As we worry about questions as futile as the Axis of Evil and terrorist attacks on America, it is comforting to know that some folks in the nuclear-free enclaves are dealing with more pressing problems. The city of Berkeley, California, has banned from all its offices and functions the use of politically-incorrect coffee. Only organic, shade-grown coffee, for which growers and field hands get decent wages, is allowed. Now, a lawyer is collecting signatures for a ballot measure intended to impose the same restrictions on the city’s coffee shops. Punishment for violations would includes a $100 fine and up to six months of jail time. Is it that a study traced to politically-incorrect coffee some mysterious ailments affecting consumers? Not at all. It is just a matter of leftist loonies running out of causes. But that is fine for the city of Berkeley, where stupidity has long been a method of government. Obviously, sensible people do not live there.

This fuss over coffee is not a novel idea. Similar self-righteous pap had been proposed for the beef served by fast-food chains. Earlier this year, in a book entitled Fast Food Nation, one Eric Schlosser called for vigorous government intervention to ensure that hamburgers use only "free-range, organic, grass-fed" beef, and that workers in meat-processing plants get higher wages and better work conditions. Welcome to the new McDonald’s quarter-pounder at $25 a pop!

Schlosser objects to McDonald’s and other chains for reasons of ethics, aesthetics, and health, which are intrinsically indisputable—the arguments of the limousine left are always indisputable. He deplores the inhumane treatment of animals, the poor safety records of the meat-packing plants, the insufficient wages of the industry, the landscape blight of restaurants of uniform design and décor, and the adherence to recipes that ignore geographic and cultural particularities. And then, there is the supreme argument that fast-food fares are unhealthy and responsible for rampant obesity. Remember that the Surgeon General has declared obesity a crisis that costs the government X billions of dollars for loss of productivity, health care, and premature deaths. So, Schlosser must be right, having such an authority on his side, even though the premature death of anyone unhealthy and unproductive should actually reduce any cost to society, and particularly that of health care.

According to Fast Food Nation, there exists a sinister correlation between the expansion of the fast-food business and the women’s growing participation in the workforce. It posits that the stagnation—if not the decline—of the average worker’s wages over the past thirty years is more to blame for this state of affairs than the progress of feminism. As more and more women no longer have the time to prepare wholesome meals at home, McDonald’s and its ilk step in to provide mass-produced, unhealthy substitutes, which consume an ever-larger share of the average household’s food budget. Schlosser acknowledges—and laments—that fast food tastes good, which makes it especially attractive to children, who get fatter and fatter.

This assault on the industry will certainly receive some favorable attention, but mostly from the crowd of hangers-on, neo-Luddites, and minimalists who can afford minimalism. Of course, PETA and militant vegetarians will applaud it, and so will the doom-and-gloom peddlers on a crusade to drive America into a Third-World standard of living. In any case, Schlosser not only fails to propose practical remedies to the ills he denounces, but also shows a propensity for inchoate or contradictory arguments. He does not discuss the relation between high taxes and the participation of women in the workforce. Neither does he consider the effects of this expansion of available labor on wages.

It is likely that the increasing presence of women in the workforce has contributed to the growth of the fast-food and restaurant business over the past thirty years. But is it responsible for the spread of obesity? I think not. Homemade meals of thirty years ago in no way conformed to the dietary correctness of now. Then, most home cooking used butter, or lard, or some other animal fat, and fat meats. That is why it tasted so good. All in all, a homemade meal was not any less fattening than a McDonald’s quarter-pounder, and neither was a home-prepared sandwich. In these days, those of us who did not pack a lunch box to work relied on the many diners or cafeterias of the business districts, where fat hamburgers, patty melts, club sandwiches full of mayonnaise, and fries were favorites, because they tasted great. Were such lunches healthier than McDonald’s fare? I propose that we find elsewhere the causes of rampant obesity.

Predictably, foggy "food science" prescriptions contribute to American blubber inflation. Yes, as recommended in daily media sound bites condensing the results of this or that study into a single, incomplete summary, people eat broccoli, salad, chicken, turkey, and pasta, and shy away from red meat and fries. But they consume tons of pasta. They eat tons of bland foods that only rich sauces—Hello Alfredo!—make passable. I am willing to bet that their calorie intake per meal from pasta, salad, and chicken is higher than that from a six-ounce steak and fries. And then, there is the wine, which is supposed to be good for the heart. The kind of people who three decades ago would have recoiled at the idea of a three-cocktail dinner now do not mind ingesting from wine the same—if not larger—amounts of alcohol calories. Regardless, unburnt calories from pasta, wine, and Alfredo sauce turn into fat. That’s why "relaxed fit" pants were invented. Their low rise was designed for the boomer’s paunch, and their "generous" seat, for his prosperous derrière.

