Ban on Trans Fats in NY

[Kat]

Yeah, I know it's bad for me, but does it have to be ILLEGAL???!!! Don't we have enough laws on the books aready. I don't like the expansion of the nanny state. Educating the public is one thing, but laws like this simply go to far IMHO.

Here is a piece from George Reisman's blog.

You Can’t Have Trans Fats Because They’re Bad for You, Says New York City’s Board of Health

In recent weeks, the New York City Board of Health has displayed a pattern of profound aggression against the citizens of New York City. I dealt with one major instance of this in my last article, “Pick Your Gender and We’ll Enforce Your Choice, Says New York City’s Board of Health.” There I explained how the Board’s proposed rule to allow individuals to change the sex recorded on their birth certificates, without the necessity of undergoing any actual physical change in their sex, would compel other individuals to deny the evidence of their senses in order to comply with the law.

The Board’s banning, last Tuesday [December 5, 2006], of the use of trans fats in restaurants is a second instance in which the Board shows that it has no compunctions about violating the sanctity of the human mind and its freedom to judge and to choose. The freedom of choice of the citizen apparently means nothing to the Board. Like a curt parent controlling the choices of a child and expecting that his “No” will be sufficient, the Board has taken away the power of choice from adult citizens and told them they will no longer be able to obtain food in restaurants that is prepared with trans fats.

What allegedly justifies this behavior by the Board is the mere fact that trans fats have supposedly been scientifically proven to be unhealthy. As reported by The New York Times of October 31, according to one of the speakers at the Board’s hearing on the subject the day before, “at least 6 percent of the deaths from heart attacks in the nation could be attributed to consumption of trans fats. `Everything we have learned about trans fats is damaging.’” The meaning of this is that if something is shown to be bad, nothing else is required to put an end to its consumption: no cognition on the part of the individual consumer, no choice on his part. These count for nothing according to the New York City Board of Health and its alleged experts. They can simply be ignored and brushed aside.

Ignoring matters of knowledge and understanding, of choice and will, of voluntary consent, is certainly an appropriate way to deal with inanimate objects. However, it is not an appropriate, or practical, way to deal with the more intelligent animals, let alone children. It is absolutely not an appropriate or practical way to deal with adult human beings. It is the kind of method employed by criminals. Matters such as choice, will, and consent mean nothing to them. A rapist is perhaps the clearest example. Now, with its high-handed banning of trans fats, the New York City Board of Health has shown that it provides another example.

Such outrageous behavior on the part of government has become so common and ingrained that it well might pass as believable if someone were to claim that the following was an actual government plan being considered for enactment.

“Within ninety days, every citizen must report to a government authorized physician to be weighed, measured, and interviewed. On the basis of the data so obtained, the physician will determine the appropriate diet for the citizen in terms of calories, fats, proteins, and every other relevant category of nutrition.

“Within a further ninety days, each citizen will receive a ration book containing weekly allotments for the various nutritional categories. In buying food in supermarkets, restaurants, or anywhere else, the citizen will have to turn over whatever portion of his weekly allotments correspond to the nutritional values of the foods being purchased. All sellers of food will be required to determine the nutritional values of the foods they sell, if they have not already been determined. It shall be illegal to purchase food without surrendering the necessary allotment coupons. It shall be illegal to buy or sell such coupons.

“These measures are necessary because diets and other voluntary methods simply do not work. People are getting too fat. Diabetes is increasing. The government’s cost of providing medical care is increasing correspondingly.

“This program is what good health requires. The government already regulates alcohol and tobacco. The regulation of fats, sugars, and all other nutritional elements is no less necessary.

“Because of this program, overweight people will finally be compelled to lose weight, whether they want to or not. Diabetes and heart disease will be reduced. Health in general will improve. People will live longer.”

Such a program is implicit in the ideas people already accept. Indeed, nutritional values must already be printed on the packaging of practically all foods sold in supermarkets and grocery stores. At the same meeting at which it outlawed trans fats, the New York City Board of Health added a requirement that the calorie content of each food item be posted on the menus of hundreds of restaurants. It thus may well be only a question of time before such a program is actually proposed. If and when it is, there is presently no basis for expecting any principled opposition to it. The opponents will likely be of the kind who’ll think they’ve won a profound victory for “free markets” if they can make the ration coupons tradable.

The only basis of serious opposition is acceptance of the principle that there is something more fundamental and more important than mere physical health, that is, more important than the condition of man’s body considered as a mere hunk of mindless meat. And that is respect for the value of the human mind and of the individual’s freedom to act on the judgment of his mind. That is the principle for which libertarians must stand.

This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.

[omphalos]

I can only hope this is apogee of the pendulum's swing toward the nanny state, though I'm doubtful. Prohibition was overturned, after all.

