Freedom.
This nation was founded on the premise of not solely escaping oppression by a king or his laws, but also on individual choice being of greater significance than simply to serve a king and his feudal, royal heritage. It's Hobbes and Locke and Tocqueville and a bunch of other guys who wore funny wigs, essentially.
While The United States of America was created and borne out of distaste for the rule of a monarch, there was a need for the rule of law, so the new land -- a nation -- was composed of states that functioned much on their own but within the confines, when necessary, of the states united. It is this theme of laws to protect and guide The People, when necessary, and when merited, that I carry with me and -- unfortunately -- brought with me as I ventured forth into McDonald’s on 57th and 6th.
Okay...I actually ventured forth because the trains in NYC were completely out of whack -- the 6 was screwed and the anticipated fall-out guaranteed the other trains were filled with a bunch of unhappy, smellier-than-normal passengers. Noooooo thanks...so I wound up on an F train that dumped me at 57th and 6th in front of the Golden Arches.
Yeah, I know…how the hell does McDonald’s and the birth of our nation have anything in common?
I recently watched “Super Size Me,” the documentary of a man who decided to conduct an experiment to determine whether McDonald’s food (in his case, 30 days of nothing but food purchased from McDonald’s) was healthy, unhealthy, safe, or, in fact, dangerous. Essentially, he gained 25 pounds, damaged his liver (not permanently), reduced his body’s ability to oxygenate his blood, and became lazy, tired, moody, anxious and depressed. That – in a nutshell – was his experience from a 30-day McDonald’s diet.
Clearly, his point in making the film, as evidenced in part by various interviews with the pro- and anti-McDonald’s parties, was to show that not only was McDonald’s duping the public by dumping a lot of sugar, caffeine and other addictive properties in its food, but it was contributing to the national trend towards obesity, not only in America but in other nations that also have a significant number of McDonald’s restaurants, ie France, England, Italy, etc. He suggested that McDonald’s intentionally hides their food’s nutritional values and that no one would easily be able to obtain pamphlets or nutritional information. In addition, his experiment revealed that many (read: 95%) nutritionists suggest that eating fast food – at all – should be avoided.
Where am I going with this? Good question. Essentially, I’ve watched a variety of interesting (and appalling) trends occur over the last decade: people have sued McDonald’s for preparing coffee that is too hot after being scalded by same; people have sued the tobacco industry for their declining health, whether it is cancer, emphysema or cardiac-related problems; and people have sued the gun industry for manufacturing products which are responsible or a direct cause of death. And in the case of “Super Size Me,” the film's experiment was predicated on the notion that two teenagers sued McDonald’s for making them obese, but their case was dismissed because the judge felt the teens did not demonstrate eating McDonald’s food caused their obesity.
In a litigious, blame-rather-than-fix-the-problem society, the case in which an individual sued McDonald’s after being scalded by too-hot coffee was eventually settled, but the result, other than a payoff for very creative litigants, was McDonald’s lowered the temperature of its coffee and also made sure to include a warning on each cup in which it’s served. That’s disturbing.
Suing the tobacco industry for hiding the dangers of smoking is appropriate, but if I were a judge in any of those particular cases, I would ask one simple question of each of the plaintiffs bringing action against a tobacco company or entity: “Once you realized that smoking was dangerous, did you stop smoking that very day?” The answer is no in most likely all cases, and my reasoning behind that assumption, of course, is that these are not cases in which an individual is wronged by another party; these are cases in which an individual sees a way to capitalize on public trends and/or moods, coupled with a disturbingly worrisome trend, which is the judiciary being used to exact penalties for past misdeeds. Should tobacco companies be punished for lying to consumers for so many years? Absolutely. Are tobacco companies to blame for using icons like Joe Camel and the like to attract kids and adolescents? For sure. Whether or not the surgeon general suggested that smoking was unhealthy, wasn’t it relatively obvious that smoking is a dangerous, unhealthy habit? Sort of.
We live in a time when smoking is vilified and frowned upon; in fact, there are people who are vehemently against smoking tobacco but have no problem using marijuana. The problem is that for 80% or more of the citizens of this country, the dangers of smoking are as well-known as President Clinton's proclivity to cheap sex with loose women. The point is: we've been inundated with anti-smoking rhetoric from when (hopefully) we were children, so the dangers of smoking have been one built and branded into our collective conscience. Punishing the tobacco companies for lying to consumers isn't as pernicious or alarming as the other trends in judicial righting of "wrongs." And people suing McDonald's for causing their obesity is, in a word, sickening.
Even if we throw common sense out the window and are completely unaware of the dangers of smoking, it's pretty clear that inhaling the by-products of whatever crap they roll into cigarettes these days is not "healthy." But for all but the most low-functioning of human beings, how can eating regularly at McDonald's be considered to be anything but unhealthy? The bulk of their food is fried, breaded, salted and/or sugared, and even their salads have enough crap installed therein to be considered unhealthy. Based on Super Size Me, a typical "McShaker" salad has more calories than a Big Mac. Oops. So, how can anyone, after enjoying three meals a day at Mickey D's, be surprised when they're in need of larger clothes, additional doctor visits and lots of new prescriptions and medical testing?
