Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve posted pieces on public health policy as it relates to full-disclosure of restaurants’ nutritional information. The publicity and efforts are slowly revving up, as it becomes more and more evident that unhealthy food is a serious concern in society.

If you come to the table of discussion with an open mind, you can see how, in essence, there is little difference between junk food and some of the “milder” drugs. In fact, there are rumblings to consider junk food as legitimately addictive. Researchers at the Montreal Neurological Institute are saying their findings “could provide the basis for new policies aimed at treating fast food more like cigarettes.” Anyone who has had a bag of Doritos can attest to the addictive nature of unhealthy snack food. There are also some expert calls for tempering the junk-food junkie connection argument a little.

“Overeating and drug addiction may converge on some of the same neurons,” says Endocrinologist Barbara Kahn. “but other pathways are also involved. And from a biochemical point of view, the two are not the same thing. Drug addictions are much stronger.”

It is a political tightrope, for sure. Most people don’t want government acting as a nanny to its citizens, but at the same time, there can be some reasonable compromises, such as taking soda and candy out of schools (we limit adolescent access to other things) and printing nutritional information on restaurant menus.

Adults don’t need parenting, so I certainly fall on the side of consumers needing to be the ultimate decision-makers, but they do need to have the ability to make those decisions as informed as possible.

Those of us in the U.S. are reminded of our country’s obesity problem nearly every day, but rising obesity rates are not uniquely American. In fact, a few years back, there was a phrase coined by the World Health Organization (WHO) to identify a worldwide epidemic - globesity.

We only have to look at our neighbors to the south to see that we are not alone. Mexico ranks right up at the top with the U.S. in the worldwide rankings of the most obese countries on the planet. In fact, the country’s Health Secretary, Jose Cordova, has expressed his concerns about the impact of his country’s growing diabetes epidemic. Pfizer’s launch of its Exubera inhaled insulin product in Mexico last year shows that there is a real demand, and a real obesity problem.

There is a growing polarization in worldwide nutrition. That is, there are the millions of starving people in third world and developing countries, and then there are the more than one billion overweight adults, at least 300 million of whom are obese.

In a country that has a significant issue with poverty, it seems to baffle the mind to think that Mexico could be amongst the heaviest populations in the world. According to the World Bank, extreme poverty has been cut from about 24 to 17 percent of the general population and from 42 to 27 percent in rural areas. This is accounted for by an expanding economy, boosted largely by free trade agreements such as NAFTA. Not to mention an estimated $20 billion that is remitted from Mexican workers in the U.S.

Economic issues still come into play. British newspaper The Guardian reports that 80 percent of Mexican schools don’t have access to drinking water. This is made up for by substituting soft drinks. Mexico is one of the world’s largest consumers of sugary carbonated drinks.

So maybe it comes as no surprise that companies like Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to step in and play the good guys by advocating healthier living through exercise with school kids. Don’t expect them to plop down any money to help find ways to get clean water in schools.

Figures from a 2006 national survey stated that more than a quarter of Mexican children between five and 11 are too heavy - a 40 percent increase since 2000. It also revealed that 72 percent of Mexican adults are now over overweight or obese, which is slightly higher than in the U.S. That’s one statistic that Mexico would prefer not to compete with us on.

Check out Shaq’s Family Challenge to learn more about getting your entire family in shape- no matter where you might call home.

Last week I reported on the resistance of chain restaurants in New York to post sensible disclosure of their food’s nutritional information. Well, Health magazine has taken the proactive approach and published a list of 10 top choices, when they could find restaurants willing to divulge their nutritional information.

Backed by a panel of experts, Health magazine went through 43 chains that matched the criteria of having more than 75 locations across the U.S. Here are the top 10 (with some interesting surprises):

1. Uno’s (yeah, the deep pan pizza place)- The home of the deep pan pizza also has a penne bolognese with just 16 grams of fat.

2. Sweet Tomatoes- While all-you-can-eat buffets aren’t normally thought to be healthy, Sweet Tomatoes has all kinds of healthy options at their salad bar, and even some at their soup bar.

3. Ruby Tuesday- While Ruby Tuesday is home to a number of beef burgers and fried food options, you can also order a veggie or turkey burger.

4. P.F. Chang’s- Chinese takeout packs some serious caloric punch. But if you can go to a higher end option such as P.F. Chang’s, you have better options like the carb-free vegetarian lettuce wraps.

5. Bob Evans- The well-known greasy breakfast haven also has plenty of low-carb, low-fat entrees.

6. Mimi’s Cafe- This café-style restaurant has some healthy options, like the chicken & fruit.

7. Romano’s Macaroni Grill- The Italian chain has plenty of refined carb choices, but there’s also the Italian sorbetto and biscotti: just 330 calories and 4 grams of fat.

8. Chevy’s Fresh Mex- High sodium counts are always a concern when dining out, but Chevy’s lives up to the “Fresh” in its name. Grilled Fish Tacos are a better option than a thick cheesy burrito.

9. Olive Garden- Like Macaroni Grill, there are plenty of pasta options to lead you astray. But there are also choices like the low-fat capellini pomodoro (644 calories and 14 grams fat).

10. Denny’s- This is probably the biggest surprise of them all, but the same place where you get sausage and pancakes, offers grilled-chicken-breast salad, or even tilapia with rice and veggies. Each have less than 15 grams of fat.

Check out the article at CNN.com for details as to why these establishments made the grade.t

I ask you this: if chain restaurants are concerned about anything other than their bottom line, why would they avoid posting their nutritional information?

But, that’s what’s happening in New York City, as chain restaurants are fighting the mandatory nutritional posting ruling put forth by city officials.

They make highfalutin claims for their objections. For instance, The New York Restaurant Association says that the regulation violates their First Amendment rights. I’m no constitutional lawyer, but that seems like a load of bunk to me. You and I know that the only real reason they object is that, God forbid, the populace might think twice before ordering that 500-calorie, heart-stopping burger.

People will most likely continue frequenting their establishments. But at least they can make the most informed decision possible. If people demand the right to know what is being sold to them, is that so intrusive? At least some of us believe it’s not just for the common good, but for the common sense. Even when we feel like occasionally taking an off-day from healthy eating, and indulge, at least we know what we’re getting into.

The delay has only been requested for three days, so it’s not indefinite by any means. At that point, the courts will sort out the arguments.

The moral of the story is, the only thing large restaurant chains care about from a consumer perspective is that you, well, consume. I know, it’s a bit of a generalization, and not all corporate movers and shakers are evil-doers. But if they wanted consumers to make knowledgeable decisions, and stood behind their products as safe for human consumption, there should be no resistance.