Senator Lieberman’s proposal calls for the FTC to require junk food advertisements to include nutritional information in the form of a parental warning... Senator Lieberman Jumps onto the Junk Food Wagon

"Every third American devotes himself to improving and uplifting his fellow-citizen, usually by force." — H.L. Mencken

Senator Joe Lieberman has just become that third American.

Earlier this month, the Connecticut Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate announced that he is calling for a federal investigation into the marketing practices of "junk food" companies.

This new campaign tactic just may be enough to bring Gore back into politics, this time as Lieberman’s running mate. Not Al Gore, who has announced his endorsement of Howard Dean for president. Rather, it’s Tipper, the perennial censor-happy, "in the interest of the children" former-Second Lady who may be "Joe’s Gore for 2004."

The real stopper of this story is not that Senator Lieberman — after previous efforts at warning labels on entertainment products — has turned nanny. It’s the hypocrisy of his latest campaign to meddle with others’ lives all "for the sake of the children."

Without sugar coating it, this is clearly a case of "do as I say, not as I do." Only weeks ago, after devouring a deep-fried Twinkie at the Iowa State Fair, Senator Lieberman was reported as saying, "I definitely have a sweet tooth." As our nation’s new health paternalist, will Senator Lieberman be able to overcome his cravings and abstain from all cakes, cookies and candies?

As it turns out, there is a huge cavity in Senator Lieberman’s "junk food" proposal — it does not define what "junk food" is, leaving that to dietary and health care experts. That means more government hearings, more government bureaucracies and more government regulations. "Junk food" charts would likely end up much like the food pyramid chart so beloved by the Department of Agriculture — million dollar wallpaper for grocery stores and school lunchrooms that most Americans don’t understand or ignore. Of course, by that time, the development and publication of these charts will have cost millions of taxpayer dollars and kept thousands of government "granolas" employed.

One notably ironic feature of Candidate Lieberman’s proposal is that he is trying to ban other forms of speech while he is clearly protected to run whatever advertisements he wants as he spends millions of dollars to get out his campaign messages. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court stripped most Americans of their free speech and association rights in federal election campaigns, leaving politicians, PACs and the media as just about the only folks who are free to say what they want as the elections draw nearer. Senator Lieberman praised the ruling, adding that "[m]oney and influence must not drown out the voice and the values of ordinary Americans."

That is, as long as ordinary Americans are not talking about food.

Senator Lieberman’s proposal calls for the FTC to require junk food advertisements to include nutritional information in the form of a parental warning, asks Congress to pass the pending bill to require restaurant chains to include nutritional information on menus and miniboards, and grants the Department of Agriculture police powers to set standards for food sold in schools, primarily sold through vending machines.

How is it that folks like Senator Lieberman, who grew up as America rang with chants of "Down with the Establishment," now want the government to make personal decisions for them?

The reality is that some of these health promoters have figured out that the icing on their cake comes further down the buffet when the lawyers can go after the successful corporations which produce these delectables, filing obesity lawsuits and misleading advertising claims under the guise of public health.

In response to the increase in ridiculous suits, some industries are fighting back. For example, the Louisiana Restaurant Association led a successful effort this year to get a state law passed that limits the liability of manufacturers, distributors and sellers of food and nonalcoholic beverages for damages from long-term consumption. And, in a story posted on the Center’s website two weeks ago, we wrote about how some private businesses are turning to liability waivers to curb patrons’ appetites for obesity lawsuits. To read the story, click here.

In this, the season of "eat, drink and be merry," will someone please tell Senator Lieberman to stay off our plates so we can enjoy one of the few sweet delights we have left in this prohibitionist America? Faced with the choice between a world where visions of sugar plums can only dance in our heads and a world where we can actually eat them, we surely would select the latter as the more interesting (and freer) place in which to live.

Senator Lieberman’s website describes him, in part, as a "strong advocate for ... empowering parents." As such, he should well understand, and preach, that what our children eat for and in between meals, what they watch on television, and what they listen to on their radios and CD players are, in fact, parental choices, not decisions that need the stamp of approval from Congress. But it’s getting closer to election time again, and it’s hard to convince a presidential candidate that freedom would appreciate it if he did nothing at all.

December 18, 2003
[About CFIF]  [Freedom Line]  [Legal Issues]  [Legislative Issues]  [We The People]  [Donate]  [Home]  [Search]  [Site Map]
© 2000 Center For Individual Freedom, All Rights Reserved. CFIF Privacy Statement
Designed by Wordmarque Design Associates
News About The Supreme Court Conservative News Legislative News Congressional News Agricultural News Campaign Finance Reform News Judicial Confirmation News Energy News Technology News Internet Taxation News Immigration News Conservative Newsletter Legal Reform News Humorous Legal News News About Senator Kennedy News About The War In Iraq Tribute to President Ronald Wilson Reagan