Texans have always enjoyed their freedoms, their wide open spaces. The ability to make choices is a cornerstone of our state. That’s why several proposed state bills that would in effect tell us what we can and cannot afford to eat through extra taxes such as a penny-per-ounce soda tariff are not the right fit for Texans.

Pending measures would add taxes to junk food, sugary sodas and low-nutrition fare. These bills strive to minimize obesity rates in our state. While the cause is noble, this particular approach is not.

State government most certainly can play a role in helping to reduce obesity, which currently costs state businesses $9.5 billion and could reach $32.5 billion by 2030. But government shouldn’t regulate our food behavior. Just as we don’t want the government in our bedroom, it should not be in our refrigerator. If most citizens are against state government meddling in our lives and businesses, why should government be permitted to fiscally hamper us from enjoying, say, a Dr Pepper? If Democratic state Sen. Eddie Lucio’s penny-per-ounce soda tax is approved, where would it stop? Will orange juice — also high in sugar — also face an extra tax some day?

Granted, our state (and our nation) needs to get fit. Texas has the nation’s seventh highest child obesity rate — 20 percent of children ages 10 to 17 are obese; 67 percent of adults are overweight. Last February, State Comptroller Susan Combs released a report stressing how vital it is that our state slim down. Potential dangers from this epidemic are staggering. Sodas and fatty foods are directly linked to high rates of obesity, cholesterol and diabetes. These conditions are costly to treat and only expected to increase unless obesity rates drop.

While we disagree with a soda tax, we support Lucio’s push for Congress to eliminate sweetened drinks and snacks from the food stamp program. State Rep. Richard Pena Raymond, D-Laredo, also wants to forbid the use of food stamps to buy potato and corn chips, candy, cookies and soda. Here is where we agree that regulations are in order to help these families. This could help prevent obesity among the poor who tend to have some of the worst eating habits. Nationally, about 7 percent of food stamp money is spent on soft drinks.

Whether they lack local supermarkets with fresh produce or the skills to shop and cook healthy meals, government can be most effective helping educate these citizens. Those receiving state and federal aid for food should spend these funds — taxpayer money, after all — on nutritious items.

Last week Lucio’s bill was heard before a Senate committee. He readily admits it doesn’t stand a chance of passage (since all tax-related proposals must originate in the state House) but says his intent is to “start a conversation.” Fair enough. Some of us agree on such discussion. A member of our editorial board, for instance, forbids his children from drinking soda. But that’s his choice.

And that’s where this discussion needs to begin. We as a society, beginning with parents, must take more responsibility with our children. We need to be informed about nutrition. We need to regulate children’s eating habits and give them a good nutritional foundation so they can make healthier choices.

Christine Sinatra of the child advocacy group Texans Care for Children backs the tax but agrees at least talking about the issue is good. “The time is right to start a conversation,” she told us. “This issue is of public concern.”

Let the conversations begin.