There is an old saying that you cannot legislate against ignorance. This, in fact, may be exactly what the government tries to do as it places increasing regulatory restraints on what we eat. According to Eric Schlosser (p. 735), the typical fast-food hamburger now being offered to American consumers ôcontains meat from more than 1,000 different cattle, raised in as many as five different countries.ö Surely, regulatory action is required to ensure the safety and purity of such diverse sources of food components. However, it is absurd to think that individuals who refuse to accept responsibility for their eating habits should foster increasing numbers of lawsuits and greater regulatory efforts by the U.S. government, all because they place the blame for their lack of responsibility, and subsequent obesity, on the food service industry.
The heart of the issue over regulatory efforts aimed at the fast-food industry stems from oneÆs perspective about individual responsibility for health. Motorcyclists who drive without helmets cost tax-payers money when involved in an accident. Helmet laws exist because of it. However, with respect to excess smoking, alcohol consumption, and eating fast food, Williams (p. 746) asks, ôShould government force me, under the pain of punishmentàto do whatÆs in [my] own health, safety and welfare interests?ö
Like those who attacked the tobacco industry, claiming they were responsible for the high healthcare costs and lost productivity associated with smokers, fast-food chains are now coming under increasing scrutiny of a similar kind. What Williams (p. 746) labels ôtimid CEOsö are ôbeginning to cave to legal hustlers.ö This is an important part of the equation, because litigant-happy lawyers abound in the U.S., willingly suing those who serve coffee for not warning patrons it is hot or willing to sue makers of a double quarter-pounder with cheese for giving coronary disease to someone...