Who’s Place Is It?
New York City recently passed an ordinance banning the use of trans fats by restaurants. The idea is that this new law will make New Yorkers more healthy.
Apparently trans fats are used because they make food taste better and have a longer shelf life than other kinds of fats. And it seems they are often used for frying in restaurants mostly because they melt at higher temperatures (I guess the fryers can get hotter), generally taste better, and because they last longer than other types of fats before they go bad.
Unfortunately they are really bad for you.
So bad in fact that the City of New York feels they have to protect their citizens from them. Sort of.
The much publicized ban so far only applies to restaurants. So the packaged food in grocery stores in New York will remain an apparent toxic health hazard. For now.
But heaven forbid if you want to get a Krispy Kreme in the Big Apple.
Now here’s where I’ll probably loose some of you because I’m not sure it is the government’s place to tell us what things we can and cannot eat.
No. Actually I’m pretty sure it is not their place.
What happened to personal responsibility?
Have humans finally evolved to the point where we are incapable of making decisions personal on our own and we need the government to make them for us? Are we no longer responsible for what we put in our own mouths?
I mean I can see some sort of labeling requirement. That way we all could be better informed. I’m all about better information flow.
But even so, we still have choices. As consumers in a (still as yet mostly) free market economy we have the ability to choose what we want to buy, where we want to eat. If healthy eating is really important to folks then they can choose where they want to eat and avoid restaurants that serve unhealthy, trans-fatty filled food. Even if it is yummy tasting.
I see this issue in the same vein as the whole push to outlaw smoking in private businesses, another fight that New York City has championed. I don’t smoke. I don’t much like smoking. Mainly because it gums up my contact lenses and wreaks havoc with my sinuses.
But I don’t think it is the government’s place to tell businesses that they can’t allow their patrons to smoke just because I don’t like it.
Last time I checked this is still America
I’m a big boy. I can still choose which restaurants I want to go to. I have the power to choose to spend my money in non-smoking restaurants if I want. Or I can deal with it if I want (which I gladly do quite often). I don’t need the government discriminating against smokers on my behalf.
Do you think that it is impossible to influence big business by how we spend our money?
It happened to a fast food joint in the UK. Apparently there was at least one McDonald’s that was forced to shut down from lack of business because the local folks were making healthier eating choices. Amazing that capitalism can work if the government is willing to stay out of the way.
But New York City doesn’t see it that way. They feel I really need them to protect me from trans fat if I ever want to eat there.
That’s OK, I guess. Good thing I can still get my Krispy Kreme fix here in Savannah.
But hey, that’s just The Way I C it.
Chris Cree is a regular contributor here at Successful-Blog and he helps businesses fuel growth through blogging with his consulting business, SuccessCREEations.
I can understand the ban on smoking a lot easier than I can understand the ban on trans-fats. If someone smokes, then everyone around them feels the effects – whether they like it or not. However, with trans-fats, the only person directly affected by the ill-effects is the person who choses to consume them.
Plus, we all know that the majority of these politicians making the rules can’t follow any rules anyhow, so what makes them so qualified?
I agree with Char: trans-fats are different than smoking. I’m no biologist, but I don’t think there are “second-hand trans-fats”. However, we ALL know the horrid effects of second-hand smoke.
As for trans-fats themselves, I agree that this band is pretty ridiculous. If governments want to “help” us, labeling or other information requirements seem the better way to go. Couldn’t NYC require restaurants to put “contains trans-fats” next to items on their menus? If people want to consume them, they can. If the market won’t support them, businesses will remove them.
Hi Char and Andrew,
I had a second to check in. . . .
I’m with both of you.
I get uncomfortable when people start doing my thinking for me. Well, actually it’s a whole lot more than uncomfortable. I want them out of my head.
We learned when we were little kids that there are some things that other kids just didn’t get to pick . . . what I eat is one of them.
