On Thursday, July 8th, Geoffrey P. Hunt wrote an arresting piece for American Thinker titled What Is Your Breaking Point?

Thinking about the essence of what Mr. Hunt had to say, the inescapable conclusion appears to be that those manufacturers and producers of food products that contain trans-fats, salt, sugar and so on, are acting in ways that our political class could never condone because they are so obviously not acting as good neighbors to the citizens of a few of the several states or to those poor folk who live in the People's Republic of San Francisco.

It seems obvious that the best way that these nefarious peddlers of toxic sugar and salt can make amends for their disgusting and inexcusable behavior would be for them to voluntarily cease selling their products in those jurisdictions that find them objectionable.

This does not mean that they should change the recipes for their products. No, that is the last thing that they should do. They should band together and cease providing Twinkies, or hot dogs, butter, cheese, eggs, cake, cookies, soda and other such vile things into states and municipalities where they are unwelcome. And do it immediately and suddenly. Say, tomorrow for instance.

Those states that are affected by this sudden shortage of food items would be forced to spend considerable effort and money to secure their borders lest any illicit smuggling of these dreaded and probably addictive products enter their jurisdictions. The vigorous enforcement of anti-food smuggling legislation will surely win the heartfelt approbation of all those citizens who would not otherwise be able to resist the siren call of a free-range Dunkin Donut.

Surely no health-conscious citizen, or illegal alien for that matter, could possible object to being stopped at the state border, or the city limits, and have their vehicles searched for contraband food items.

The manufacturers who have given us these legislatively defined toxic items would do well to demonstrate conclusively that they really are good neighbors by simply cutting off the supplies of any and all of their production to the jurisdictions in question.

The sale of salt alone would be a huge step in the right direction, although in states and municipalities in the northern part of the country, having to hire guards to protect the salt that the state or city purchases for use in clearing ice from roads in the winter might add to their already deficit plagued budgets.

In addition to ceasing to deliver sausage, proscuitto, cured ham, egg yolks, and foods that contain even minute amounts of sugar or salt, food manufacturers and farmers should blanket the airwaves with commercials explaining to everyone in the affected areas that they are simply trying to act as "good neighbors" and ask the citizenry to forgive them for not listening to the über-activists who have lobbied so successfully for the banning of their products.

They should go even further, and thank the politicians who voted in favor of penalizing the product of their efforts for pointing out to them the error of their ways. Thank each and every politician by name. Leave not one out. Make sure the people know exactly who is responsible for their good fortune now that they no longer have to be concerned with dietary issues related to salt, sugar and trans-fats.

Isn't that what a good neighbor would do?

Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller, Vietnam veteran and libertarian (small "l"). He can be contacted at james.v.yardley@gmail.com