A recent New York Times article reported on efforts in Sweden to get people to make more environmentally friendly eating decisions. The Swedish government has issued new food guidelines that take into account global warming as well as health, and the food industry is working to develop ways to help people follow these guidelines by identifying the environmental impact of their food choices. These initiatives include labels on groceries that display the amount of carbon dioxide generated by the product, and emissions data displayed next to each item on fast-food menus.
It seems that, more and more, governments are enacting rules to try to nudge their citizens toward making healthier decisions, whether that means for individual health, group health, or even the health of the planet. Sometimes these take the form of suggestions, such as the environmental labels, and sometimes they're more overt restrictions. Back when I was working my way through college as a waitress, I remember the battle over the smoking ban in New York City restaurants. Restaurateurs were worried that the ban would hurt sales, and fought it tooth and nail. In the restaurant where I worked, the entire staff (tired of having to breathe in secondhand smoke to make a living) supported the ban, while our bosses opposed it.
But what was controversial then is old news these days. The ban passed, and sales did not suffer. It was followed by restrictions on smoking in bars, and now the city is even talking about banning smoking in public parks and beaches. On the eating front, legislation was enacted to require calorie counts posted on restaurant menus (though the jury's still out on whether they've had any effect). And, with obesity skyrocketing and taking a huge toll on public funds, New York's Governor Patterson is among those who have floated the idea of a tax on unhealthy foods such as soda and candy.
This kind of legislation, which is growing more widespread across the U.S. and Europe, has been referred to as a "nanny state" by critics, who feel that it infantilizes the populace and takes away personal freedom. Of course, in the case of the Swedish carbon dioxide listings, no one is being forced to make a more environmentally friendly choice: The only restriction is guilt. And, even in the case of actual restrictions such as a smoking ban, the idea of curtailing freedom for some in the name of greater good for all is not exactly a new one: After all, probably none of us would claim that a driver should be able to toss back ten shots of liquor and then operate a vehicle.
What do you think: Would you like to see carbon dioxide emissions posted on menus and ingredient labels? Do you think they would actually cause you to change your buying habits? What about a tax on junk foods: Do you see that as a "big brother-ish" attempt by the government to control eating, or a legitimate way to pay for the public cost of the obesity epidemic?
by Sarah Kagan
MORE FROM EPICURIOUS.COM
Prepare for the holidays with Epicurious’s New Healthy-Eating Guide
Recipes and tips for comfort food that’s both healthy and satisfying
Short on time? Get help with Epicurious’s Weekly Dinner Planners
Scare up a festive Halloween with Epicurious’s recipes, party ideas and how-to videos
Six foods that fight the flu plus 18 recipes to make with them
