August 16, 2005
Trans Fat Free D.C.?
First New York goes smoke-free, now it's asking its restaurants to stop serving foods prepared with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, better known as trans fat. What else will those big government northeastern liberal elites think of next? Moreover, might such an initiative make its way down to the District?
Healthwise, the District may very well have cause to push a similar trans fat free initiative. Heart disease -- which has been closely linked to the consumption of trans fatty foods -- was the leading cause of death of District residents in 1998, accounting for 25 percent of all deaths, according to the D.C. Department of Health. African-American disproportionately suffered from heart disease deaths, more than doubling the number for white residents. The District's Healthy People 2010 Plan specific identifies lowering the heart disease death rate from 263.2 to 210.5 deaths per 100,000 residents, though no specific mention is made of educational or prevention programs with regards to trans fatty foods.
Today the Post editorialized on the very issue, and while not focusing specifically on the District, wrote,
Trans fat is a cheap ingredient -- cheaper than more healthful alternatives. It is not about to disappear from the sizzling fryers of America's restaurants and the baked goods shelves of its supermarkets. But a public education campaign might go a long way toward making consumers smarter and inducing those who make, sell and serve food to offer more wholesome alternatives and to contribute to a healthier population.But how would such an initiative be received in the District? Considering the frosty reception the proposal for smoke-free bars and restaurants received in and out of the City Council, it'd be hard to believe that Washington's seemingly libertarian bend would be open to government-sponsored proposals on food and nutrition. But given the health issues involved, will D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams follow New York's lead?
|
If the DC government tries something like this, I will personally takeover a Ben and Jerry's shop and fight to the death.
Not to nitpick, but I believe Ben & Jerry's ice cream tends not to have transfat in it.
Since when is D.C. or the people who run it "libertarian"? I must've missed the memo.
If the District "has cause" to ban trans fats from restaurants just because a proportion of its population makes unwise decisions about where, what, and how much to eat, then let's just face facts--the powers-that-be would then "have cause" to ban smoking (everywhere), cars, liquor stores, tanning salons, and on and on.
When the revolution comes, I'll be staked out at the McDonald's on 18th and Columbia, protecting the innocent fries.
This would not be a ban, more than the government stating a position on the matter. Restaurants would not be compelled to follow the guidelines, much like is the case in NYC.
And I refer to D.C. as "libertarian" because of the way the smoke-free debate played out -- suddenly a good chunk of this city and its politicians were willing to overlook compelling health evidence and instead argue of the unlimited freedom to smoke.
A good chunk of the city and its politicians most certainly did not argue for an "unlimited freedom to smoke." Members of Ban the Ban and Carol Schwartz on the city council--the libertarian contingent--argued that bar owners should be allowed to decide whether smoking would be permitted in their establishments. That's a pretty far cry from supporting an unlimited right to smoke.
As for the compelling evidence you cite, feel free to post it. Otherwise, take a look here:
http://www.bantheban.org/about.php#ETS_harmful
While I don't consider myself libertarian, either, I'm all about public education leading to pressure on establishments to offer alternatives to trans-fat. America's problem with crap food and obesity is, I am certain, directly related to ignorance run amok across the population.
I'm sure we've all seen SUPERSIZE ME. I frequently think of the guy who's been eating multiple Big Mac's a day for years, and is still skinny and, at least in terms of cholesterol, healthy. The catch? He NEVER orders the fries. Then there's that part on the DVD extra where Spurlock puts the McD's food in jars to let it decompose, and after months of festering, the fries look good as new. I'm afraid.
Very afraid.
I think libertarians have to accept the fact that on some issues this country is paternalistic. They may regret this and disagree with these policies, but the democratic and political procedure is in place to allow the government to institute paternalistic policies where it has public support. On some issues, like seat belts, environmental regulation, and labor regulation, the vast majority of American recognize the validity and appreciate the effect of these policies.
On tobacco bans, alcohol, marijuana, and now fast food, people disagree. Ultimately, the political and democratic process will decide how these topics will be treated and it is important that people recognize the legitimacy of that process without resorting to incredulous rhetoric.
While I am quite a libertarian and think a government ban on trans fat usage is an absurd overreach, I do support full disclosure in that restaurants and food establishments have to let you as a consumer know how much trans fat is in what you order, otherwise you are not knowledgeable about the risks you are taking with your health. If you do know and still partake, so be it, it's your body. The only reason I think a ban would be acceptable (and I'm not sure I really do) is because even though Americans SHOULD be free to eat themselves to death, they become a burden on the health care system and the insurance premiums we all pay increase because of it. Why should I pay the same in health insurance as someone who gorges themselves on McDonalds and ends up in the hospital? Smokers are forced to pay higher costs for health insurance, why not people who eat unhealthy?
Otherwise, I'd say the government isn't our caretaker. We should know all the information there is to know about what we consume and the risks, but then it is up to us to take care of ourselves.
If you think DC is libertarian then you're wrongly conflating the dominant politics of the blogsphere with the public sphere. DC's elected public officials are far from libertarian, and the smoking ban did get adopted. Just because CATO and AEI have their homes here doesn't mean that the rest of the population has drank their rancid kool aid of "I want my politics grounded adolescent angst against authority and a deep-felt loathing of mutual dependency and community."
If you think DC is libertarian then you're wrongly conflating the dominant politics of the blogsphere with the public sphere. DC's elected public officials are far from libertarian, and the smoking ban did get adopted. Just because CATO and AEI have their homes here doesn't mean that the rest of the population drank their rancid kool aid of "I want my politics grounded in adolescent angst against authority and a deep-felt loathing of mutual dependency and community."
"I am certain, directly related to ignorance run amok across the population."
Obligatory Lewis Black quote, about the guy suing McDonalds for making him fat:
"You mean fat...fried in fat...makes you fat? Fat, stupid, and litigious. It's an American hattrick."
I think most people know eating junk and not exercising will make you a sad sack of poo, but they choose to do it anyway for a variety of reasons. Edumacatin' 'em will only go so far. Like when the TV news team told people waiting in Starbucks that their Frappuccinos contain more fat than a Big Mac; they just looked shocked for a moment...then placed their order anyway.
Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition...
TV host Oprah Winfrey gives audience members $1,000 (£526) each to donate to a charitable cause...