More food regulations coming?

By Jerry Hirsch, Los Angeles Times
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:30 PM CST

State and local governments, concerned about the growing cost of obesity, diabetes and the ever-higher cost of health care, are acting more like food police. And more regulations may be ahead.

Decades of federal inaction in fighting the nation’s obesity epidemic and regulating dangerous food ingredients such as trans-fats are behind these local and state efforts, said Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The Obama administration, headed by a president who made health care a centerpiece of his campaign, could launch a new era of food regulation, Jacobson said. “The Obama administration clearly believes strongly that government has a major role to play in many arenas, including protecting the public’s health.”

But greater regulation of food production, preparation and consumption - whether on the local or national level - is controversial.

“The government might have good intentions, but can’t average citizens make up their own minds on what to eat? This is an example of nanny government,” said Bill Whalen, an analyst at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Despite criticism from food manufacturers, states such as New York, Philadelphia and California are moving forward with increased regulations - requests have even been sent to the federal government to reclassify salt as a food additive, a move that paves the way for greater regulation.

More than a dozen states and numerous cities are pondering legislation patterned after a new California law forcing chain restaurants to list calorie counts on menus.

A legislative and consumer backlash against trans fats has pushed big restaurant chains - including KFC, Burger King, IHOP, Applebee’s, Starbucks, Subway, Taco Bell and Denny’s - to begin to eliminate trans fat from their foods.

Yum Brands Inc., the parent of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, isn’t waiting for more legislation. It plans to add product calorie information to menu boards in its company-owned restaurants nationwide and to encourage franchise owners to do the same.

So far, the local regulatory initiatives have gained momentum because of rising rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, said Amy Winterfeld, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“If Americans ate healthier food and were more active they would not be as obese and there would not be as many obesity related health care costs,” Winterfeld said.

Yet consumers don’t always agree that legislating food rules or forcing restaurants to post nutritional information is the best way to tackle the problem. The restaurant industry calls the trend to legislate food choices a case of mistaken priorities.

“With crime and budget-shortfall issues, why are city and state legislators focusing on trans fats and fast-food restaurants?” asked Jot Condie, president of the California Restaurant Association.

Democratic State Sen. Alex Padilla disagrees. The author of the menu labeling legislation said he believes government has a legitimate interest in food-related health issues because of how poor diet affects health and, by extension, state and federal budgets.

“As long as we have an obesity epidemic and a health crisis in our communities there is a role for government to play. The debate comes over how much is too much and how much is too little,” Padilla said.

Proponents say menu labeling gives people the information to make healthful eating decisions, he noted, but it doesn’t tell people how to eat or limit options.

Comments »

Comment on this story

Comments will be approved within 48 hours

Name:

Email: (optional)

Comments:

Image Verification: (Case sensitive)