When We Say When, We Know You'll Think It's Too Much

Sometimes my inner libertarian just starts jumping up and down and yelling. I think she's the "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn this way" one in the red dress and horns on my left shoulder. From an NYT article about Bloomberg's food policies:

The nearest thing New York city government has now is Mr. Thomases, the food czar, who works deep inside the enormous collection of city departments called Health and Human Services. In an interview, however, he said that his job is not to set policy or offer vision.

“I prefer not to think of myself as the food czar,” said Mr. Thomases, who is making $85,000 a year, a figure that some in City Hall say would be higher if the position held more power....

And while organizations like food councils and positions like Mr. Thomases’ are a start, no major American city has yet established a Department of Food, in the way New York has a Department of Cultural Affairs or a Department of Environmental Protection. Although Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, recently weighed in on the 2007 Farm Bill and many mayors have taken up the anti-obesity cause, no mayor of a large urban city has stood up and become, in essence, the Alice Waters of city food politics.

In the Bloomberg administration, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden is as close as it gets [to a Food Czar]. As head of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, he has done more to change the mayor’s thinking about the government’s role in how we eat than anyone else in the administration.

So many things are wrong with this. First, we're supposed to be unhappy that the kinda sorta Food Czar only makes $80,000 a year, because it indicates his relative lack of mojo? And then there's the "enormous collection of city departments called Health and Human Services." Not per se unreasonable; NYC is a huge place with a rather unique set of challenges. But something about "enormous collection of departments" strikes me as...sub-optimal. And the pained chagrin over how no city has yet created a Department of Food to join other such obviously great ideas as the Department of Cultural Affairs. And then we learn the Food Czar function is essentially duplicated, with yet another, more connected guy doing what one imagines is the same job? For the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene? For reals? Look, I'm sorry they started your department in the 30's or whatever, but could you at least change the damn name so you don't sound like a cut-rate Serbsky Institute for Forensic and General Psychiatry?

The funny thing is that I support some of the policies discussed in the article, most obviously, the move to feed schoolchildren better quality, more nutritious food. You've got the damn kids right there and you're feeding the poorest of them two out of three meals a day; it only makes sense to do this job properly. Experimental programs I've read of seem reasonably effective, not just in feeding the kids well at school, but influencing their tastes more generally. Now, it's no magic wand, and kids are still going to want to eat fries--which is fine, because fries are delicious. And erring on the side of marinated tempeh all the time is just going to piss people off, which is why they should stick with stuff like pizza, but with a 50/50 wholemeal crust, and fresh toppings (like we ate last night, mmmmm.) Still, a reasonable policy, and pretty self-evidently something the public school system should be doing. And then you've got your trans-fat ban and your preemptive banning of sous-vide cookery, just as a precautionary measure until complex legal guidelines can be established. "Oh noes it is illegal doughnuts." Blogger, please.

Comments

[Matt]

So long as you keep hummoring your inner libertarian you'll never get those good school meals. Sorry that it's so, but it is. Every bit of energy spent on worrying about the name of a department is a bit less energy that goes to making sure kids don't eat funnel cakes and pizza for , made with trans-fats, essentially an industrial polutant (one that tastes bad, too) for their lunchs. Sorry that it's so, but it is.

[Scott Lemieux]

If you like good fries, you should support the trans-fat ban...

[belle waring]

because they'll switch to lard? they won't, though; they'll switch to crisco's new trans-fat-free underehydrogenated shortening. if misguided health reformers hadn't made them switch from lard and tallow in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess, and the lardy fries would have actually been more heart-healthy as well.

[Scott Lemieux]

if misguided health reformers hadn't made them switch from lard and tallow in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess

This is true. (I should also note that aesthetics and/or taste are not actually good justifications for these kinds of regulations. I do support the trans-fat ban because it's a health benefit with virtually no costs to the public.)

[Hogan]

I was in Manhattan over the weekend and walked by a French thingie (brasserie? boulangerie? boulverser?) that had been closed down by order of the Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene. And I wondered, was it the food, or were the waitstaff so Parisianly rude that they were making the diners depressed and anxious?

[belle waring]

prolly rats, hogan, and good on them. my libertarianism doesn't extend to the "do away with government-mandated inspections and let competing private organizations give their seal of approval". I stand by my contention that the name of the dept is retarded, though.