I had the same reaction when I heard about it last week and posted in protest:
http://scribbit.blogspot.com/2006/12/ban-on-trans-fats-what-next.html
It’s just not the government’s job to outlaw whatever might be bad for us. Where is personal responsibility? A good post.
Hi Michelle,
Personal responsibility. Hmmm What a concept!
Char & Andrew – Do you think the smoking bans may have just been that first “acceptable step” that has started us on a slippery slope of government controlling more and more of our lives?
Michelle – How do you feel about the requirement for seat belts and motorcycle helmets? Should the government decide personal safety for us too?
Michelle – I asked the question before I read your post. Silly Chris. 😳
I like your idea of “Danger Free” Cities.
Chris,
I definitely take your point. I think the line to draw is hard, but doable. Even from our country’s founding, the government has regulated our health, safety, and morals. It’s a fact. When you have something that creates negative health & safety effects on others, it is acceptable for the government to step in.
Your right to harm yourself ends when it starts harming me.
But it gets to be such a tricky line to draw indeed.
For example, doesn’t my insistence on feeding my Krispy Kreme habit cause me to be less healthy? This in turn causes me to be a bigger burden on the health insurance pool which raises your insurance rates.
So in reality, me consuming all those trans fats is actually harming you by causing your insurance rates to go up.
Does that mean the government is right to tell me I can’t eat it?
I agree that the line is tricky.
To me, your argument about trans fats and insurance costs is more an argument against national health care. But to the extent the government provides health care, they seem to have a greater say in regulating what we consume (indeed, that’s a strong argument for smoking bans in Europe).
The “harm” I was really meaning in my above post was more of a physical nature (like smoking). I’m sure almost anything you do could be construed as “harming” me in some way. But there’s got to be a sufficient chain of causation to justify regulating it.
Andrew, under your reasoning, the trans-fat ban is reasonable since trans-fat has been implicated in health problems and the purveyor has assumed responsibility for safe food. Logically, eggs, caffeine, refined sugars and flours, and assorted other food products should be banned, too.
On the other hand, drugs, prostitution, and gambling should be legal and regulated if it isn’t the government’s responsibility to protect us from ourselves when our actions don’t affect the public safety. A case could be made for an increase in public safety if these things were legalized.
Hi Rick,
Perhaps I was unclear. What I’m saying is this: I think the government can regulate our choices when they endanger the health and safety of others. That’s why we have government: to protect our health, safety, life, property, etc.
This doesn’t mean govt can/should ban everything that only harms ourselves. So things like trans fats, eggs, and caffeine should be hands-off.
I personally don’t think gambling, prostitution, and drugs fit in the trans fats category. These things are all strongly regarded as having negative & harmful effects on other people (families, friends, society as a whole). That’s why they’re illegal.
Gee, I never guessed that my simple comment would stir up this much conversation. 🙂
Rick, I suppose the case could be made… But would it stand up under scrutiny?
The hard part is finding the right place to draw the line. Who gets to decide? Me? No way! I don’t want the job of deciding for everyone else. (And I’m sure I’d make a lousy dictator anyway.)
What about Congress? Or maybe our local governments? Are we right to abdicate our personal responsibility to them?
Well, Andrew, You never know what rabbit might get chased around here. 🙂
If you haven’t been yet you might want to check out Liz’s Open Comment Night on Tuesday evenings. Sometimes there are rabbits running every which way!
Mike – I agree that banning the trans-fats is silly. Banning the other food items would be in line with that ban, though.
Chris – I think the argument would stand up. Just look at our failed experiment with alcohol prohibition.
A fair portion of what government does is enforcing what Mrs. Grundy says isn’t good for us.
Speaking of rabbits. I had a second to peek in! 🙂
I gotta say, Rick, you make a good point. I guess it all comes down to weighing out how safe we want the government to try and keep us.
Michelle does a good job of explaining that angle in the post she linked to back up in comment # 4.
Prostitution is legal in Nevada.