Life in 2002 is much more sedentary than in 1970, and thus burns fewer calories. Technology has rendered effortless many of the domestic tasks that used to require any amount of human exertion. Nowadays, no one trims his lawn with a hand mower, and rare is the weekend tinkerer who uses a handsaw or a hand screwdriver. Modern vacuum cleaners are self-propelled, and rakes have given way to leaf blowers. In industry, the operation of machines ergonomically designed to minimize physical effort has replaced a great deal of manual labor. As to the women who have entered the work force in the past thirty years, many of them sit in front of a computer monitor eight hours a day. The expansion of the service industry in the same period has created oodles of sedentary office jobs.

As to the fat kids, they are the products of mushy New-Age thinking and prosperity. Many a boomer’s little darling has his own television, his own computer, his own hi-fi set, and his own cell telephone, all in his room, where there is also a bed. Why would he get out? He is not encouraged to engage in sports, where, according to the latest pronouncements of child psychology, competition can damage his fragile persona—you see, winners could develop some insensitivity to the losers’ feelings, an unforgivable sin, and losers, well, they are losers. He does not have either to mow lawns—with a hand mower—for pocket money, and his parents are too preoccupied with their precious selves and too afraid of being "judgmental" to control his general behavior, including his diet. Sitting at his computer, a bag of junk food in his lap ("no cholesterol," says the label), his headset blaring heavy-metal noise into his brain, he surfs the Web and gets flabby, which is why he wears baggy clothes.

Obviously, fast food is not to blame for the obesity epidemic. People are. The just eat too much. But in our new world order, anyone who knowingly makes stupid choices can blame someone else with impunity and sue for reparation. Such idiotic claims to victim status are assured to find ample support in our courts from an army of greedy tort lawyers with an eye for deep pockets, dumb judges, and juries bent on sticking it to business. Lurking in the background, legions of maniacs—PETA, the Earth Liberation Front, and other save-the-planet subversives—jump into the fray as soon as they see a "wedge issue" that they can exploit for their own causes. Politicians follow suit, because wedge issues always provide a good opportunity for expanding their power in the name of "protecting the citizenry," the euphemism for increased taxation, government obesity, and restrictions of individual liberties. Some states have already slapped special taxes on soft drinks. In others, legislators and academics have proposed new taxes on fast food, television sets, video equipment, automobiles, and gasoline, which, they say, keep people from exercising. Of course, such taxes are too low to act as deterrents, which is exactly what the politicians have in mind. The purpose of any tax is to increase government revenues and power. No tax is created to self-destruct.

That which happened to Big Tobacco was a blueprint for legal action against new targets. In a not too distant future, we must be prepared to see the obese or their heirs collect hundreds of millions of dollars of damages from McDonald’s. I bet that tort lawyers are already busy fishing discarded receipts out of the chain’s trashcans to beef up the files of prospective clients.

More vultures are already reconnoitering the terrain with less banal complaints. One Harish Bharti, a Seattle lawyer, is preparing an action against McDonald’s for hundreds of millions of dollars. His beef (?) has to do with the chain’s french fries, which are alleged to derive their terrific taste from the use of a small amount of beef tallow in an undisclosed pre-cooking treatment. Mr. Bharti is suing on behalf of three plaintiffs, who, he says, may represent up to one million Hindu vegetarians contaminated by the evil spuds in the United States alone. In addition to clients who claim to be in a state of religious anguish, Mr. Bharti hopes to sign up a myriad of non-Hindu vegetarians. But this is only a beginning. I bet that "Diversity" has a few more surprises in store down the road for those of us who are not "diverse."

Recently, I discussed the subject of national obesity and attendant problems with an old friend, French historian, by the name of Henri du Bois de Platane, who taught for a while at UCLA. Noting that the French too were getting fat, Henri proposed a simple solution characteristically French and so logical that Descartes would have been proud of it. "Tax people on weight," he said, "and put them on strict rations too, just to be sure." He went on to explain that the government revenues generated by the "fat tax" would be distributed to farmers to ship their yearly crops and livestock to Africa and to destroy what could not be shipped. As to the rations, he suggested the model used in France during Nazi occupation sixty years ago, "when the French were at their leanest." At that point, I thought it appropriate to end a conversation that I should not have started.

Thirty years ago, not so much information about nutrition was available, but people were very smart. They knew, for example, that the more you eat, the more you get fat, which is the sort of abstract concept that not everybody easily grasps nowadays—another failure of our education system. As one cannot teach old dogs new tricks, it seems that new dogs cannot learn old tricks, and just get fat.