business’s alleged responsibility for obesity; he promises it will be the first in a series on the subject. (“Girth of a Nation”, Jul. 4). By the way, if you want to know why the food-industry-defense Center for Consumer Freedom manages to send Krugman and his co-thinkers into such fits of anger, go check out its website, whose assemblage of material on the “Food Police“, to take one example, is nothing if not informative (and refutes Krugman’s naive assertion that “nobody is proposing that adult Americans be prevented from eating whatever they want”).
On a brighter note, Cato’s indispensable Radley Balko (The Agitator) has started a special blog (description of its mission, Jul. 5) devoted to fact-checking the assertions of filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, of Super-Size Me fame. And from Britain comes a welcome new blog entitled Nanny Knows Best, a “site dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state”.
More: Krugman is back today (Jul. 8) with his second installment, and as AtlanticBlog notes, he’s already changed his tune on the issue of whether adults’ food consumption should be left to the realm of free choice. And Radley Balko (Jul. 8) pokes a hole in Krugman’s risible assertion that coercive government policies rationalized on public health grounds have had a record of “consistent, life-enhancing success” — you know, the way alcohol prohibition did.
Comments are closed.