You can place bets at racetracks in New York. You can by NYS lottery tickets.
“Bad effects” are often a point of view. Yes, there are people who have a problem with gambling, but not everyone.
Government has dug itself far too much into our personal lives, and I’d love to get it out.
Let me make my own choices. Right or wrong, good or bad. This is what being an adult is all about.
The problem is, when people make the wrong choices, they don’t accept the responsibility for them.
The look for someone to sue, or for someone to make a law. Anyone but themselves on whom to lay the blame.
As far as trans fats go, I avoid them as much as possible. If I see the word “hydrogenated” on the label, the item goes back on the shelf.
And if enough people did that, industry would get the idea and stop using them.
Banning them outright is ridiculous.
Sounds a little like the British ban on long, sharp knives that picked up steam in 2005… http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7502/1221?eaf
Yes, long, sharp knives. Heaven forbid these instruments of destruction – like trans fats – should find their illicit way into our civilized, ultra-safe society.
Seems to me, someone has overlooked the value of freedom, in exchange for safety.
Ben Franklin had something to say about that: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Ultimately, what we gain from the ban on “dangerous’ foods — what’s next? Food that *might* be dangerous? — is not nearly as important or essential to a well-lived life as what we lose: the opportunity and the responsibility to choose for ourselves what our destiny will be.
Give me education over government control, any day.
Wonderfully put, Scorpia! Perhaps part of the problem is that the government seems to start by going after things that it is hard to get passionate about and defend.
Let’s see them try to take away my coffee or my chocolate and I bet I pitch a bigger fit! 🙂
Kay, some might argue that the British thugs are using knives because they don’t have the guns we have over here and call it a success for gun restriction.
You make a good point about society seeming to be choosing safety over liberty. It is interesting that at the same time as our entertainment seems to be getting more violent we are getting less and less tolerant of the injuries and accidents that are often just a part of life.
What steams me is that it was the Health Department that created the ban. When did they become part of our legislative branch?
Does this mean that crossing guards can now ban open toed shoes? We might stub our toes while crossing the street.
Another part that bothers me is that it is exclusive to only restaurants. You can still get food from a grocery store that contains trans-fats. I will not even attempt to argue individual freedoms vs government responsibility… that is way too complicated for a comment but if the government was working as it should and this issue was a danger to us then the legislature should have banned the production of food with trans-fat.
Take Care
Michael
Good point on who’s doing the banning. Although I’m not going to claim to be an expert on the structure of the NYC government as to who has the power to do what.
It does seem to beg the question, what is next? When it comes to making rules, how far is too far?
Chicago has a ban on one food group and will want to consider the actions of the big apple, as long as we can drink, over eat, not exercise, stress out and not sleep enough, I think we will still have enought ways to ruin our health.
So, Jim, are you saying that you feel it’s OK for the government to make the decisions for us because we still have enough ways to mess our lives up without that one? I’m just trying to clarify here.
Jim,
I didn’t realize that you’re in Chicago!
I think that we might look to NYC, but I’m not so sure that we’d automatically follow. At least I sure hope we would NOT. They’ve called us 2nd City long enough.
We know how to think for ourselves. 🙂
I don’t want Mayor Daley, NYC, or anyone deciding what’s good for my health. My doctor and I do a fine job of that. Even my husband takes a back seat on that issue. . . . I’m the one who gets to pick on my haircut too. 🙂
Liz, Jim said next time I’m up there we should get together! I think it’s a great idea!
Chris,
What’s this? Jim’s talking to you and not to me too? Hmmph! Tell him he’s buying!!! 😉
It sounds like fun!
My take is that as a New Yorker, I am paying some of the highest taxes in the U.S. And, eventually New Yorkers eating too many transfats drain my wallet through our healthcare programs.
In the last few years obesity has been increasing. We have restaurants serving “Garbage Plates” just loaded with foods cooked in transfats. And, it costs the health care system in the long run.
