Capitalism Magazine > Politics > Regulation  Newsletter | Feed | Support Us | Blog | Search
  


Trans Fats: What Will They Ban Next?

by John Stossel  (December 21, 2006)

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. "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." [For information on the health effects of trans fats click here.--Ed]

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."


John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel -- Why Everything You Know is Wrong."

Please contact your local newspaper editor if you want to read the JOHN STOSSEL column in your hometwon paper.




 
Author Archives | Comment | Print | Email | Delicious | Digg | reddit | Facebook | StumbleUpon

Views expressed are author's and not necessarily CapMag's. Excerpts limited to 250 words, so long as a
hyperlink is provided to the original article. See our terms of use.

 

Capitalism Magazine Classics

"Francisco's Money Speech"

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money?

End States That Sponsor Terrorism

Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The climax was September 11, 2001.

Religion vs. Liberty
Secularism is not a sufficient condition for freedom--but a necessary one.

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Destroys Individual Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a charter of tyranny.

In Defense of the "Barbarous Relic"
Why The Enemies of Capitalism Smear The Gold Standard

Hatred of Western Civilization
Why Terrorists Attacked America

Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley
Treats Businessmen as Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Immigration and Individual Rights
Does a foreigner have a moral right to move to America? And should America welcome him?

A Tale of Two Novels
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged Versus James Joyce's Ulysses

The New Right vs. Capitalism
The political right in America no longer stands for individual rights, limited government and capitalism.

The "Crony" in Russian "Capitalism" is Socialism
The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 did not usher in capitalism. It merely replaced communism with socialism.

Israel Has A Moral Right To Its Life
Israel is America's frontline in the war on terrorism.

Moral Values Without Religion
The alternative to the dogmatism of the religious right and the emotionalism of the egalitarian left is a code of moral absolutes based on reason and individualism.

 

Related Articles on Regulation:

Water and Health Care: A Parallel

But Don't Businesses Need to be 'Regulated'?

Live Free or Die

Are You an "Extremist"?

It's Time to Nationalize Grocery Stores ;)

CEObama: The Car Czar

Obama's Regulatory Chief Believes in "Libertarian Paternalism"

Obama's "Logic" on the Mortgage Crisis

"Jolting" the Economy

The Problem of Ignorance

Airport Tyranny Courtesy of the Transportation Security Administration

True Deregulation for The Cable Industry

Congressional Problem Creation: There Still is No Free Lunch

The Latest Political Crusade: CFL Light Bulbs and Airline Safety

They're Coming After You

More Articles on Regulation

 

Copyright 2009-1997 Capitalism Magazine. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Terms of Use. Submissions