A responsible attitude is better than calorie cops
A Martian landing in any city in the USA would be forgiven for thinking he had happened on a planet whose inhabitants ate only burgers, fries and fizzy drinks. With endless fast-food outlets on every street corner, the US love affair with vast amounts of fat and sugar is well documented.
It's big business, and for many years fast-food companies must have been rubbing their hands with glee at the popularity of their products, and ultimately the size of their profits.
But the tide could be on the turn, with the news that a New York man is suing four fast-food chains, claiming that their food made him obese and gave him serious health problems.
It's tempting, from this side of the Atlantic, to dismiss this story as ludicrous, as yet another example of a nation caught up in a frenzy of litigation. But there are implications that are worth considering.
It was less than 40 years ago that campaigners in the USA started battling against tobacco companies and the effects of smoking on health. That, too, was a move originally seen as ridiculous, but it was one that effected a complete cultural shift and resulted in smoke-free zones in restaurants, predominantly smoke-free flights, and advertising warning us of the dangers of smoking.
This is a clear example of how campaigning and savvy application of public-interest law has had a permanent effect, and it is not impossible that in 10 years' time the same could be said of fast food - both in the USA and in this country.
Clearly, smoking and fast food are slightly different issues. No one is forced to smoke (although, occasionally, we may have to take in other people's smoke), but we all have to eat. In supermarkets, food producers are obliged by law to provide nutritional information on products, and restaurateurs are increasingly under pressure to draw diners' attention to the use of certain ingredients such as peanuts. If customers want to know what is in their food, it is not unreasonable that they should.
It boils down to being in a position to make informed choices. There are plenty of foodstuffs that are viewed as unhealthy when consumed to excess, but this does not mean that people will stop eating them. They just need to be able to make informed decisions about their potential longer-term effects, and can do so only if they have all the information available to them.
What all those involved in the food business need to adopt is a responsible attitude, particularly as far as children are concerned. Fast-food companies spend fortunes marketing their products to children but, whereas an adult can decide for himself whether it is wise to down a mega-burger chicken whopper with triple fries and fizzy drinks, children do not usually have the experience to make such decisions.
So fast-food operators which point out the potential dangers of excessive consumption of their products, or which make available nutritional information, are more likely to command respect.
It also comes down to education at home and in schools, where children must be taught the value of a balanced diet, as they are about the dangers of drugs, smoking or excessive exposure to the sun.
The alternative could be a world dominated by the mantra "if you can't regulate, litigate", and where calorie cops lurk in queues in fast-food outlets.
Very few of us would want that.
Jenny Webster, Deputy editor,Caterer & Hotelkeeper
