|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Thursday, May 09, 2002"Legislators in Vermont and California are considering taxing soda and junk food; anti-tax Texas has instead made physical education mandatory in elementary school; and this year schools in Pennsylvania and Florida sent warning letters home to the parents of overweight kids." The gist of the article is that the anti-fat zealots are modelling their campaign on the anti-tobacco movement and are urging the government to police our eating habits. Ms. Cottle makes an excellent argument against this: "What it comes down to, ultimately, is that our relationships to food are simply too complex for the government to oversee. People eat differently in New Orleans than they do in Berkeley. And they do so, for the most part, because they want to. Sure, we would be a healtheir society if everyone ate what they eat in Berkeley. But do we really want to live in a country where the government pressures us to do so? Health is only one measure of a good life, and government is far too crude a mechanism to effectively - or humanely - calibrate its importance for millions of different people." I'm not sure we'd be a healthier nation if we all ate like they do in Berkeley. All that fiber and lack of meat makes one gassy and anemic, and, judging by the reputation of Berkeleyites, a cantankerous liberal. The rest of her point, though, is on the mark. posted by Sydney on 5/09/2002 07:57:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
