But is legislating how, where, and how much people eat a massive crimp in our civil liberties? Paul Hsieh at ABC News thinks so, and is tossing fire and brimstone at any and all food regulation lest it turn the U.S. into a fascist freedom-stomping regime:

Many American cities ban restaurants from selling foods with trans fats. Los Angeles has imposed a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in South L.A. Other California cities ban smoking in some private residences. California has outlawed after-school bake sales as part of a “zero tolerance” ban on selling sugar products on campus. New York Gov. David Paterson has proposed an 18 percent tax on sugary sodas and juice drinks, and state officials have not ruled out additional taxes on cheeseburgers and other foods deemed unhealthy.

These ominous trends will only accelerate if the US adopts universal healthcare.

Just as universal healthcare will further fuel the nanny state, the nanny state mind-set helps fuel the drive toward universal healthcare. Individuals aren’t regarded as competent to decide how to manage their lives and their health. So the government provides “cradle to grave” coverage of their healthcare.

Nanny state regulations and universal healthcare thus feed a vicious cycle of increasing government control over individuals. Both undermine individual responsibility and habituate citizens to ever-worsening erosions of their individual rights. Both promote dependence on government. Both undermine the virtues of independence and rationality. Both jeopardize the very foundations of a free society.

Sure, the idea of regulating what we eat can evoke plenty of scary Orwellian imagery. But as with everything in government, the questions  “How much would we regulate?” and “In what way?” and “Would the benefits of regulation outweigh the gains?” are just as important as “Will it constrict rights?”

In obesity’s case, the alternative Hsieh and his fellow anti-regulators present is: Do nothing! Let the changes in modern lifestyle continue to drive the population into greater levels of abysmal health, further crushing our already foundering health care system. Whether we enact universal health care or not, the U.S. is already heading into a medical disaster zone that could buckle with or without regulation, and the epidemic is growing at pretty astonishing rates. Given the choice between trying to do something about it and not, we think we’d take the latter. Particularly if all it means is a higher price on a liter of Coke.

Related:
RB: Who’s the Fattest of Them All? Obesity Rates Rise in 37 States
RB: Should Obesity Be Treated Like an Addiction?
RB: Obesity May Be In Your Genes, But It Isn’t Your Destiny

• The New York Times advises us to approach the Thanksgiving meal “the way a CEO might.” Uhh, not even sure where to start on that one.

• Some good news this holiday: Cancer diagnoses are on the decline.

• The newest in medical technology: A barcode chip that tests your blood for disease.

• The latest in climate change research: A shrimp on a treadmill. Seriously.

• You know it’s bad out there when gaming companies are seeing their stock take a hit.

• And to top it off, the financial crisis hits Google. It’s official: No one is immune.

• Sketchy study finds that more people believe in aliens and ghosts than God. Or perhaps they just think God is an alien?

• And here’s a fun idea in the obesity era: health waivers for Thanksgiving dinner guests. More casserole, anyone?

No surprise, his remarks spurred indignant responses from Indian commerce and economics officials, who fired back with the argument that the increase in food prices has as much—or more—to do with American overconsumption as it does with industrialization in India. Their argument is supported by recent research showing that the 34 percent of Americans (and similar percentage of British) who are obese consume 18 percent more food energy than the rest of the population.

But another major factor that’s, er, fueling the price increase is ethanol. Since the embrace of the corn-based product as an alternative fuel source, the federal government has mandated that large amounts of U.S.-grown corn be converted into biofuels. To this end, the feds created additional subsidies to induce farmers to grow corn for fuel as opposed to food—meaning that substantial amounts of what was once food-producing land has been diverted to non-food production. Combine less product with higher demand and prices are bound to creep up.

Ironically, it was all those corn growers creating an abundance of corn-based foods that helped obesity rise in the first place. Obesity and food experts credit the mass production of high fructose corn syrup, a high-calorie liquid sweetener found in most packaged foods, with jump-starting the obesity epidemic. The product, introduced in 1970, is now a staple ingredient in everything from soft drinks to fruit juices to cookies. In 2000, the average yearly consumption of HFCS hit 73.5 pounds per person in the U.S.

But now that all those corn fields are being diverted to ethanol, will HFCS production fall, leading to lower obesity rates, less overall demand for food, and thus lower food prices? It’s possible. HFCS came to dominate the market because it was cheaper than cane sugar; with more corn getting “eaten” by cars, the prices are going up, which may mean more foods sweetened with good ‘ol sugar rather than HFCS. As obesity expert Eric Finkelstein told me in an interview, “It’s not clear that [the ethanol shift] will help reduce oil dependency, but perhaps it will help with obesity.”

So while it’s done nothing good for food prices yet, all that ethanol land diversion may actually drive our obesity rates (and food demand) down—even if it doesn’t do jack to reduce our carbon emissions.