While the country is experiencing obesity rates higher than previously seen, the government is stepping in to legislate American health. As people count calories, join gyms, and try fad diets year in and year out, the government is trying new ways to discourage the consumption of unhealthy foods. Like attempts to legislate morality, the government’s efforts to whittle down the waist of the American people is arguably out of step with the society of free choice we’ve always enjoyed.
While legislation of food consumption is not entirely new, New York City’s former mayor Michael Bloomberg lit the fuse that ignited a firestorm of supporters and protestors of government interference in their mealtime choices. In 2012, Bloomberg proposed a ban on sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces. It was struck down as unconstitutional in 2014. However, current New York City mayor Bill de Blasio is taking the cause up again; this time, he’s placing his hopes in the City Council.
The backlash against Bloomberg’s efforts have spurred so called “anti-Bloomberg” bills. Two states, Mississippi and North Carolina, have passed such laws to prevent the local and regional regulation of consumables.
Mississippi’s law banned “cities and counties from enacting their own local food ordinances and reserves that authority to the state legislature,” according to the Mississippi Hospitality & Restaurant Association.
North Carolina’s version of an “anti-Bloomberg” bill is called the “Commonsense Consumption Act.” It also prohibits local governments from taking action to ban food and drinks, but goes a step further to “bar civil actions” against food makers, handlers, sellers, etc. for obesity-related claims by consumers.
As the government is now coming to understand that the people and courts don’t support a municipality determining what food, drink, or portion size of such to enjoy, they are employing new methods to achieve their goals. Hawaii has a number of actions pending by way of government legislation of edibles. One example is S.B. 646 (“Taxation; Sugar-sweetened Beverages”) whose aim “establishes a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, syrup, and powder with the revenues generated to be deposited into the community health centers special fund and the trauma system special fund.” Illinois has H.B. 5690 called the “Sweetened Beverage Tax” bill or “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Syrups, and Powder Tax Law.” Currently in committee, it also seeks to add a tax to sugary beverages, based on ounces.
The proposed bills in Hawaii and Illinois are sponsored solely by Democrats, while the already-passed “anti-Bloomberg” bills were mostly Republican sponsored. Why is the subject of government regulation of food and drink mostly a party-line issue? Are the liberties associated with an American’s right to consume 20 ounces of soda something the government should have the ability to interfere in? Denouncers of the government’s interjection in the obesity epidemic have real concerns about how far our legislative bodies may go in limiting our food and drink choices. What is to prevent them from limiting the amount of caffeine, alcohol, or even calories that’s deemed an amount within so-called healthy limits?
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.