On Tuesday, New York became the first city in America to ban the use of trans-fat in restaurants. The Board of Health approved the ban unanimously after hearing testimony from several experts explaining that trans-fat is clearly linked to heart disease and clogged arteries, and appeals from many city residents, including a six year old girl that asked the board to help her stay healthy and keep her out of the hospital. Some consumer rights activists praised the decision, saying that businesses only added the trans-fat in the 60s to give products a longer shelf life and to cut financial corners. All of these things may well be true, but I guess I missed the two memos: the one explaining the Constitutional Amendment that gives the government the power to tell us what we can and cannot eat, and the other making it the government’s responsibility to keep people healthy by protecting them from their own stupidity.
I simply do not see why the government needs to be in the business of protecting people from their own stupidity.
There are many problems with the thought process that caused this ban, one of which being the complete disregard for personal responsibility. While I would certainly advocate restaurants fully disclosing everything they use in food preparation, once that disclosure has been made, it is up to the individual to make the correct decision. It is extremely unlikely that anyone who eats fast food on a regular basis or even one who eats at 4 star restaurants routinely could possibly think that they are getting the healthiest food possible. That being said, I simply do not see why the government needs to be in the business of protecting people from their own stupidity. Sure, it may be easier to pick up food at the drive through than to go home and cook. Sure, it may be cheaper to buy a case of Little Debbie Snack Cakes than to make sugar cookies from scratch, but these are personal decisions. If you choose to sacrifice quality for the sake of convenience then you have decided that your health is worth saving those twenty extra minutes everyday. This is a personal problem and certainly not worthy of government regulation that affects everyone else.
Secondly that something leads to eventual health problems makes it a candidate for being banned makes no sense whatsoever. While I am sure we could all list things we do everyday that are going to make life harder for us in the long run, is that not what enjoying life is all about? We know that cigarettes are horrible for one’s health, yet no one is advocating taking cigarettes off the market, but rather confining the cigarette smoke to places that affect the individual. Overindulgence of alcohol causes many problems, including cirrhosis of the liver, but we already tried prohibition once. If living to be 100 years old is the most important thing in your life, make decisions to get yourself there, and stop expecting the government to do it for you.
Is the day coming when we will all be vegans?.
Lastly, does this decision combined with Chicago’s decision a few months ago to ban foie gras mark the beginning of a new era called the American Food Police State? The ban in Chicago was based largely on the fact that many find the technique used to obtain foie gras to be inhumane. That line of thinking combined with the idea that a city, in order to keep people healthier, can ban a product that is completely legal begs the question is the day coming when we will all be vegans? Ironically people that call themselves health fanatics or animal rights activists seem to forget that once something is banned and you no longer have a say so in the matter, you are no longer making a moral decision, because the ability to make any decision at all has been stripped from you. Why should someone else do all the work for you? If you feel that it is important for you to eat healthy food, to avoid food that is linked to animal cruelty, or to avoid supporting restaurants that you allege poison consumers to save a few bucks, then do so and let others do what they so choose.
28 responses so far ↓
Will // Dec 7, 2006 at 11:13 am
I agree with what is said, but I thought the forefathers of our country made our constitution to fit uneducated (stupid) people. Granted, it is 200 years later, and people are supposedly educated, but the government probably still has to assume that people are stupid and can’t make good decisions. Again, it is 200 years later, and people still don’t make good decisions, but I guess the government feels it necessary.
I do agree though, that in the new age, and the constitution doesn’t say anywhere that the government has to protect us from our own stupidity. Heck, the government can’t protect itself from its own stupidity…. Where do they get the right to ban something like that? If they won’t ban the selling of tobacco products, they shouldn’y be allowed to ban something that only affects the one individual that decides to eat trans-fat. And what if the people aren’t happy with food that doesn’t have trans fat in it, then the Constitution is being void. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of HAPPINESS.
Maryanne // Dec 7, 2006 at 12:11 pm
I suddenly want to sue McDonalds for interrupting my pursuit of happiness because I can’t get super sized fries anymore.
