Thursday, October 18, 2007

Something to consider

Jacob Sullum at Reason brings up an interesting point in a post about the clowns over at the CSPI.
I could point out that 920 calories for breakfast is not necessarily out of line with the government's own recommendations for male teenagers and physically active men, or that Hardee's "does offer some low-calorie options, including roast beef and chicken sandwiches." But I am most struck by the fact that quotes from activists like Hurley are now obligatory in articles about new menu items at restaurant chains. Even from the perspective of "obesity epidemic" doomsayers, this seems like a strange state of affairs. After all, stories about the plunging prices of big-screen TVs, the hot new video game, or the latest labor-saving device do not typically include critics bemoaning the implications for calorie expenditure. Should they?

I've never really thought about that, but the nanny statists always seem to only go after one side of things - fast food bad, cheap TVs OK; online poker and slot machines bad, state run lottery good.

Maybe we shouldn't give them any ideas.

No comments: