By Chris Basten

  In Part 1, I scourged the media and the government for frolicking hand-in-hand through the fields of food regulation with no thread of conscience. Together, they have formulated the idea that we cannot be expected to make decisions on our own about what we consume. Our so-called choices must be heavily monitored and policed by the forces that be. What usually begins as innocent motives to improve the well being of citizens always turns into a vast expansion of State-sponsored patrolling of our most private decisions.

Without question, people deserve to know what is in the products they eat and drink. Any agricultural producer knows that a well-informed consumer is usually a repeat customer. It makes good business sense to allow your purchasers to have all the information they need to freely enjoy your products. Those businesses that conceal the content of their manufactured goods usually don't do very well or find their customers in the hospital with some form of illness.

The government may have the best of intentions in creating an anti-obesity campaign for the health and betterment of America. However, as Ben Moreell professed, "originally well-intentioned schemes for 'doing good for the people' rapidly deteriorate into vote-buying or purse-lining activities." We have seen this in the tobacco industry where double-dealing bureaucrats both subsidize and heavily police all manufacturing, marketing, prices, taxation, and distribution. The goal is to reduce smoking and yet people still do it en masse. Either way, government seems to reap the profits.

Why do politicians not understand that people will continue to do what they want to do regardless of what the implications are to one's own health and well being? The answer is as abstract as the lust for control and as concrete as money in the bank. Regulating people's habits is big business and is a glorious power-rush for politicians. It also gets them reelected. Tobacco and fast food aside, the government already spends billions on interfering with the distribution of the country's food supply. In fact, is this not the ultimate goal of any anti-obesity, anti-tobacco, or anti-drug crusade? If something proposes to control that which is supposedly harmful to others and can keep the government functioning with the kind of money it takes to do so, there will always be pocket-stuffing lobbyists to encourage the invasive force of the State into our personal lives.

In 1922, Mary G. Lacy, Librarian of the government's Bureau of Agricultural Economics, said:

The man, or class of men, who controls the supply of essential foods is in possession of supreme power…They had to exercise this control in order to hold supreme power, because all of the people need food and it is the only commodity of which this is true.

The State, once it has its hands in our national food supply, can control our lives quite readily. Because almost all food is perishable, natural factors, no matter how carefully planned for by conscientious suppliers, can never be contained altogether. Bacteria and spoilage can beset edible items in a heartbeat and the best food providers do their best to keep their customers supplied with fresh items. When they are aware of possible unsafe food in circulation, they alert us to come back for a fresh supply or a refund if we desire.

No product can be 100% eliminated of toxins or harmful ingredients, else we would never take the risk of eating. The food supply is primarily safe because sick and dead customers are not good for business. Moreover, experience and technological advances have improved the scanning of food products before they hit shelves or restaurant plates. The government disregards such common sense and applies force to businesses that already follow safe food handling and distribution practices. The government's imposition actually slows down the rate at which food can be dispersed to the marketplace and shortens its shelf life. It also drives up the expense of food because the government can coerce an inspection or recall at any time, regardless of if there is anything wrong with provisions. The time and profit lost from these random intrusions and brief lapses in production may go unnoticed by the consumer but is costly to the producer who desires to have products sold on time at reasonable prices.

True, most people would be willing to spend more money for safer food but the government unnaturally drives up costs by adding excessive regulations that protect one or two people who happened to get sick because of their individual predisposition toward certain foods. In addition, if the few grubby food manufacturers who pay no attention to the quality of their supplies allow for the outbreak of food poisoning, then all producers are made to suffer and are regulated more stringently than before, though they did nothing to deserve it. The State mantra is: If one is guilty, all must be punished.

What should government do instead of brandishing their force and guns, if necessary, like they do with everything else? I would like to see the government give the customers their freedom of choice back. The government is supposed to be in the business of protecting our individual rights, not regulating how lobsters must be packaged or expunging a calorie-infused menu. Regulation doesn't protect us; it merely tells companies to engage in practices the way government sees fit, or else. Besides, regulation is an old science that almost always leads to deals under the table.

The government shouldn't even be in the food business. Federal research is usually tainted or covered up by those companies who promise to vote for or fund a party's cause. It makes business as usual an afterthought. Instead of spending time and resources on improving the way food is processed and served, businesses waste effort in falling all over themselves to make sure they do things the government's way. It distracts manufacturers and distributors from doing what they do best: preparing food for the market.

I would rather force myself to binge on McDonald's for one month than purge the freedom of choice to eat as I see fit. It is frightening that we have allowed powerful political forces to invade what choices we can make from a menu. We need our own anti-obesity campaign against Big Government. It is a fat, disgusting slob that ingests too much tax money and never exercises freedom-defending principles for the individual. We must persuade others that an anorexic government is best before we are forced into another potato famine. Mary G. Lacy was right. If we allow the government to control our food supply, we allow the government to control our very lives.