The arrogance of the altruistic elite

I discussed Food desert fantasies the other day. At a Washington, D.C. policy level there is the false assumption that obesity among the poor is caused by the poor living in areas with no access to fresh food, "food deserts." This has been shown to be a myth. Most the places designated as food deserts do actually have fresh food access. In addition, what people choose to consume is not apparently materially affected by access. Finally, despite the false assumptions of policy makers, there now appears to be little connection between the prevalence and access to fast food restaurants and obesity.

The pathological altruists are not having a good time on the food front.

On top of all that, the CDC has now released a report covered in A dangerous myth about who eats fast food is completely false by Roberto A. Ferdman.

There's a popular narrative about poor families and fast food: They eat more of it than anybody else. It’s dangled as evidence for the high rate of obesity among poorer Americans -- and talked about even by some of the country’s foremost voices on food. "[J]unk food is cheaper when measured by the calorie, and that this makes fast food essential for the poor because they need cheap calories," wrote Mark Bittman for The New York Times in 2011

But there’s a problem with saying that poor people like fast food better than others. It’s not true.

New data, released by the Centers for Disease Control, show that America's love for fast food is surprisingly income blind. Well-off kids, poor kids, and all those in between tend to get about the same percentage of their calories from fast food, according to a survey of more than 5,000 people. More precisely, though, it's the poorest kids that tend to get the smallest share of their daily energy intake from Big Macs, Whoppers, Chicken McNuggets, and french fries.

It is admirable to want to help others. It is appalling to use the government power of coercion to inflict untested assumptions (which turn out to be wrong) on the segment of the population least able to protect itself from predations of the privileged altruists and assert their rights to the same freedom of choices as everyone else. Those city councils who have sought to help the poor by outlawing fast food franchises in their neighborhoods have increased unemployment in those neighborhoods, reduced dietary choices they would otherwise make, reduced opportunities for franchisees (who often are minorities), and quite possibly have increased the cost of food. Why? Because from their position of privilege and power they thought their emotional desire to help based on untested assumptions was sufficient justification to warrant interfering with others lives.

It is not good intentions that count but results and anyone who seeks to wield coercive power over others ought to have a rock solid evidentiary case for their actions, not just a happy clappy sense that this might help.