The concern here isn't whether or not McDonald's is unhealthy or dangerous or the like: it's fairly obvious. And that's the point -- their food is unhealthy. But they're not forcing anyone to consume it. The day Ronald McDonald slips out of a dark alley and, at gunpoint, forces me to eat a Fillet-O-Fish is the day I put two nine-millemeter calling cards between the clown's eyes. But until then, it's my option to ingest the carboard-encased crap they're selling; whether it's McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Jack-In-The-Box or Kentucky Fried Chicken, the option is mine to either buy or to go elsewhere. So for anyone to actually have the creativity to sue a fast-food company for causing their obesity is beyond ridiculous. At least it is in my opinion...if you don't agree, go get your own blog ;-)
Now here's where it gets tricky...if the judicial system is going to consent to be used to implement punishment for "past misdeeds" (ie hiding content, misleading consumers in order to get them "hooked" on a product, etc.) -- whether it's fast food or tobacco -- shouldn't we next expect laws to be enacted to prevent this sort of thing? I actually do expect this to happen: it did with the tobacco industry, and the penalties are reaching into the billions. States have been given free reign by the federal government to charge several dollars on each pack of cigarettes sold in their jurisdiction; this "penalty" amounts to more per pack than the tobacco companies, in some cases, would normally charge for the product in the first place. These so-called "sin" taxes are fine with me; what isn't, however, is the notion or the very likely possibility that the next wave of these taxes will apply to things like liquor and food.
Imagine the next time you go to a bar and, upon ordering a grey goose and tonic, being asked to sign an affidavit acknowledging vodka is unhealthy and can cause liver disease. Or when you next visit a fast food establishment, being asked to sign an affidavit indicating that red meat (or whatever type of material they're marketing thereas) is unhealthy, french fries contain sodium and soda has a number of harmful chemicals, including caffeine and sugar, therein. It sounds ridiculous, but if the government deems it appropriate to put warning labels on music, cigarettes and air-bag equipped cars, why not vodka and McWhoppers?
Morgan Spurlock, the individual behind Super Size Me, set out to suggest -- at least from my interpretation thereof -- that McDonald's was guilty of tricking consumers (by hiding nutrition info, stuffing addictive chemicals into its food, and for upsizing its products) into eating more and more and more. I'm not sure if they're "tricking" people into doing so; it's not like Carmen or Stephan are standing near the cashier whispering "Hey buddy, wanna super-size that?" I am a firm believer in the government operating under the laissez-faire principle, meaning the less government involvement, the better, whether that means the judiciary, the legislature, or an executive order telling McDonald's to stop putting so much damn dark meat in their McChickenStuff.
I liken this anticipated governmental meddling to the seat belt law. Why should the federal government, or any state government, require me by law to wear a seat belt? Provided I am driving safely, am not breaking any laws and not endangering other drivers, why should I otherwise be pulled over by a police officer and be fined for not wearing a seat belt?
Many of you reading this long-winded diatribe will rightly respond to the question above by saying that seat belts save lives, and the state is trying to protect its inhabitants. And to that, I say bullshit -- with a capital B, as in Boogie. Each state is funding and creating revenue for their local and state police units as a result of seat belt laws; but government isn't and shouldn't be paternal in its attempt to protect the populace, regardless if it's a town, city, state or the Fed itself. Each state is mandated -- required to and limited to pass laws to protect the general welfare without impinging on the rights of the individual. Wearing a seat belt isn't that much of an infringement, but why should the state be able to tell me that I need to wear a seat belt and fine me if I don't? Same goes for wearing a motorcyle helmet. Are they concerned that, if I don't wear a seat belt, that, upon involving myself in a high-speed accident, my body will somehow injure another motorist (or passing pedestrian) as it flies through the windshield and the air? My head is not hard enough (despite this post as evidence to the contrary) that it would injure anyone should I be ejected from a speeding motorcyle seat. So where is the line between the state's right to protect its citizens and my right to do whatever the hell I please so long as I don't injure anyone else?
And where is the state mandated to tell me I can't eat 7 whoppers, two McShakes, four Filet-O-Fishes and a bucket of fries? And wash it down with seventeen super-sized Jolt Colas? As of right this minute, they're not. And they shouldn't be. But if they can cross the line to tell me to wear a seatbelt and a motorcycle helmet, can't a cop fine me for eating too many french fries?
If the mentality that the government knows what's best for you -- and anyone who has two functioning lobes knows that's bullshit extraordinaire -- then along with the seat belt law, you should expect food- and alcohol-related restrictions to match the meddling they already have perpetrated via the seat belt and the tobacco laws. Imagine it: "Put down that fork, you fat fuck, or you're under arrest!" It would sound great, although I'd have a hard time spending $10 to watch Dirty Harry stake out a Denny's for an All-You-Can-Eat Buffet.
Limiting and tracking the number of guns sold (and, obviously, to whom) is certainly a right that should be given to the state; guns are dangerous (although it really depends on who is wielding the gun). But while plenty of people have died as a result of being overweight, and plenty have had hardening of the arteries and/or heart attacks as a result of poor eating habits, I don't recall the last time I read a news story where a bank was robbed by a man wielding a Big Mac with extra ketchup. One day, perhaps -- but not yet.
Obviously the state cannot and should not be meddling in these matters, just as it shouldn't be fining people for not wearing seatbelts. But as long as the judiciary takes these ridiculous, sans merit suits and lends them credence, and as long as people find a way to point fingers at anything or anyone -- for gun deaths, cigarette smoking, drinking too much, or eating fourteen pounds of KFC mashed potatoes -- we'll have a country that will spend more time pointing fingers at everything but ourselves. And get nowhere. We'll be shot, have emphysema, liver disease, and we'll be obese -- but we'll be rich.
I'm not begrudging Morgan's theory that McDonald's is unhealthy, duplicitous and not quite what it seems -- but in this day and age, I lean towards the notion of caveat emptor and employ common sense, rather than a watchdog or some other paternal intervention for where I eat, what I watch, what I drink and with whom I spend my time. I believe that expecting -- or, worse, embracing -- government involvement in every aspect of our lives, no matter what level and no matter how intimate (eg abortion, euthanasia, living wills) is a sure-fire recipe for us to forfeit our individuality, our identity, and our self-determination.
There's got to be a better way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment