January 26, 2012 10:22AM # When Government Is The False Advertiser, Cont’d By [Walter Olson](https://www.cato.org/people/walter-olson) --- SHARE Mayor Bloomberg’s New York City health department has come in for [repeated criticism](https://www.cato.org/when-the-government-is-the-false-advertiser/) in this space and elsewhere for crusading against salty and fattening foods through ad campaigns that manipulate viewer reactions in ways that border on the misleading and deceptive (“What can we get away with?” [famously asked](https://www.cato.org/what-can-we-get-away-with/) one official). They’re at it again. On January 9, Gotham’s for-your-own-good crew unveiled a new ad warning “Portions have grown. So has Type 2 diabetes, which can lead to amputations,” dramatically illustrated with a photo of an obese man with a stump where his leg had been. But as the *New York Times* [reports](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/nyregion/in-health-dept-ad-photoshop-not-diabetes-took-leg.html), city officials “did not let on that the man shown — whose photo came from a company that supplies stock images to advertising firms and others — was not an amputee and may not have had diabetes.” Instead, they just Photoshopped his leg off, which certainly got the effect they were looking for, albeit at the cost of photographic reality. At an agency developing an ad campaign for a private company, someone might have advised adding a little fine print taking note that the picture was of a model and had been altered, lest the manipulation turn into the story itself, or even attract the interest of federal truth-in-advertising regulators. But the Bloomberg crew probably isn’t worried about the latter, given that their constant stream of hectic propaganda is fueled by generous grants from the [federal government](http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/23/hhs-uses-recovery-act-money-to-fund-new-york-citys-anti-obesity-campaign/) [itself](http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/85521). Such grants also helped enable a contemplated [booze crackdown](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bloomberg_nixes_effort_to_curb_number_TFRVFK1zLEnp8bXpgkrapO) exposed by the *New York Post* this month—quickly [backed off from](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hizzoner_sauce_pan_n9AdFlKbp5yniOhUprFt0L) after a public outcry—that would have sought to reduce the number of establishments selling alcohol in New York City. While on the topic of nannyism, the *Times* also reported this week that Penn State researchers found that the fad for banning so-called junk food in schools had [no apparent effect](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/health/research/study-finds-no-childhood-obesity-link-to-school-junk-food.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y): “No matter how the researchers looked at the data, they could find no correlation at all between obesity and attending a school where sweets and salty snacks were available.” Number of “food policy” types quoted in the article admitting “maybe we were wrong”: zero. ##### Related Tags [General](https://www.cato.org/general), [Regulation](https://www.cato.org/regulatory-studies) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).