May 5, 2008, - 12:59 pm
Attention, Food Police: Look What Taco Bell is Doing
By Debbie Schlussel
Taco Bell had better watch out for the food police.
The fast food chain is offering the “Big Bell Box Meal” for $4.99. For that, you get a Bacon Club Chalupa, Beef Crunchy Taco, Bean Burrito, Cinnamon Twists, and a large drink. “Eat Like a Man,” is the slogan for the new meal.
But “whine like a liberal statist” might be another suitable slogan. That’s because every time a fast food restaurant comes out with a supersized economical offering like this, the PC food police come out in full force, with their calorie scales and fat calipers.
We haven’t heard from the Center for the Study of Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) in a while, and these food geeks are dying for an opportunity like this to speak out on the dangers of food and eating to human survival.
And then there’s Morgan Spurlock. With his “Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?” outbombing all the IEDs in Iraq and only earning about $300,000 in its first two weeks, he might be tempted to try to lie about the fast food chain like he did about McDonald’s.
The fact is, despite the whining by upper middle-class food nannies, Americans like these high calorie meals. That’s why fast food chains keep offering them up.
I’m not saying obesity isn’t a problem in America. It is, and it’s growing and, er . . . expanding. But food offerings like the Big Bell Box Meal aren’t what makes Americans fat. Laziness and lack of discipline is. No-one’s putting a gun to Taco Bell’s head to offer these meals. Fast food chains offer these supersized meals as a convenience and way to offer up an economically sound big meal in an economically tough time.
The marketplace works. Leave it to the food police to whine and try to stop it.
But Taco Bell makes clear that this is “a meal that’s made for men,” not for Spurlock.
Have to disagree with you on this one. First, there is nothing wrong with disclosing the nutritional breakdown of fast foods. People can eat them or not eat them as they see fit; I recognize the free market, but why not be informed? I personally avoid all fast food restaurants, but many are not in a position to do this. I incur trenedous expense and time in avoiding unhealthy restaurant food, on the assumption that most of it is unhealthy anyway, but what’s wrong with disclosure requirements?
It is well established that in general health and nutrition is a combination of diet and exercise. While I certainly won’t argue against sufficient exercise, it is complementary to nutrition. Dieticians have long understood many of the healthy benefits of fruits, veggies, beans & whole grains, and the unhealthy aspects of donuts, & other foods with high sugar, trans fats and saturated fats.
Finally CSPI does go off the deep end in some of their campaigns. On the other hand, they have published much useful information about foods in their monthly newsletters, and are responsible for a number of the food labeling requirements that do exist. I can’t see how this information, easily produced by the food industry is onerous or burdensome. There are computer programs, that if you enter the ingredients and the quantities, spit out (no pun intended) the nutrition info.
c f on May 5, 2008 at 4:15 pm