The Pros And Cons Of Government Intervention

Many politicians and self-appointed nutrition czars see Americans as incapable of making decisions about a basic necessity of life: eating. Therefore, they feel that government at all levels must try to control their diets. This control means trying to direct people to eat a certain way or expressly prohibiting or banning the consumption of certain foods. Government should respect the voluntary choices made by individuals when it comes to their diets. The current path of government intervention is leading to greater restrictions on citizens’ freedoms that could eventually result in federal food bans.

The primary justification made for government intervention is the public’s inadequate information regarding nutrition. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims that inadequate information is a market failure justifying Obamacare’s menu labeling rule. In reality, the public already has plenty of information. Restaurants and other businesses respond to consumer demand for nutritional information. Entire industries are built around the public’s demand for dieting and healthy living, from diet sodas to weight-loss programs. The public is inundated with marketing

The allegedly unhealthy habits raise costs for government healthcare programs; therefore, taxpayers supposedly have an interest in encouraging healthy living. However, these costs exist because of government intervention. If there is a concern for taxpayer costs, government programs such as Medicare can be reformed accordingly. For private third-party costs, government-imposed restrictions on private insurers and their coverage options can be lifted. Once the government intervention is removed, there are no health care costs to third parties. Two U.S. Department of Agriculture economists captured the extreme implications of using increased taxpayer costs for health care as the basis for government