Posted on 12/20/2006 5:15:05 AM PST by Molly Pitcher
New York City has ordered restaurants to stop selling food made with trans fat. "It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient," says the health commissioner. Gee, I'm all for good health, but shouldn't it be a matter of individual choice?
A New York Times headline about the ban reads: "A Model for Other Cities."
"A model for what, exactly?" asks George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux (LINK: www.cafehayek.com). "Petty tyranny? Or perhaps for similarly inspired bans on other voluntary activities with health risks? Clerking in convenience stores? Walking in the rain?"
Trans fats give foods like French fries that texture I like. They are probably bad for me, but Radley Balko of Reason points out that "despite all of the dire warnings about our increased intake of trans-fats over the last 20 years, heart disease in America has been in swift decline ... So, if they're killing us, they're not doing a very good job."
But that's not the point. In a free society the issue is: Who decides what I eat, the government or me? It's not as though information about trans fats is hard to come by. Scaremongers like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) are all too happy to tell you about the dangers, and they have no trouble getting their declarations of doom on television and into newspapers.
Unfortunately, CSPI is not content to tell you avoid trans fats. It sues restaurants like McDonald's and KFC for using them, and urges governments to ban them.
But why do the health police get to take away my choices? Adults should be expected to take responsibility for their own health.
Often the health police say they must "protect the children." But children are the responsibility of their parents. When the state assumes the role of parent, it makes children of all of us.
The food prohibitionists don't understand that there are ways to influence people's behavior without resorting to coercion -- remember, coercion is the essence of government. The public fuss about harm from trans fats has already induced many food makers to remove them. It's suddenly become a competitive advantage to boast that your products are trans-fat-free. Such voluntary action is the best way to move toward healthier food.
Why isn't that good enough for the prohibitionists? Why must they enlist the iron hand of government?
I think they dislike freedom of choice. They know the right way, so it's only right that they force everyone to follow them. That's the philosophy of prohibitionists.
The Center for Consumer Freedom is running ads saying: "Now that New York has banned cooking oils with trans fat (the same substance as margarine) ... it opens the door to banning so much more! Using the same logic, let's get rid of New York style pizza (seriously, do you need all that cheese?), beef hot dogs (tofu dogs almost taste the same), corned beef (turkey breast is much leaner). ... "
Yes, I know the center's sponsors include restaurants and food companies, but still, it has a good point.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, who died a few weeks ago, would have agreed. He was the author of "Free to Choose" and "free to choose" sums up Friedman's philosophy. He would have cringed at the banning of trans fats, just as he objected to the earlier banning of products like the sugar substitute called cyclamates.
Over 25 years ago, Friedman wrote, "If we continue on this path, there is no doubt where it will end. If the government has the responsibility of protecting us from dangerous substances, the logic surely calls for prohibiting alcohol and tobacco. . . . Insofar as the government has information not generally available about the merits or demerits of the items we ingest or the activities we engage in, let it give us the information. But let it leave us free to choose what chances we want to take with our own lives."
I think banning caffiene and charging food by the calorie should be adequate revenge on the anti-tobacco zealots. I'd be satisfied with that.
All that without even beginning a discussion about personal freedom...or lack thereof.
The important thing in discussing personal freedom is that business owners know it's counter-productive to harm their customers. When something better than TFA's will serve the market better then it will happen.
The history of governments is wrought with better ideas that had disastrous unintended consequences. So prolific have they been that the disastrous effects were not unintended consequences, but rather, mere inconveniences to usurped power, glory and unearned paychecks. Surely politicians and bureaucrats would like for the inconvenient disastrous consequences of their actions to be hidden. To a large extent they have succeeded. The voting-for-lesser-of-evils duopoly.
Government has already gained acess to these records in some court cases where a party "needed" a list of purchased items as evidence.
Everyone clamoring for Government mandated and paid for healtcare should think about it very carefully. Is it worth the tradeoff? I say no.
Those 1776 folks are turning in their graves as these "american" (not capitalized for a reason) socialists go through their moves. As for the folks that I eluded to, that landed in Virginia in April of 1607.....Captain John Smith set sail from England 400 years ago today...December 20, 1606.
--About a month or so ago, all of a sudden the inhaler inflated to $32. Imagine my shock. I asked why (of course) and was told that 'they' had outlawed the propelant and these new puffers had a different propelant and were thus more expensive.--
The old "CFC" were generic. The new "HFA" are all "branded". A new prescription is also requrired.
Far too many FReepers can only think "dopers" when you say libertarian, and don't realize that they themselves often share libertarian views, they just can't admit it.
The real problem with the libertarian party though is its position in support of total and complete open borders.
Meat.
Then I will be your black market go to guy for the good stuff.
