There is an amusing graphic making the round on the Net.  It is captioned "Michelangelo's David returns to Italy after a two year visit in America," and shows a grossly overweight statue with massive gut, hips, thighs, etc.  At the bottom are the symbols of various fast-food chains that presumably made David's transformation possible.

In response to such presumptions, government on all levels seems intent on protecting us from the demons of dining out on fast food.  The latest law cooked up by bureaucrats — and have you seen some of them lately? — aims to punish those deemed responsible for America's obscene incidence of obesity.  

Hence the trans-fat ban in  New York City and California restaurants, which will be phased in over time  — perhaps because trans-fats have a long shelf life.  For those who would put Big Mac Brother at the forefront of policing what and where we eat, this may seem like a good idea.  But if you scrape away the lard of good intentions, it's just another of those feel-good measures that delude those in power into thinking they're actually doing something to solve a problem.  One Southern California community has gone further.  Its city council refuses to allow any more fast food chains to locate there.  

Some say this is a start toward insuring good nutrition and weight loss.  I say it's the beginning of an inherently unfair chain reaction that punishes some and not others.  If trans-fats are so bad that they must be banned from eating establishments, why do we allow them to be used freely in the processing of cookies, cakes, crackers and many other foods sold in our supermarkets?  Are they healthier consumed at home than in a restaurant?  

Perhaps it's that nobody seems to eat at home anymore. You'd think the kitchen was obsolete — all but the microwave for reheating take-out food.  The argument is that the prices charged at fast foods restaurants are so low, it becomes more economical to eat out rather than in.  But if you do the math — and the shopping — this is not the case.  It is actually less expensive to buy ground beef and hamburger buns for a family dinner, for example, than it is to scarf them down at McDonalds.

This is countered by the rant that there's no time in our busy world to prepare food.  So indulging in a Whopper becomes a necessity, not a choice, almost like an irresistible magnet drawing its captives in and forcing them to order the most fattening item on the menu.  

Never mind that fast food emporia have made a conscious, costly effort to include more healthful choices, such as salads. Even Dunkin' Donuts is getting into the act with the improbable lure of breads rather than sweets.  Still,  the deep-fried chocolate eclair isn't going anywhere anytime soon — other than into the stomachs of those who continue to crave it.  

The anti-fast-food community wants other less suspect kinds of restaurants to move on in and set things right.  But businessmen aren't going to open a place that's likely to fail. Besides, just because a restaurant doesn't serve up burgers, dogs or tacos hardly means its choices will slim us down. Some of the finest restaurants serve the richest food.  A gourmet bisque can be loaded with fat and preservatives. Fancy desserts slip right to the hips.  Costlier doesn't necessarily equate to a calorie-conscious approach.  

The failure of Prohibition in America proved that drinking didn't stop simply because the law, in effect, hid the bottle.  The same can be said of any attempt on the part of officials to ban fast foods or the selective use of trans-fat.  We learn good nutrition by example, not by condemnation.  

 

---

SWW Gift Shop