Healthy eating: An individual choice or government responsibility?

Government

1 of 16

by H. Aslan Aslani-Far

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

To suggest that "eating healthy" is an individual's choice is to make three uninformed, dangerous assumptions: that the accessible food supply is, in and of itself, untainted; that fast-food marketing campaigns are equally countered by direct, legitimate sources of information that expose the detriments of its continued product consumption; and, that sensible alternatives are available to average Americans.

Unfortunat ely, none of these assumptions are even remotely true, and all three are either directly subject to existing federal standards of inspection, which as recent events have shown, fall perilously short of instilling consumer confidence; or are wholly compromised by the nefarious influence of international trade agreements with foreign governments to whom we, as a nation, are increasingly indentured. Add to this volatile mix, the powerful influence lobbyists acting on behalf of the fast-food industry exert on legislators, and it becomes readily apparent that Americans have little choice in the matter.

The failures of the Chinese Government to effectively inspect exports to the United States recently resulted in the sickness and death of many Americans. The effect of the ensuing outrage was the expulsion of China's highest-level authority on the export of foreign consumer goods and promises that higher standards would be implemented. The telling fact however, is that after an offer by the United States to implement inspection areas in export zones in China was rejected by the Chinese government, the Chinese threatened to call in all outstanding foreign debts if the United States attempted to further regulate or minimize Chinese imports.

What does all this mean? It means that because the United States is beholden to China, as debtor, the Chinese government can dictate the terms of inspection and export of products destined for your digestive tract. If you die in the process, you will do so knowing that there wasn't a thing your government could do to prevent it. In the end, you'll pay for the nation's debt with your life and the only fact comforting your survivor's will be that you tried to eat a healthy, balanced diet that was sufficiently fortified with toxins, antifreeze and bacteria.

It would be unfair, however, to single out China as the lone purveyor of tainted food distribution since in recent weeks the inspection failures at the Topps Meat Company resulted in several cases of E. Coli sickness, culminated in millions of pounds of recalled beef and ended with the termination of operations and closure of the plant.

If that isn't depressing enough, consider this: it wouldn't have mattered if officials from our own Food and Drug Administration were on hand in China to inspect their tainted exports, because in all probability, the inspectors would have exhibited the same kind of diligence and success there, as they did here. And, if we insist on poisoning our own people, it would be monumentally hypocritical to condemn the Chinese for trying to do the same, even if we didn't owe them hundreds of billions of dollars.

Of course, consumption of frozen beef patties may not be anyone's idea of "eating healthy", but recent recalls of tainted spinach and other vegetables confirms that these failures are not endemic to meat processing plants. For this, one cannot hold the American people accountable. It is the failure of federal agencies to properly monitor mandates that have been enacted to keep the population safe and the failure of the government to actively enforce those standards to prevent widespread sickness and death.

Coupled with this miserable state of inspection, Americans are attacked on a consistent basis by fast-food marketing campaigns that inundate the population with false perceptions of satisfaction and taste at cut-rate prices. That these companies spend billions of dollars luring customers to their grease-laden drive-thru's while offering simple alternatives for working families to quickly ingest heart-failure, cancer, diabetes and obesity is tantamount to assisted suicide. It is unconscionable to consider that the government does not restrict these marketing campaigns simply because legislators are indebted to their pestilence endorsing lobbyists. It is worse to acknowledge that in addition to this collusion, the government imposes severe penalties on consumers for falling prey to their advertising tactics by way of taxes and increasing advocacy of insurance companies. Of course, the same was true with the tobacco industry until millions of people dropped dead. Perhaps, the time will come for government intervention when the hearts of 300-pound 10-year olds start exploding on the plastic playgrounds they could barely traverse anyway.

And, if all that isn't difficult enough to digest already, the government, in its fanatical courtship of lobbyists, maintains an artificially high cost of domestically grown products simply because it's good for business and amply fills the coffers of your affiliated political party for distribution to your "representative" to properly continue the cycle of graft and corruption. The instances herein are far too numerous to itemize for effective discussion and proper indignation, but for the purposes of eliciting interest, a cursory review of agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland will confirm why, for example, the cost of corn is so high and why at a time of fiscal depression Congress would earmark nearly $11 billion in subsidies to corn farmers. Hint: subsidizing industry at a time when product demand and price are at an all time high occurs only when massive political contributions are made.

The government of any nation has an obligatory duty to position itself in the international sphere so that it is free from unconscionable foreign trade demands, enabling it to ensure a food supply that is safe for public consumption while actively regulating the advertising and marketing of products it is keenly aware are detrimental to the public health.

It is only then reasonable to lay the burden of public health on the public itself.

Learn more about this author, H. Aslan Aslani-Far.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.