Zach // Dec 7, 2006 at 4:55 pm
As someone who has been trying to avoid hydrogenated oils for YEARS, I have to tell you that its nearly impossible to do so. If you walk into a grocery store and pick something up off of the shelf and read the label, 9 times out of 10 it usually has the processed oil included (unless you’re in the produce section…) and it is completely unnecessary–there are far healthier and equally as inexpensive means of preserving food, rather than creating a food your liver simply cannot process. This is why this is completely imcomparable to cigarettes and alcohol; there are absolutely no desired effects–the stuff doesn’t taste better, it isn’t addictive, it doesn’t make you look cooler, you don’t get a high from trans fat: you simply become exponentially at risk for health problems as your body. Just because this is a slower sabotage of health than say…a gun, does not mean it makes it more ok–this is why when they found arsenic in water, they recalled it.
On top of that, trans fatty acids are particularly prevalent in “fun food” and “bargain” food. Children, who have absolutely no say in what they eat, simply what their parents feed them are the predominant victims of this problem–its one of the biggest reasons we have such high rates of child obeisity. And education as a means of effecting change doesnt work either. By educating consumers to know that transfat is bad who will therefore make sure to demand that it not be included in the food is the most roundabout means of effecting any change whatsoever. Its the most Ayn Rand piece of bull propoganda I’ve ever heard. Education has not worked in the united states and the best example of this problem is how embarassingly high our HIV rates are as a “highly educated” country.
On top of that,people cannot leave it up to the FDA to fix these problems–the FDA is a highly conservative government institute that takes years upon years to effect change AND is also highly influenced by big business. For example, feeding cows to one another is a proven means of causing mad cows disease, and now they are thinking that this is a disease far more prevalent than we are aware in the form of Alzheimers disease. But hey, Id rather have my cows fed themselves than that stupid grainfed cow–its so much better for the economy anyway, and hey if I get alzheimers disease, its ok, because I’m old and useless and simply a burden on the economy anyhow. The FDA says its ok anyhow.
So while I applaud everyone’s intentions of protecting constitutional rights to kill one’s self unwittingly (but only slowly, god forbid…), I’m going to have to go with Hobbes rather than Darwin: it is best to have the government protect people from killing one another…besides Darwin wouldnt call hydrogenated oil evolution. That’s just plain stupid.
Scott // Dec 8, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Our government is broken down into sectors for a reason. We have federal laws, state laws, local laws, etc etc. This isn’t a question of making it illegal everywhere, just NYC. If you want to eat trans-fat, don’t go to NYC. Simple. That’s the whole purpose of community-based government, so people can make laws to fit their own environments.
I agree that people should educate themselves and make choices without having interruption by the government however, this law is not meant to protect stupid people. It is meant to protect everyone. I don’t like the fact that I can’t go to a grocery store and feel confident (as an educated person) that everything I purchase has not been modified, simply to meet the needs of some money grubbing corporation. This is being done over the welfare of the consumer. I challenge anyone to go into any average grocery store and pick out 10 items that are not fresh. Look at the ingredients and take an inventory of how many chemicals and additives have been placed in those products just to keep the transportation and shelf life more efficient. Does anyone honestly believe that this is to the benefit of the consumer? And if you think these same corporations aren’t in charge of the products being served in 99.9% of restaurants, you’re fooling yourself. We are not poisoning ourselves. We are being poisoned. This is because we do not have the choices that this blog suggests are so readily available to us. If, for every restaurant in any given town that serves trans-fat, there was an equally viable and accessible option that did not serve trans-fat, I would agree with the sentiment expressed in the original blog here. Unfortunately that is not the case.
jon // Dec 9, 2006 at 1:16 am
zach is right on. i find his response to be of a more thorough analysis and clear-minded logic than that of the author of this piece. he should write for “think!”
Antonio // Dec 9, 2006 at 9:26 am
While I do not disagree with Zach and Scott in principle, I just have a few questions. Why shouldn’t restaurants and foods that used trans-fat be forced to carry warning labels like cigarettes and alcohol? Why not force restaurants to have an eat responsibly ad campaign?
Secondly, why is it the corporations job to care about consumers? They are in business to make money. No one goes into business thinking they are going to break even or lose money and every business, even small ones cut corners when they can. It’s the nature of the beast. If you hate big business, don’t support them.
Where does this new immutable right to eat in restaurants and eat processed food come from? Restaurants weren’t even invented until after the French Revolution so in the grand scheme of things, they are a relatively new occurence.
