Look out, Ronald McDonald and Toucan Sam. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is coming for you, and he has a bipartisan coalition behind him.
This week, the Senate health committee advanced the socialist’s bill aimed at reducing the allure of junk food. The legislation would require warning labels for all sugary or ultra-processed products and direct the health and human services secretary to police any child-oriented marketing of those items, including cartoon characters, social media influencers and any “fun or fantasy themes.”
Micromanaging advertising campaigns is obvious government overreach. Such nanny-state intervention substitutes the judgment of politicians for parents. It also won’t curtail a child’s taste for sugar.
Adding warning labels to food products is a less silly idea, but it nevertheless runs into a big problem: There is no standard definition for ultra-processed foods, and coming up with one has proved extremely difficult. In a February interview, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promised to come up with one by April. It has yet to materialize.
No one disputes that ultra-processed products are unhealthy choices. The problem is that defining what falls in that category requires identifying specific ingredients that are involved with industrial processing. Studying the consequences of tiny amounts of additives to other chemicals is notoriously difficult.
Even if scientists manage to find consensus on the harms of one ingredient, the food industry can replace components with other chemicals. Expect them to continue playing these whack-a-mole games to avoid adding any warning label to their packaging.
Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration already requires manufacturers to provide information about the ingredients contained in their products. Public health advocates argue that condensing that information into a single front-of-package warning label would help consumers, but doing so risks oversimplifying the nuances of nutritional science.
Reducing the number of kids with diabetes and obesity is a good goal. At the same time, people typically already know which foods are not good for them. Who needs a warning from D.C. politicians, for example, that marshmallow-laden cereal is not the healthiest breakfast option?
Certainly, the country would be better off if Americans consumed more unprocessed foods. But public health advocates are kidding themselves if they think more regulations — and fewer cartoon characters — will make that happen.
The post A junk bill to fight junk food appeared first on Washington Post.
