State assumes control over student diets

California schools have continued down the path away from teaching appropriate behavior to attempting to control free will.

The latest transgression began this month after the implementation of a state Senate bill controlling what sort of foods can be sold at school. The bill controls how many calories snacks may have at certain schools and what sort of drinks may be sold. It even demands that milk be low fat or nonfat.

Obviously, this intrusion is part of efforts to combat the alleged growing obesity problem in the United States. As usual, however, nobody ever really explores the potential negative side effects of the laws that they push through. Controlling access to unhealthy food will make children healthier, right?

Of course not. In fact, these changes are probably the worst thing schools can do to teach good nutrition to students. First of all, it teaches students that they’re not responsible for their own behavior and to turn to the government to make decisions on their behalf. It shields youths from learning about the consequences of their own actions. It makes the government responsible for their personal health. The government is supposed to preserve our security and our rights, not our waistlines.

This kind of attitude inevitably leads to events like New York City banning trans fats in restaurants. New York has absolutely no legal authority to do this, but the people surrendered their rights, having accepted government agents as personal nutritionists, rather than having to think and plan for themselves.

We can’t exactly declare these school changes a violation of students’ rights. Given that the school is providing the food for sale, the government can dictate what is to be offered. However, how long do you think it will be before the state attempts to control what food students can bring onto campus themselves?

That will be the next step, because we can guarantee you this bill won’t do a single thing to combat obesity. Those who insist on making unhealthy choices will continue to find ways to do so. Furthermore, the efforts ultimately fall into the same trap as our failing drug war — attempting to ban something people enjoy causes them to take extensive measures to secure access to the banned goods.

We doubt street gangs are going to pop up trafficking in cupcakes, but shouldn’t we have learned by now that we can’t control desire? We can only hold people responsible for themselves when they choose to pursue desires at the expense of their own health.

Scott Shackford