As for education, once the information is put out there, why is it the government’s responsibility to make sure that people take heed to it? If people don’t listen to the messaging about the dangers of unhealthy life style choices (sexual, dietary, or otherwise) is it really the government’s job to start holding their hands to affect change?
Scott // Dec 9, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Question 1:
Restaurants absolutely should be required to make that information available. I thought that in most states it is law to do so. Perhaps I’m wrong. In response to your comparison of tobacco and alcohol to food, there really isn’t one. We eat to survive. Smoking and consumption of alcohol is for recreation.
Question 2:
Your logic here is based on pure tyrannical, dog eat dog capitalism. If you think that’s the way the world should work, you’ve got a solid argument. I, for one don’t think that it is wise to live in a society reared by autonomy over cooperative sustenance. Unfortunately your proposal that people not support big business is becoming less and less of a reality as we work toward a global economy. Your argument here just ultimately doesn’t hold up in my eyes.
Question 3:
I don’t disagree that processed food and the phenomena of restaurant culture is a new occurrence, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t taking over as the norm. I don’t think many people would argue that there is an “immutable right” to have these things but clearly, people desire them and more and more people depend on them. Not to mention, this line of reasoning ignores the blunt reality that most of our choices for food purchasing are a product of the global economy, which is controlled by a select few (becoming even less as conglomerations become larger and more powerful).
Question 4:
I don’t look at the government (government as it is defined) as being this all-knowing, all-powerful entity. We supposedly live in a Democracy and as I understand it, that means government should represent the people. This unveils itself by; if the government is making choices that the people do not agree with, the people have a responsibility to challenge that. Capitalism blurs this definition because while the government in a pure Democracy is meant to represent the people, capitalism broadens its representation to corporations and so government operates to protect them as much (some would argue more so) as it does the individual. As Method Man so eloquently inferred: C.R.E.A.M. In conclusion: no, it is not the job of the government to regulate the rate at which individuals take in information. It is however, the job of the government to make sure that corporations are not benefiting at the welfare of the individual. If this is not taking place, it is the job of the individual to bring the government into question.
Zach // Dec 10, 2006 at 2:58 am
Capitalism as a pure system has been projected to work rather well: consumers are educated about issues and therefore demand that the suppliers supply products that are more in line with what the people want. This has shown to work with the new organic craze, skinny leg pants etc etc…
However, a couple of issues arise. As an entity that has the same rights as a human being but none of the same moral consequences, corporations are set up as amoral ahuman money making machines. This means big business will do anything in their power to produce a product at the lowest cost and sell it at the highest price; however this is achieved is simply mere detail. SO, when something such as the latest organic food craze arises, big business then works the government by lobbying with lots of money (which we paid them) to manipulate the meaning of “organic,” as a means of saving money. This is because production of food organic is rather expensive and doesnt yield as much money for its producers. This process of legislative manipulation has already begun as a few laws have been passed changing the entire meaning of the word organic (and let me tell you…it’s not that organic anymore).
Big business also has control of media, which is an amazing tool of manipulation. One can put “spin” on anything just so long as they are short of flat out telling a lie. This means while we may be getting semi-truth bites, it doesn’t mean we really understand what it is that we are consuming. For example, margarine is touted as a healthy alternative to butter…but this is a flat out lie–take a look:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/09/29/the_good_the_bad_and_margarine.htm
And really, do we seriously want a mindless amoral entity, with very little policing, to be responsible for our food? I know I certainly don’t like it, but the government takes most of its money from big business–so who are they really serving?
Scott // Dec 10, 2006 at 12:22 pm
To add to what Zach has said: it is against the nature of organic food production to have it spun and churned through a system of lobbying and big business.
The organic movement is made up of several principles, not just the presence of all-natural food choices. It is based on local economies, local growers, local markets, and local consumers. Studies have shown that people tend to lead healthier lives when dependent upon local agriculture. This also goes into support my earlier points about community-based government. It makes much more sense to regulate local economies in support of local agriculture than it does to have the federal government make generalized regulations that might not make sense for all places. We live in a very agriculturally diverse country. What makes sense for NYC probably won’t make much sense for places like Honolulu or Fargo. This talk about local agriculture might seem like a slight digression from a discussion about laws that regulate trans-fat in restaurants but not really. Food production is a system from seed to consumption and should be regulated as such. The minute we start seeing this as too large or too fractured is when we start losing the ability to view it in perspective. Food was meant to be simple; this is the motto of organic. It should apply to the systems surrounding our food supply as well as the food itself.
