In a time where political irreverence rules the day, issues involving increased governmental regulation lie at the heart of much of the discourse. While that topic in whole exceeds the intention of this post, it’s tough to ignore the Government’s increased “presence” (let’s call it) in advising what consumer goods are appropriate choices. Two recent examples come to mind:

In the first week of November, the Board of Supervisors for the City of San Francisco voted to forbid restaurants (in reality, McDonald’s) from giving away toys with meals that have high levels of calories, sugar and fat. Citing a childhood obesity epidemic, the measure was applauded by many as a huge step in the right direction; and I admit that at first blush that was something that really made sense. Certainly, childhood obesity (and adult obesity for that matter) are huge national healthcare issues; and may come to define the healthcare industry for the next generation.

However, what I believe was lost in the discussion is that in this instance, McDonald’s (love them or hate them) lost a right to commercially market a product as they choose. You might say, “so what…it’s McDonald’s.” Well, substitute McDonald’s for your favorite local family-owned diner and I bet you would not think the ban was fair. For better or worse, this is a restriction of the free market. And let’s be honest; kids are not buying Happy Meals by themselves; grown-ups are buying them. Parents should know better.

Ultimately, the Mayor of San Francisco voted the ban, citing that the regulation was too intrusive. However, the Board of Supervisors may attempt to override the veto. It appears this battle is just beginning.

Another noteworthy announcement was made by the FDA when the agency released the details of a new proposed visual warning campaign that requires that cigarette makers to prominently place somewhat stunning and graphic pictures on the top of cigarette packaging – above the brand logo. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, passed in 2009, provided the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco, including marketing and labeling guidelines. As you might have guessed, several cigarette makers have already changed the law and the case is currently tied up in appeals court. Despite the ongoing litigation, the FDA recently released the proposed images for public comment. Some of the images would be at the very least startling to see on a consumer product.

Most people are probably in agreement with this more visible warning label to be imposed by the Federal Government. That’s fair. Without doubt cigarettes are deadly and highly addictive.

However, it’s not these two regulations themselves that concern me. I just hope that government’s prominent “opinions” as to which legal consumer choices I make remain limited to choices that are fairly certain to cause bodily harm.  I don’t need a picture of a purple-faced kid choking on a bag of peanuts to know to be careful. I learned that from my parents.

Share on Facebook