We listened to dietary advice from our parents, guardians, and close relatives while growing up.
"Don't eat that candy, it'll rot your teeth."
"Don't eat the cookies, it'll spoil your dinner."
"Too much of anything is not good for you."
The relatives, we understood. We didn't know who the nutritionists were, and friends didn't care, as long as the eats were free to them.
Now, "big brother", who we always accuse of watching our every move more so than our parents or relatives did, is sticking its nose into where it may not belong. In Oakland County (Michigan), they are trying to regulate people's diets. Talk about a loss of appetite.
According to this article, county executives are looking to ban trans-fat additives & ingredients from over 4,000 county-wide restaurants, following the lead of "healthy" New York City. The government's aim is to protect other people's health by shielding them from things not good for them.
We can't forget about the recent trend in healthy eating habits. It might be good to jump on the bandwagon if we really want to feel good about ourselves. But how does a county come up with the idea they can police us better than we can?
The worries abound, and they are true - regarding the hold government has on us. They sock 20-25 percent of our paychecks, but how come they run up an $800 million deficit? There goes the public trust, for one. Do the bigwigs in Lansing know my eating habits? They only know my personal information from a database. They don't know ME, the person. Trans-fats have contributed to my life. I may not be perfect, but I'm still ticking, and still try to foster a productive life.
But the most important thing is the way each person regulates their own eating habits. They eat based on the environment they were raised in. Some were raised vegetarian, and more power to them. Some were raised on a totally balanced diet, and good for them, too. Some have not eaten the right kinds of foods, and some (especially recently around here) have been impoverished. Any food would look great to those hungry enough for some.
The individual has control over their own life. Some shoot to live to 100; some don't care how old they wind up being. If what they eat makes them comfortable and it can be stomached, why can't it be eaten now? It's a personal choice, and please note individual preferences & rights are being attacked yet again by the same source that has received this criticism before.
As Thomas Gordon, Health & Human Services director for Oakland County said: "Is trans fat good for you? No. Is smoking good for you? No. But they're not illegal, and people in this country still get to make up their own minds about issues like that."
What a great quote from an unexpected ally in this issue.
There is an age-old solution. The last I heard, we have the power to choose. You are not forced to eat bad foods at a restaurant. The reason there's a menu is for you to scan it through and pick the dish that's right for you, with the ingredients you choose. You don't have to have the cake, doughnut, or chicken. Or, you can choose to do so.
What people eat is their choice; their business. They know the consequences of bad eating, and they'll either believe in them or blow them off. And, speaking of that aforementioned $800 million state deficit, wouldn't "big brother" rather cast its eyes on that and try eliminating that gap, improve the economy, and make life in this dying state more bountiful for those in it?
Smart decisions like that could put more food -- of all types -- on the table for those working so hard to earn it.