Erin // Jan 10, 2007 at 11:54 am
I believe the gov. should not be able to ban food like you were talking about, but i do think they could require the providers to give us access to information about what we are eating. Whether that means having a WARNING PRODUCT CONTAINS X AMOUNTS OF TRANSFAT lables or having a brochure at the counters of McDonalds, I don’t know. The truth is many people don’t know just how unhealthy alot of what they eat is and just don’t have enough incentive to find out. We need to make the public aware and then let them choose for themselves.
On the will we all be vegans? note, I think that someday we might be, but it should be because that is what people want, the law of supply and demand and all that, and not because the gov. says so.
Erin // Jan 10, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Upon Reading Zache’s respoce I have decided that maybe they could bann transfat, if a safer and similarly priced substitue can be found. Myself I just avoid the processed foods as much as possible but… oh I gotta go, the bell rang, but i shall return and finish my comment later… if i remember ^_^
Rick // Jan 30, 2007 at 12:13 am
The above comments, notably Scott’s, show some common misunderstandings of capitalism. Capitalism is not about protecting big business. Capitalism is about freedom, about individual liberty, about minimizing government interference in the lives of citizens as well as corporations. Government protection of business / special interest laws are not capitalism; they are the opposite of it. So any time a government passes laws to either protect a business, or regulate it, or give it subsidies, that is leaning towards socialism, not capitalism. Just wanted to clear that up.
People should not be told by the government what to eat. Government’s job is not to be paternalistic; I sure don’t what the government telling me that it knows what’s best for me and it knows what I should eat, because it doesn’t. Do I enjoy eating processed foods or eating lots of fast food? No. But do I think government should tell others that they can’t? Definitely no. It’s this whole “government knows best” mentality that is slowly but surely trampling our civil liberties (including our freedom to eat what we want) one small step at a time.
Let people eat trans fats if they want to, it’s not your arteries they are clogging and they’re not interfering with your life in any way.
Jennifer // Jan 30, 2007 at 12:53 am
Rick, If you think that people eating trans fat does not interfere in our life in anyway you are sadly mistaken. Who do you think pays for health programs in all of our cities? Our taxes, thats who. I have to pay for the self-indulging people with out health insurance to be seen by doctors for Diabetes, Heart disease and various other health problems associated with bad eating habits.
Rick // Jan 30, 2007 at 8:58 am
That’s another problem with our government. Health care should be private. I agree with you, we shouldn’t have to pay for the poor choices of others. If they know that someone else is going to foot their medical bill, they have an incentive to make poorer choices.
Scott // Jan 30, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Rick, what exactly is the role of the government, in your eyes? What is Democracy?
You so eloquently described how the government should back off but then failed to make any suggestion as to where society should go for protection from misinformation or hijacking by individuals who hold entirely too much power.
Based on your definition of capitalism, an individual, lets take for example, Louis C. Camilleri (CEO of Altria Group, the parent company of Kraft Foods) can do whatever he deems necessary, within the law, to earn as much money as possible. That includes buying up smaller companies and forcing them out of business so that ultimately there is extremely limited competition. At no point does this individual have any obligation to look out for the health of his consumer. In fact, if the product he produces is low cost, low quality, addictive yet appealing to the consumer, it is in his best interest to continue to make this product in such a fashion. So lets look at, oh I don’t know.. I’ll let you pick a product:
http://www.kraft.com/brands/namerica/us.html
Who tells this giant conglomerate of a company that the products it manufactures do not meet the health standards that we require as a society? Who says: “No! We do not want this giant conglomerate coming into our schools and influencing our childrens lunches!?”
I agree that government power and influence should be limited but unfortunately capitalism, as you have described it, has allowed big business to have influence far beyond the reaches of the government you so adamantly object to. So who should regulate them?
This also goes into your statements about privatized health care. What makes you think that pharmaceutical companies are looking out for the best interest of the consumer? What happens when a middle class individual, just out of college, with no job yet, no medical insurance, all of a sudden falls ill and can’t afford the industrialized health care that charges whatever it wants for treatment?
