Obamacare Calorie Counts And Other 'Nanny State' Initiatives

New Yorkers balked when Mayor Bloomberg attempted, earlier this year, to ban soft drink servings larger than 16 ounces, calling him "Nanny Bloomberg" and maintaining that the mayor has no right to tell them what to put in their bodies. The law, which was to have taken effect on March 12 of this year, was invalidated by the New York Supreme Court the day before.

But this was hardly the only time government has tried to interfere in the way we eat and drink, attempting to make our diets healthier and incurring the "nanny state" epithet. For years, the idea has been bounced around of a sugary drink tax that would make items like sodas, Slurpees, and Frappuccinos slightly more expensive, thus presumably reducing their appeal, but the concept hasn't made it very far in most places — though San Francisco is planning to add a soda tax bill to the November 2014 ballot.

After all, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than one-third of Americans are obese and the medical cost of obesity nationwide has skyrocketed to $147 billion. It would thus be in the government's best interest to try to curb nutrition-related illnesses, right? From taxing sugary drinks and banning trans fats to limiting junk food advertising and slapping calorie counts on menus, there are almost as many government-based solutions to our health problems as there are opinions on the matter.
 
"Poor eating habits are caused by so many venues and companies and it isn't solely up to government but they do play a role," says Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocate research group that has conducted numerous studies around the issue, and pushed for FDA laws like the trans fat ban. "Some people might call it a nanny state but I see that it is not so much the government interfering with food choices as it is big companies like McDonald's and Coca-Cola. If anyone is a nutrition nanny, it's these corporations."

Not everyone agrees, of course. "Government is the wrong place to turn to for good advice for nutrition," says Carla Howell, executive director of the Libertarian Party National Committee. "Rather it's the private sector including manufacturers, watchdog organizations, and the press that represent a tremendous force in disseminating nutritional information. Getting the government involved creates barriers to effective communication. They should have no role in it whatsoever."
 
But many Americans apparently agree that disseminating nutritional information is something the government should be doing. According to David Tao, chief research officer for the health and fitness website Greatist, numerous surveys show that lay readers and experts alike think that, while government shouldn't necessarily enact bans, it should definitely ensure that calorie counts and other nutritional information is readily accessible to the public. "People generally want to know what goes into the food they eat," says Tao. "Clear information, though, helps people make informed choices." However, he adds, "I'm 6 feet tall, 170 pounds, and I aggressively work out every day, so my ideal calorie intake isn't going to be the same as someone else's."

In 2009, the state of New York enacted a law requiring restaurant chains with more than 15 units to post calorie counts and other nutritional information for all items on their menus. The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — extended the concept nationally, covering chains with 20 or more units. A 2012 study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation — the nation's largest philanthropic organization focused exclusively on health issues — found that such labeling did result in minor reductions in the number of calories consumed, but noted that the most notable drops were among women and patrons of coffee shops and taco stands.

Jim Hardeman, a California-based physician and health care advocate, and author of Appears Younger Than Stated Age, suggests that what would really help would be exercise units instead of calorie counts. "If I know I have to walk 3 miles to burn off that burger, I may not want to order it," he points out. He also believes that providing incentives, like lowering taxes on healthy fare and raising them on junk food, would make a difference. "Overall, though," he adds, "government is a little too involved. It's all about the right education and information helping us make good choices."

Helping kids get healthier is a challenge that the FDA and local governments have been trying to tackle for years. San Francisco passed a measure banning the practice of giving away toys with children's meals (as with McDonald's and their Happy Meal premiums) unless the food met certain nutritional standards. This year, an FDA initiative proposed that any "competitive foods" (i.e., those not part of regular school meals) would have to be less than 200 calories per portion; contain no trans fats; meet regulations for fat, sugar, and saturated fat content; and contain vegetables, fruit, dairy products, whole-grain-rich grain products, protein food, or combinations thereof or offer prescribed amounts of fiber or certain vitamins and minerals.

Dorothy Hamilton, the CEO of the International Culinary Center, looks at the issue of getting children to eat better from a different perspective and said that "good nutrition definitely starts with making healthy food fun for children." "We need to ban the word 'healthy,'" she believes, "and start getting on the 'delicious' train."