I'll be like the old moonshine runners, I'll get a 400 HP Chevy, load the trunk with ice and steaks, smuggling steaks over state lines, smashing through the green police cars at roadblocks.
We'll have prohibition type underground steak houses complet with a band and a bar and a SMOKING SECTION.
You sir are worse than Hitler!
More misinformation or intentional outright deception--go read the Libertarian Platform:
IV.1 Immigration
The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.
The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.
Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements.Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.
Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.
When were the restrictions added to the platform?
Rationally, this past summer during their platform re-write. Prior to that, the concept was that if there was no welfare state and immigrants had to work or starve, pay for their own kids schooling, pay for medical care, etc. illegal immigration would slow to only those who would/could compete in the job market. Criminal immigrants would be incarcerated and deported.
The threat of terrorists coming across the border and hiding in sleeper cells, combined with the realization that the welfare state may be slowed, but it will never be stopped drove the logic in the rewrite.
There is a struggle going on in the Libertarian Party between the idealist nutcases that have controlled the party in recent years and the realists who are seeking to reform the party and win elections. The reformers appear to be winning and made remarkable progress in the platform rewrite; however, they still have a lot of platform work to do.
It behooves all of us to recognize that the Libertarian Party is the fastest growing party in the country, that they have state parties and organizations in every state, chapters on most college campuses, and hundreds of local and state office-holders. As the GOP drives libertarians away, they are being welcomed with open arms by the LP, and the LP is working very hard at making the party competitive. As one who wants to work from within to keep the GOP in control, I worry about our loss of votes and voters to the LP.
The supposed benefits of trans fats are slight. They are being displaced from many products without notice. Commercial utility for manufacturers is not a cause worth dying for.
This is also true for saturated fats. TFA's comprise just 2% of the average American's diet while saturated fat makes up 12-15%. Why aren't you also in favor of banning saturated fats? Maybe you can explain, if TFA's are so bad for our cardiovascular system, why the incidence of death from CHD has been dropping dramatically in the U.S. since we began consuming larger amounts of TFA's.
.....diabetes, and other modern ailments.
TFA's cause diabetes?! Just like Alar and saccharine cause cancer? LOL! Good grief, what will the toxic terrorists blame on it next? I thought most diabetes was caused by the overconsumption of calories, mostly from carbohydrates. Maybe we should also ban carbohydrates....or at least control the amount allowed into foods. Then again, these same nanny staters probably believe high fructose corn syrup is really responsible for obesity and diabetes. Should probably ban that too. Don't get me started on caffeine. Now that's a poison that's also addictive. That's gotta go too. Caffeine occurs naturally in chocolate so we'd better remove it or ban chocolate. Never mind that TFA's occur naturally in meat and dairy; we're on a mission here and science really isn't important.
In commercial use, trans fats are produced artificially and are a convenience rather than a necessity.
Not to mention they help keep the cost of food low and add shelf life to certain products. They also prevent the oxidation of fats and the formation of free radicals. That's more than a mere convenience, don't you think?
They are now required to be labeled and liability concerns and public pressure are beginning to prompt removal from commercial foodstuffs.
Yes, ignorance has prevailed. On the plus side, the food industry has increased their margins by charging people who don't know any better more for TFA free products. I guess some people like paying more for products that don't taste as good and won't make a bit of difference on their health.
There are far better things to fight for than a stick of margarine.
Do you really believe that fascists like Michael Jacobson at CSPI are going to stop here? This will only embolden them as they look for the next ingredient to ban. This has noting to do with health and everything to do with power over your freedom of choice. It's sad that you refuse to see it.
There are far better things to fight for than ___________.
Eventually we won't even have to fill in this blank. We'll have surrendered completely.
If we take the view that Trans fat is poisonous, how would it be different than regulating the use of lead pipes for water supply?
Which is why they're used in so many products, right?
They are being displaced from many products without notice.
Yes, like I said before, you'll be paying more for products that don't taste as good and do nothing to improve your health. Nice of you to build their bottom line for no benefit.
Commercial utility for manufacturers is not a cause worth dying for.
Our freedom to choose is certainly worth fighting for. Manufacturers should be allowed to use the products they want, and that their customers choose to buy, without some know nothing government bureaucrats forcing them to do anything different. As long as we allow these idiots to use junk science to scare those who don't know any better, they'll continue to take more and more of our freedom away.
First, you'd have to prove that trans fats are poisonous. Since that's not possible the rest is meaningless. Unless you want to begin banning all sorts of foods that could be bad for you if you rely on them for too much of your total caloric intake. Personally, I don't like others telling me what's good for me when it comes to food (and many other things) because I find they don't have any idea what they're talking about and are nothing more than control freak busybodies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.