Jennifer // Jan 30, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I do agree with you on this one Scott. I myself have to fork out a lot of money every year for health care; all because half of it is going to pay for Medi-cal, free medical for those who don’t work!
Scott // Jan 30, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I’m not sure how that is agreeing with me.
Jeremy // Feb 8, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Bear in mind that this is coming from someone who lives in a country (Canada) that has socialized medicine:
it’s not all that it’s cracked up to be. Hospitals are routinely understaffed, waiting times in emergency rooms have to be seen to be believed — a friend who once spilled boiling water on her arm had to wait in Triage for six hours), and often the care you DO get is indifferent at best.
Now back to the debate on trans-fats…
t.k. // Feb 8, 2007 at 7:49 pm
you are right. it is somebody elses stupidity to eat there. if you are worried about your health go home and fix you a salad. you choose to eat their so you pay the price.
and the government doesn’t have the right to tell us what to eat. we can watch out for ourselves. i can tell you i am not even 14 yet and i can say that this “law” is very, very, very retarded.
Scott // Feb 8, 2007 at 7:58 pm
In response to Jeremy,
I hear you. I understand that there is no perfect system. But I do know that what you described about some people’s experiences under universal health care is not very different from what we have here. People here wait just as long and often get terrible service because hospitals are under staffed. The difference is that there, people aren’t paying a large percentage of their income to get treatment.
bloodpakwolf // Feb 10, 2007 at 6:32 pm
i agree whit both side but what it really boils down to is do i want a fatty burger hey go to mcdonalds i want something healty stay at home and cook rather than try and make every one else follow my way of living!!!!
Scott // Feb 10, 2007 at 7:08 pm
I agree with that sentiment bloodpakwolf but I do think that there is a lacking of honest information about what healthy really means. I also thing there are people who have a vested interest in keeping it that way.
Alex // Feb 15, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I agree with Zach, if the transfat is pure definition of poison, just takes longer to kill, it should be banned and the govt would be 100% right to ban it.
is it not alcohol and cigarettes also poison? Yes, but cigarettes and alcohol also have a stimulating effect, drugs (which in all seriousness) help people cope with life, at least the majority, those who haven’t found other, healthier means. But transfat does nothing but bad, no high effect, no nutrients, nothing, only bad.
Rudy // Feb 15, 2007 at 8:30 pm
I agree with you Alex. Transfat is horrible for everyone and anyone. It should not be allowed in any foods. The reasoning behind this is because most people don’t even know that they are eating foods filled with transfat. People know when they are drinking alcohol and smoking.
Amy // Mar 2, 2007 at 12:19 am
Proper grammar, anyone?
Eagle-eye // Mar 2, 2007 at 11:27 am
Amy is a JACKASS, anyone?
Zach // Mar 15, 2007 at 4:40 pm
A couple of things, now that I’ve returned to this blog a couple of months later:
1) captalism is a wonderful conception of democracy, but it only works when you have an educated mass. Also to consider: people are not necessarily clamouring for transfatty acids in their food either; the sole purpose of transfat is simply to boost sales–not for the benefit of anyone consuming the food containing the substance.
2)
a) obviously most of you on here are well off enough to have had medical insurance all your life; as someone who has done a lot of social work, privitized medicine is the worst idea EVER. It should be a universal right to have access to healthcare and for a country as rich as the US, it is embarassing to have as many people as we do withOUT access.
b) A healthcare system based solely in profit is going to be medicating people, not curing them–its simply more profitable and in their best interest to keep people sick (hey perhaps the shmoes in the food industry could lend them a helping hand?)
Phil2611 // Apr 29, 2007 at 11:18 pm
A messege from a Peer Mediator…
I’m 13 years old, and I know alot about the U.S. government…
The constitution of the United States of America calls that most things can be appropriately enforced by congress. It has been a LONG time since the constitution was written, and like wise, tehre is alot different.
The reason people are stupid is because of lack of knowledge…Right? -In my health classes, ew learned about fast foods, and how bad they are. Our government is trying to protect us, by teaching us. The right to eat the food you want is being lawfully suspended. Obviously eating those bad foods, will mess you up. But alot of people that come from different contries, don’t know that, it’s not that they are stupid.
If you don’t like what the U.S. government has decided to do, your not being forced to stay here. The people that eat fast foods don’t seem to be complaining either.
Leave a Comment