San Francisco wants to control what you eat

Food choices? Those are for the government to decide. That’s the message behind a lawsuit filed by San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu against "some of the country’s largest manufacturers of ultra-processed foods."  

It is the first government lawsuit in the nation against food companies. Chiu’s office claims "the proliferation of ultra-processed foods in the American diet has been linked to a host of serious health conditions," and has imposed "untold healthcare costs on Americans, as well as cities and states across the nation." The lawsuit argues that the food industry is aware that its products have been making people sick, yet it continues "to devise and market increasingly addictive and harmful products in order to maximize profits." 

The defendants are some of the largest players in the food world. Kraft Heinz Co., Post Holdings, the Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, the Kellogg Co., Mars, Inc. and ConAgra Brands now have to defend themselves for choices made by consumers who demand their legally manufactured and sold merchandise.  

"They took food and made it unrecognizable and harmful to the human body. We must be clear that this is not about consumers making better choices. Recent surveys show Americans want to avoid ultra-processed foods, but we are inundated by them. These companies engineered a public health crisis, they profited handsomely, and now they need to take responsibility for the harm they have caused," said Chiu.

LEADING 'BIOHACKER' REVEALS WHY RFK JR.'S HEALTH CRUSADE 'COULDN'T COME AT A BETTER TIME'

No one lives under the delusion that Twinkies are healthy, or that guzzling a six-pack of Coca-Cola every day is a smart choice. But consuming what is considered junk food as well as "ultra-processed" fare is a choice freely made. Despite our bounty of nutritious options, even the most health-conscious will at times opt for food that isn’t considered healthy but can be delicious.  

Chiu and food activists carry on as if the food industry offers only the worst selections possible. They never bother to ask if any society in human history ever had so many choices of, and such easy accessibility to quality food, because they won’t like the answer. 

Limiting food choices rarely "result in better options or health for consumers" anyway, says the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Restrictions "typically raise the cost of living for those least able to afford it, while causing other perverse and potentially hazardous consequences."

CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS CHOKE ON NEW ALLERGEN MENU MANDATE AMID COMPLIANCE CONCERNS AND COSTS

"Some rules are intended to reduce choices or to discourage consumers from choosing particular goods or services" – isn’t this Chiu’s goal? – and "whatever the intent, government regulation necessarily imposes costs on producers and consumers, reduces choice, and alters consumer behavior—not always for the better."  

There’s more than just a nanny-state mindset at work regarding the lawsuit. The feel of a shakedown is strong. While Chiu wants to force the companies to stop what he calls "deceptive marketing," and demands they "take action to correct or lessen the effects of their behavior," he also wants their money. His office is seeking "restitution and civil penalties to remedy the public nuisance and help local governments offset astronomical healthcare costs associated with ultra-processed food consumption."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Chiu even brings up "Big Tobacco," which agreed to pay states $206 billion over 25 years as a result of the 1998 master settlement with litigious attorneys general, who cited the health harm of smoking in their lawsuits. But rather than use the funds to improve public health, within the first decade, state governments had spent them "on purposes other than what was designated," Citizens Against Government Waste said, using the "constant stream of their tobacco windfall to do nearly anything they want."  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in 2024 that only one state, Maine, used its money from the settlement and funds from a $1.1 billion e-cigarette settlement to pay for tobacco prevention at the CDC’s recommended level. Just eight states spent more than half, while 31 and the District of Columbia spent less than a quarter.

Limiting food choices rarely "result in better options or health for consumers" anyway, says the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP  

San Francisco even feasted on tobacco money, gobbling up $539 million from the master settlement.  

It adds up to a gleaming jackpot for government officials. They get to exert control over the lives of others, and rake in someone else’s dollars they can spend as they wish while doing it.    

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM KERRY JACKSON