From this article at Fox News:
Health officials in New York City are stepping up to the plate to remove trans fats from the menus at local restaurants.
The Board of Health will hold its first public hearing today on a proposal to make New York the first U.S. city to ban restaurants from serving food containing artificial trans fats …
If approved, New York’s ban would only affect restaurants, not grocery stores, and wouldn’t extend beyond the city limits.
But experts said the city’s food service industry, with 24,600 establishments, is so large that any rule change is likely to ripple nationwide.
You gave government the power to tell you where you can smoke. Now they’re going to tell you what you can eat. Give government an inch, and it takes a mile. Those of you on the Centerville city council, those of you who are members of anti-smoking groups, and those of you in Ohio thinking of voting in favor of either issue 4 or 5, are paving the way for increased government micromanagement of your day-to-day life, the culmination of the liberal nanny state. You’re taking power out of the hands of individuals and the free market and placing it in the hands of lawyers, bureaucrats, and the self-proclaimed elite.
I take special delight in pointing this out because several people I’ve spoken with have scoffed at me when I predicted that government would soon expand its tentacles into the “safe food” business, based on the mandate people like the anti-smoking crowd have given them. I ask you to think very, very hard when considering issues 4 and 5 in Ohio, and the power it would give people you wouldn’t voluntarily associate with to decide what’s best for your body, the most important and intimate thing you own.
My .Mac Web Gallery
Loading ...
October 30th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
The “nanny state” isn’t liberal, or conservative, merely invasive. For every “liberal” nanny state motion there are equally invasive “conservative” ones. Socialists exist on either end of the political spectrum. They believe that Government must control human behavior to be in line with their beliefs.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I think we have a difference in definitions, but not principles. To me, liberalism is more government (given the summary definition of “liberal” is “more”), whereas conservatism is less government (”conservative” means “less”). I’m aware that this definition has changed over the decades (Dwight Eisenhower described himself as a “liberal” in the 1952 election, but 16 years later Richard Nixon was most decidedly “conservative”.) and not everyone agrees with mine. I choose to define liberalism and conservatism relative to the power of government, as it’s what the Constitution, and hopefully the electorate, tries to control.
October 31st, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Indeed. “Republican” does not equal “Conservative” either, if the current adminstration is used as a measure.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:31 am
I do think there is a big difference between smoking and eating fatty foods, though. The justification for smoking bans that makes sense to me is that smoking harms the people around the smoker. Thus we ban smoking in restaurants and offices and airplanes but not in private homes. In that sense, a smoking ban is like a noise ordinance. Fatty foods? You kill yourself, not the rest of us. I’m not saying that’s everyone’s motivation for wanting to ban things, but that’s why I support smoking bans but not fat bans.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:40 am
I have to disagree, Christof. If a person believes that second-hand smoke is harmful, then they can choose not to frequent a restaurant or bar where smoking is permitted. (And I’m still waiting for someone to provide conclusive proof recognized by the AMA that second-hand smoke causes any disease in non-smokers.) The free market will provide non-smoking restaurants and bars on its own without the force of government. (Here in Ohio, many restaurants already are voluntarily non-smoking.) This is about the right of private property owners to decide what activities (that do not strip other citizens of their right to life, liberty, or property) are permitted on their privately owned premises without government further sticking their nose into business’s business.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
In countries with a publicly-funded healthcare system, I can understand why the government would want to step in and look after the health of its citizens. An unhealthy population puts a strain on public healthcare resources.
In cases where a healthcare system is mostly private, I’m not sure what the justification is… although I definitely agree with government-mandated labeling of transfat content in foods.
In the end, if I was forced to decide, I’d probably agree with a ban. There doesn’t seem to be anything good about transfats (the same can’t be said for saturated fats, whose dangers are exagerrated). They’re not necessary, just convenient and cheap. Replacing them will probably cost more, and you have to keep an eye with what they’re replaced with (fractionated palm oil seems to be a popular replacement — another processed fat).
The main reason I agree with the ban is probably that I don’t think most people know enough to interpret nutritional information properly. You have to consider the whole system and interaction of food in your diet, not just individual items. It’s too complex for most people, and a lot of the “common sense” out there, particularly around sodium, cholesterol, vegetable oils and monounsaturated/polyunsaturated/saturated fats is bad information and not easily expressed in a “one size fits all” packaged statement, which is all a lot of people seem to have patience for these days.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Why should the government be involved in banning this food? How does my consumption of trans fasts affect any other citizen’s right to life, liberty, or property? Who am I hurting, who’s rights are being denied by those who consume trans fats? Trans fats are a completely optional thing I can eat, and by choosing to do so, how do I harm anyone? Why is a ban needed and why should government be involved in my life at tat level?
November 16th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
I suppose you’d ban transfats for the same reason you have an FDA to supervise the release of food/drug products into the marketplace. A free market alone isn’t the best way to do things. A little bit of regulation keeps companies from being able to focus solely on the bottom line due to the ignorance of the population.
By taking actions like banning transfats, you’re indirectly sharing the knowledge of smarter and/or more aware people with those who aren’t as smart and/or aware. To do this is much more effective than asking everyone to obtain their own education about things, especially considering the amount of information that’s out there for everyone to take in.
There’s no reason for transfats to exist other than for convenience and for the sake of the bottom line. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if lobbyists were involved in proliferation of their use, either, because it was a way to make cheap, abundant oils that nobody had a use for useful for widespread industrial use at the expense of public health.
On the other hand, I’m not sure why it’s required by law that someone wear a seatbelt