Robyn, You make a very good point. Yours is the best reasoning I have yet found for this type of regulation.
As a former New Yorker living in the Southeast, though, I’m here to tell you that NYC has no monopoly on obesity or restaurants serving horribly unhealthy food! 🙂
Do you think government regulation is the best solution to these sort of problems? It seems to be the easiest, but does that mean it’s the best?
Hi Robyn and Chris,
isn’t that just how the world works . . . ?
Just when you think you know what the whole idea is about . . . Someone smart with another take on the subject, someone like Robyn, comes alone and tells you what that is, and you find yourself saying,
“Whoa! I’d better think this through one more time. Okay now, let’s start from the beginning . . .”
Chris and Liz, love this discussion since now we see both sides.
Chris, like you, I really feel folks should have the choices. However, I sense that the rise in juvenile diabetes and obesity shows a very alarming trend. And this is in spite of more public education on how to create a good nutritious diet. Parents choose to ignore what is best for children as well as what is good for themselves. While I do not like the fact we may need regulation to stem this tide, at this point I see it as the best option.
Aaw, shucks, Liz. You’ll make my head swell.
Robyn,
I’m not too worried about your head swelling. You’re a prize and a winner. You’re too busy to buy a new hat! 🙂
So then are we to conclude that because people insist on making what we see as poor health choices it is our responsibility to remove their ability to choose?
Where does it end? Does this mean that the Grand Experiment in personal liberty that is America is a failure and people are fundamentally unable to govern themselves?
Yeah, Chris,
In the end, despite the power of Robyn’s argument, I’ll hand over my cash to personal choice with pleasure much easily than I do to regulation that takes away my personal rights and responsibilities.
I do not believe there can be complete freedom because at times it does impinge on others’ pocketbooks. We need a system of checks and balances and that is where law and regulation begin. But in a democracy, we have a voice in this. Perhaps that is where we have the freedom. Thoughts?
Hi Robyn,
I agree. “Complete freedom” says “chaos” to me. But I don’t want the government making my choices and they’re doing more and more of that . . . I keep echoes of “Atlas Shrugged.”
Perhaps the problem is we are holding up the wrong virtue. Maybe we should be talking about liberty instead of freedom. I once heard the difference described this way:
People have a tendancy to think that freedom is the right to make wrong choices, but it isn’t. For example choosing a diet of junk food isn’t freedom. It is enslaving to the associated eventual health consequences.
The question is can imposing a restriction on personal liberty lead to more personal freedom?
Whoa, Chris!
I’m going to have to think that one through . . . Hmmm. I don’t know.
Forgive me, I’m a foreigner. Don’t people vote on ordinances?
What is going on when the government starts interceding with what you can and can’t eat? Nevermind they do a poor job of ensuring that things are correctly labeled. Do they need help in knowing where they can actually make a difference?
This is so outrageous!!!
The question is can imposing a restriction on personal liberty lead to more personal freedom?
No. Sorry to post 2 comments in a row, but I had to respond to this.
The problem is that what is bad for you might be perfectly good for me. Someone else is not entitled that choice. So, any restriction in liberty is a restriction in freedom to someone. You can’t legislate ideas. It’s hard enough to legislate behaviour.
Nneka, on your first comment here in the States we usually elect some kind of representatives who get to vote on the individual laws. Although more and more we are seeing unelected bureaucrats effectively creating laws that affect us all as our government seems to grow without any control.
And I agree with you that it is outrageous.
Some I know would try to argue that all laws are ideas. Those ideas form the core of what is generally acceptable or unacceptable behavior and determine the direction a democratic society chooses to go with its legislation.
When you say good and bad do you mean acceptable and unacceptable? What if you changed those to beneficial and not beneficial?
Then is it perhaps easier to see where a restriction of liberty (i.e. a reduction of acceptable choices) might possibly lead to an increase of freedom (i.e. beneficial behavior).
Does that seem reasonable? Or is it still a goofy idea?