[Kat]

I get so sick of the Center for Science in the Public Interest having so much influence in government and harrassing the restaurant industry. Many people probably can't distinguish it from a real government agency such as the FDA. It seems that everything coming out of CSPI is propaganda for expansion of the nanny state because they think normal citizens are too damn ignorant to feed themselves and should bow to their environmentalist and vegetarian agenda.

If people want to avoid certain foods, that should be up to the individual, not the government.

We get it. Fat in food is generally unhealthy and both saturated and trans fats increase the risk of heart disease, etc. and it is a good idea to limit them in your diet. Fat labeling requirements were enacted in 2006 and if you look at nutrition facts on labels, you will see a breakdown of fats vs. trans-fats. People should know what they are eating and the labeling goes far enough. Most restaurants have nutrition information available and all you have to do is ask or look it up. The information is available so people can make informed choices. There is no further need for government intervention beyond food safety standards and labeling guidelines. We can handle it from here, thank you very much.

According to New York Times science reporter Gina Kolata: "The National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the Food and Drug Administration have all come to the same conclusion: Trans fats are on a par with saturated fats, like butter or lard. Both increase cholesterol levels and most people would be better off if they ate less of all of them."

Here are some links that may be of interest.

Transfat Facts

Center for Consumer Freedom

Activist Cash

Health Facts and Fears

Junk Science

ecoNOT

Center for Defense of Free Enterprise

btw - If you have not stopped by the Master link list recently, you may want to take a peek.

Kat

[blackhorse]

This banning of trans fats in New York may set off a chain reaction of me-too's from other cities or states. I just don't see how this law can even stand! I'm certain that it will be challenged in the NY Supreme Court, and hopefully the law will be struck down with extreme prejudice. But, I am not holding my breath on that one, for as we all know NYC has been infested with liberal scum for quite a while. Those who are against and live in NY should raise living hell over this.

[Chris Grieb]

The city of Chicago rejected this move earlier in the year. It sounds like one of those things like many other things that will get worse before it gets better. Does anyone else remember the movie "Sleeper" where the future people talk about now there eating healthy foods like hot fudge sundaes. Maybe there's hope.

[bmacwilliam]

To me all of these comments so far on this thread make no sense at all.

Banning trans fats has no real relation to consumer choice. Trans fats were developed only for their physical, not nutritional properties. It makes perfect sense that when they are discovered to be harmful that they be banned. It is not "nanny-state" to prohibit sale of goods that have no value and are dangerous to health. You generally cannot sell a product that is dangerous to the public, or at least that has no corresponding positive value (there are exceptions, but they also need to be removed). Cars kill people, but they have a clear value too, so it's an acceptable trade-off. Trans fats have no positive value.

You cannot make a parallel to something like sundae's either. Sugar is not bad. Too much sugar is bad. ALL TRANS FAT IS BAD - big difference.

"People should know what they are eating and the labeling goes far enough."

Wrong. They don't, and it doesn't. Whether they should or not doesn't matter. The fact is that they don't know and that's why public health is required.

"There is no further need for government intervention beyond food safety standards"

What the??? Banning trans fats IS food safety standards for crying out loud!! There is no fundamental logical fucking difference between somebody selling a food item that is guaranteed to give you botulism and a trans fat laden item. The only difference is that one makes you sick immediately and the other takes a few years. Use your brain dammit!

"for as we all know NYC has been infested with liberal scum for quite a while. "

Right, it's all about politics isn't it? Screw logic and reason.

For what it's worth, I will make a final post or two outlining why I no longer choose to investigate Objectivism so in a short time I'll leave you all to your folly in peace.

Bob

Edited December 16, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? How is using foul language and being aggressive in general going to change anything or anyone's minds? It will not. My own initial reaction was to not even consider your arguments. If you take pleasure in this kind of behavior, there are forums out there that encourage it and revel in it. I don't like it in my house and neither does Kat.

For the record--on trans fats, I happen to agree with your estimation of their worth. They are horrible. I also don't like cigarettes. I have a problem with banning them, though, just as I would have a problem with legally banning people from eating paper. But I have no problem with banning paper from being sold as food.

Let's examine the legal issue. The intellectual poison being forced down people's throats has nothing to do with food. It is not that a food is banned, but how it is banned. If a product is not considered as fit for human consumption, this is an issue for the FDA, which to my mind, could conceivably allow the product to be produced but not sold as food. I have no problem with prohibiting people from selling poison as food to the unsuspecting.

But here's the rub. Allowing a state government to set limits on food that is legal all over the country sends the message loud and clear that we belong to the government and exist to serve its pleasure, not that the government is the servant of the citizens.

If trans fats are to be banned, then they must be banned as a food, not as a restaurant product. It has to be legal to eat in public what is legal to buy as food to eat at home.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Thank you Michael; You show an excellent understanding of the issue . Some things may indeed be bad for us but I think the nanny state is worse. Is there not the possibilty that something might not be good for us we would with the idea that government hasn't banned therefore it's okay.