Precept Employee Benefits Blog

While I appreciate Lexi’s passion on the subject, I respectfully disagree with several of her points mentioned in her entry.

First off, I think the bigger question that needs to be addressed in relation to impoverished areas is why it costs more to eat healthy.  The sad fact is, while people may want healthier choices nearby, they may not necessarily be able to enjoy them, as the prices in the Whole Foods market in a poorer neighborhood are not going to be that much cheaper than those in an upscale area.  Placing a moratorium on new fast food places is not going to change this.  In fact, the community may feel alienated and frustrated because the choices they could afford are being held off in favor of places that are out of their budget.  The ban will merely serve to highlight the economic challenges that come with eating healthy, while doing nothing to lessen this burden, which probably has more to do with obesity in depressed community than the proliferation of fast food places.   

Another point of contention is in regards to the government regulating food in schools.  The rights of a child sequestered in a publicly funded educational institution are a completely different animal than the rights of an adult going to a place of business by their own volition.  Moreover, in order to get this argument to click, one would have to assume that an eight or nine year old has the same mental capacity to make the same kind of decisions relating to health that an adult can make, which is simply not the case.  A child that would eat unhealthy food without restrictions would not be able to fully grasp the consequences of their actions, whereas an adult does not have such an excuse.

Also, the drinking while driving analogy can make sense the moment that somebody eating one extra Big Mac could potentially lead to the tragic death of another person.  Until then, it is rather irresponsible to draw conclusions that overindulging in food equates to a regulatory level that is reserved for drunk driving.  DUI laws are strict because of the real possibility of damage that one can inflict on other people who would be affected by the intoxicated driver’s poor choice.  Since the same cannot be said in relation to what a person eats, such an analogy should not be made in this situation.

Finally, Lexi had mentioned that without laws, people could do anything they wanted without concern of the affects on other people.  I absolutely agree with this sentiment.  However, the L.A. City Council’s ruling does not stem from a concern on the affects of other people, because what one chooses to eat simply does not have an affect on those surrounding that individual.  Rather, the essence of the ruling is to protect people form themselves, which is not something that the law is designed to do.

Again, I think the issue that needs to be addressed in the wake of the L.A. City Council’s decision is the expensive cost of healthy food, and how a solution is needed to make healthier options more affordable.  Until then, however, limiting liberties in lieu of increased obesity rates is not the proper reaction.