Scientific American editors wrote an opinion article in 2010 entitled "Underage, Overweight: The Federal Government Needs to Halt the Marketing of Unhealthy Foods to Kids" (Scientific American editors, 2010). The authors' main point is that the government must get involved in fighting the obesity epidemic in America (beyond helping parents and schools promote healthier eating habits) by interfering with junk food advertising aimed at children. In support of this argument, the article cites evidence from a recent UCLA study that suggests advertising may have more of an effect on the eating habits of children than anything else (Scientific American editors, 2010). The authors also support their point by describing the ways in which advertisers for sugary and fatty foods have zeroed in on children as their targets more and more in recent years (Scientific American editors, 2010).
In contrast to this editorial, however, I believe the government is already beginning to overstep their bounds when it comes to controlling consumer behavior...
The old adage, "everything in moderation" still holds true. Some people, as a result of genetics or a highly active lifestyle, either thrive on occasional high-sugar and high-fat foods, or at least do not gain weight from them (CDC, 2010). In addition, mounting evidence shows that dieting does not work, and in fact often results in gaining the weight back plus some more, because human beings want more of "whatever we can't have" (UCLA, 2007). So in fact, it may be the recent popularity of restrictive diets that is resulting in cumulative weight gains, not the over-availability of convenience foods. But regardless of the amount of existing proof that "banning" certain foods or advertisements will not solve the obesity crisis, the government has many common sense options available for redirecting children's eating habits. There is no need to go to extremes like eliminating all trans-fats from restaurants (Scaperotti,…
