Manson Testifies Before Committee
Hearing on "Reducing Childhood Obesity"

"We must recognize that the federal government cannot and should not embark on a massive new regulatory scheme designed to make us all slimmer and trimmer."

Written Testimony of

Marshall Manson
Vice President of Public Affairs, Center for Individual Freedom

Before the

Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee
Hearing on "Reducing Childhood Obesity"

October 5, 2004

Chairman Gregg, Senator Kennedy, members of the Committee:

Given the report earlier this year from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrating that obesity and diseases caused by obesity are now leading killers in the United States, there can be no question that obesity is and ought to be a major health concern for all Americans. In recent months, this "obesity crisis" has attracted significant public and media attention.

Among the central questions now are: whether and, if so, how the federal government should respond.

Some would like to use the heightened focus on obesity to support their calls for increased federal regulation of our food choices. However, these proposals reveal an underlying belief that Americans cannot make responsible choices about what to eat and drink. For example, in recent years some groups have pushed such radical regulatory steps as a new federal tax on junk food, sodas, and other snacks (the so-called "Twinkie tax"), granting the USDA complete authority to regulate all foods in schools nationwide with an eye toward banning sodas, cookies, candy and other snacks, and federally mandated labeling of restaurant menus with detailed nutrition information.

These anti-food zealots seem to prefer that Americans eat a federally-mandated diet of lettuce, skinned apples, carrot sticks, and soy milk. Over the years, they have identified dozens of foods that they claim should be eliminated or severely restricted from our diets. For example, spaghetti and meatballs, eggplant parmigiana, ham sandwiches, corned beef, pork chops, coffee, enchiladas, gyro sandwiches, and even luncheon meats. Heaven forbid you enjoy Chinese takeout. These groups have railed against mu shu pork, General Tso’s chicken, lo mein, kung pao chicken, sweet and sour pork, and Chinese restaurants, in general. They have even warned against eating the most basic of American staples — apple pie.

Their conclusions are based on an abundance of questionable studies and unsupported assertions. However, at this stage, critical scientific questions about obesity are far from settled.

For example, several studies have concluded that there is no link between soft drink consumption and obesity while one study made headlines recently by arguing that there is such a link. There are conflicting studies over whether milk consumption among children is rising or falling. One study says that cutting soft drinks does not increase milk consumption. Another contradicts that conclusion.

Perhaps the most enlightening, undisputed tidbit of scientific research about obesity comes from a study by researchers at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. It analyzed health trends in adolescents over the last 20 years and found that while obesity increased 10 percent, physical activity decreased 13 percent and caloric intake remained nearly steady, up 1 percent.

What role should the federal government have in combating obesity? First, we must recognize that there is no single cure-all for obese Americans. There are literally hundreds of causes of obesity, and there are as many solutions as there are causes. However, it’s important to note that in and of themselves, sodas, hamburgers, hotdogs, candy, white bread, rice, potatoes, pasta, and even apple pie don’t cause obesity. Instead, with the exception of medical conditions, obesity most often results from individuals eating too much while exercising too little.

Nevertheless, there are limited steps that the government can take in a general campaign against obesity. For example, the federal government can continue and enhance its efforts to encourage responsible decision-making, promote increased exercise, and issue balanced dietary recommendations based on careful, unbiased science. For that reason, we applaud the kind of public-private partnership that the Committee is discussing today. By helping educate children about how to make healthy food choices and promoting increased exercise, especially among children, these sorts of partnerships are precisely the best way for government to make a difference in the fight against obesity. Most importantly, asking local schools, parents, and the students themselves to develop custom approaches to fighting obesity is the best way to make a difference.

But above all, the federal government’s role must, indeed, be limited. We must recognize that the federal government cannot and should not embark on a massive new regulatory scheme designed to make us all slimmer and trimmer.

First, there are countless practical problems. Congress cannot possibly be expected to legislate effectively against obesity. There are too many causes and too many problems for an omnibus Congressional solution. Nor is it feasible for Congress to instruct a federal regulatory authority to fight obesity through rule-making. Further, scientific understanding of human nutrition, diet needs, and the causes of obesity improves constantly. The government is ill-equipped to understand and integrate these advances into its legislation or regulation.

Second, and more importantly, the federal government shouldn’t be in the business of telling Americans what they can eat and drink. Our democracy is founded on the idea that individuals have basic freedoms. Among these, certainly, is the right to choose what we put on our plates and in our goblets. But the anti-food extremists would gladly take away that freedom and mandate our diet in order to save us from ourselves. It is time for these zealous anti-food advocates to understand that it is not the federal government’s job to save us from ourselves by making our choices for us.

Obesity has been labeled a "crisis" in America. And such labels all too frequently spur a Congressional impulse to "don’t just sit there, do something." In this case, it’s incumbent on Congress to resist this impulse. Let Americans continue to make free choices about what to eat and drink. Certainly, the federal government can and should continue to encourage us to make informed choices. Certainly, the federal government can and should help us understand what constitutes a balanced diet. And certainly, the federal government can and should help us sift through the myriad of scientific (and unscientific) information about the right combinations of diet and exercise. Public-private partnerships that advance these objectives while embracing local control and individual decision-making are precisely the right answer, and we applaud Senator Frist’s proposal for that reason.

But Congress cannot and should not start down the road of food regulation or punishment through taxation. In the end, Americans must make good choices and be responsible for their actions. Were it otherwise, we would not be truly free.

The Center for Individual Freedom (www.cfif.org) is a constitutional advocacy organization dedicated to protecting individual freedom and individual rights.

Return to Current Events Index