Morgan and readers,
With the traffic camera debate (perhaps) behind us, it’s time to move on to another debate that may get just as heated. Here we go…
For those of you who weren’t already aware, last week, the New York City Board of Health voted unanimously to ban the use of trans fats in all of the city’s restaurants. The ban would require all restaurants to change their recipies to exclude even a minute amount of artifical trans fats. Health inspectors would enforce the ban during their routine inspections.
I oppose the decision for three reasons:
1. It’s a personal decision, not a public one.
I am, without a doubt, a health-conscious person. I read labels, buy fresh food, and, at any given time, have anywhere from 2-4 containers of tofu in my fridge. I have no disagreement with the idea behind New York’s ban. We could all use a little less trans fat, I’m sure. But this goal is best met by voluntary decisions (both by diners and by restaurants) based on good information. Simply put, decision to employ a blanket ban on a substance (however well-intentioned it may be) is, in general, quite dangerous for a number of reasons– the two biggest being 1.) a violation of individual autonomy and 2.) its unintended consequences, which brings us to
2. The ban will hurt the least well-off.
This is the issue of unintended consequences. I’m sure the members of the Board of Health did not sit down and say to one another: “Hey, let’s see how we can unfairly burden family-owned, ethnic businesses today!” But, effectively, that’s what this ban is likely to do. Why is this so? Think about what foods contain the most trans fats. The foods on this list are served at pizza parlors, Chinese restaurants, doughnut shops, and the like. Granted, the policy will affect fast food chains, but, as a rule, the larger the chain is, the easier it will be for them to comply.
3. The precedent could be a dangerous one.
This decision comes three years after New York asserted itself as the vanguard of public health policy by banning smoking. And, looking around the United States, it seems as if the rest of the country has followed New York’s lead on smoking bans, with cities like Victoria, Texas joining in on the anti-smoking crusade.
Those are my initial thoughts. Now, I open it up to the rest of you.
—Daniel Corbett
A r e o p a g i t i c a 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
3 October, 2006 at 4: 15
Chauncey Keller
Dan,
This post seems to run parallel with the discussion that you and I had regarding public smoking bans. I am inclined to agree with you-that such a violation of individual autonomy is by no means benign. The worry you raised regarding such actions setting precedent is likewise real.
That said, I have a few thoughts:
(1) It is pretty obvious that trans fat is bad (not bad simpliciter, rather, bad for your health); it contributes (substantially) to the risk heart disease as well as other health conditions that may require medical treatment. I understand that America is far away from a system of socialized healthcare provided entirely by the government, but there are rudiments (like the Medicaid program for instance) where there do exist some circumstances government does pay for healthcare costs. Does this put government on some sort of level where it can make pronouncements such as “thou shalt not eat trans fat (since we’re going to be the ones who have to pay for your heart disease treatments”? Is there any entitlement if they are the ones footing the bill-like Dad saying, “Yes you may borrow the car tonight, but you may not go to chicken-run cove”? Also, why not cut the (entirely avoidable) problem off at the root before money needs to be spent on costly treatments and procedures?
(2) Assume that I am a taxpayer who contributes to the coffers-do I have a say in what legislation is created? What if I want such governmental protections, and am willing to pursue them democratically? In the NYC situation there is a period open for public comment. The decision isn’t set in stone and firebrands who may be outraged are more than welcome to mobilize just as wholehearted supporters may. What are the parameters that a community can choose to set for its inhabitants-what is the scope of control that a community should be able to exert over itself? Does this action fall within the parameters?
(3) The New York Times published a correction on this story. This whole thing would only be applicable to restaurants with more than $20 million in annual sales-like those health-savvy folks at McDonalds, and although food is really expensive in New York, Mom and Pop’s Trans-Fatty-Tofu Hut should be ok.
(4) As things are now in New York (or any other place that I’ve been) there really isn’t a feasible way to know the contents of your meal. What is a person supposed to do if they would like to choose not to eat trans fat, but still wants to go out to eat? Finding an employee who knows the exact contents of the food may well prove to be a difficult task. Similarly, just “going someplace else where they do know” might not be the easiest thing to do.
(5) Suppose you are a person who hasn’t even heard of trans fat or can’t afford to buy the trendy organic stuff that skirts around the problem (either because of educational or financial limitations). Do you just say “tough trans fat doughnuts!” and journey towards and heart disease other not so healthful things?
4 October, 2006 at 1: 57
Morgan Hubbard
It’s only a matter of time before the speakeasy is resurrected to service the burgeoning underground trans-fat market. You’ll knock on an unmarked alley door, say the password (either “liberty” or “cholesterol”), and be admitted to a dark, steaming opium-den of a Chinese restaurant. You’ll enjoy your contraband Triple Delight until the cops come in, at which point you’ll be shot.
Morgan Hubbard
5 October, 2006 at 20: 49
corbettandhubbard
Chauncey,
First, I’m glad to hear that there’s a public comment period; I just hope the Board of Health is fair in its assessment of public comments. Going up against “science” is almost as hard as going up against morality. That said, I hope there are some libertarians in New York who can write arguments that stick.
Second, I’m also glad to hear that the decision would apply only to restaurants with more than $20 million in annual sales. At least the Board of Health recognized the potential for negative unintended consequences. All the same, we have to ask if this proposal is any better. Granted it’s harder to make an argument for the big corporation not getting a fair shake, but shouldn’t regulations, in theory, be applied evenly?
Finally, I want to address the public costs argument you’ve raised. There may be no other way of countering your point than to head down that old slippery slope, but, alas, here I go… If we are to apply a rule that makes it acceptable to regulate at the public’s expense anything that could create (implicitly greater) public costs later on, where do we stop? What about people who never exercise? Or drink too much? Or ride motorcycles? The answer, I think, is that we have to regulate within reason. With motorcycles we’ve decided to require riders to wear helmets in many states. The question, ultimately, then is whether this regulation would be reasonable.
Morgan,
I’ll see you in the darkened alley when I’m craving a doughnut…
-Daniel Corbett
9 October, 2006 at 22: 17
Bob
A couple of quick points:
First, I am somewhat skeptical of the educational limitation argument surrounding trans fats. Unlike 4-5 years ago, when trans fats could be found in practically every other food item, this really isn’t the case anymore (due in large part to a public backlash and the FDA-required labels). In fact, I think that in both the case of trans fats and the currently developing controversy over high fructose corn syrup, we’re seeing that markets can self-regulate, at least to some extent. I realize that knowing what you’re eating is somewhat more difficult when you go out to eat, but in general, I think trans fats will only be found in foods that most people already realize are bad for them. The person who has not heard of trans fats probably at least realizes that Big Macs and doughnuts are not exactly staples of a healthy diet.
I also agree with Dan regarding the problems surrounding the limited applicability of the ban. While it may be nice that it does not affect struggling small businesses, I still place a large (naive?) emphasis on universality. Further, this still clearly does hurt the choices of those who prefer to indulge at large fast food chains (for both reasons of cost and taste). On a similar note, I think that Chicago’s recent minimum wage law, which applies exclusively to big box stores, is a counter-productive joke.
9 October, 2006 at 23: 27
corbettandhubbard
Bob,
Good point about the ban’s limited applicability. I don’t think you’re beeing too naive in wanting consistency in rule-making. Should we only protect McDonald’s patrons from the evils of trans fats? And are the employees of big box stores the only ones entitled to a higher minimum wage?
Such selectivity should offend our basic sense of fairness and should be objectionable on the grounds that the costs of compliance (in both cases, I imagine) will ultimately fall on our shoulders as consumers.
Dan