6 ms·

To me this whole issue boils down to the degree of risk relative to the regulation. It is one thing to say the current evidence shows trans fats are worse for y

To me this whole issue boils down to the degree of risk relative to the regulation. It is one thing to say the current evidence shows trans fats are worse for you than other fats, and that is why we require foods that use them to be labeled. It is another thing to ban them. This just speaks to my overall philosophy on government -- one that I realize many do not share -- but I generally believe in giving adults the freedom to make bad personal decisions. And let's not kid ourselves about the severity of transfats. This isn't a chemical that you accidently inhale once and are dead an hour later. This is a substance that if you consume it throughout your life, increases your risk of other health issues. That does not seem ban worthy.

bdamm 11y ago
If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? This story is an example of the government doing what it ought to, helping the people be defended from the bad behavior of corporations and society in general. There is a larger question of how much harm should a product cause society before the government decides to put a stop to it. I would like the government to have a standard by which any issue is put to the test. The nanny state doesn't bother me as much as its arbitrary selectivity and application.
- splat 11y ago
  > If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? But in what world is that true? In any grocery store you can get food that is organic or non-organic, GMO or non-GMO, with sugar or sugar-free, with fat or fat-free, kosher or not kosher, vegan or non-vegan. We consumers have more food choices today than we've ever had in the past. To claim that "all food producers" will just "use the same cheapest ingredient" is a straw man.
  - eli 11y ago
    I think the "known to the state of california to cause cancer" warnings are on so many things that they are effectively meaningless. So that's probably an example of a required warning that has little effect.
  - asnyder 11y ago
    Unfortunately, this isn't true. In many non-privileged areas you may have supermarkets like c-town, associated, fine-fare, or other non-boutique supermarkets that mostly stock mainstream products from mainstream food producers, as such they usually have very limited selections of organic and non-GMO foods, if any. So unless rules like these are passed, those groups are reliant on companies changing their behaviors based on market trends (such as rice krispy treats removing high fructose corn syrup from their boxed product). Worse, even in those cases most large food producers tend to roll out the "healthier" products specifically to the privileged areas, leaving the non-privileged with "worse" product.
    - refurb 11y ago
      I think issue of limited (and bad) food options has less to do with government regulations and more to do with the economics of those areas.
  - feld 11y ago
    Apparently you've never been poor or lived in a food desert. Poor people can't buy Organic non-GMO things; they're not affordable. If we ban this, they stop consuming it. Later in life we aren't picking up the tab for their health issues. It just makes good economic sense and it's moral, too.
- crazy1van 11y ago
  > If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? The only way that would happen is if consumers all decide to prefer the cheaper ingredient. Based on the number of higher end grocery stores and restaurants I've seen open within the last few years, I don't see that as likely at all. After all, a lot of food producers have already willingly decided to ditch trans fat.
MacsHeadroom 11y ago
>This isn't a chemical that you accidently inhale once and are dead an hour later. This is a substance that if you consume it throughout your life, increases your risk of other health issues. That does not seem ban worthy. On the contrary, there is an argument to be made that this is exactly the type of substance which is ban worthy. Obviously dangerous substances need not be banned, because their harm is enough to deter use. While less obvious, slow to damage, substances will not see less use without regulation.
- refurb 11y ago
  less obvious, slow to damage, substances will not see less use without regulation If you went to your supermarket a year ago (before the ban) you'd have a hell of a time trying to find margarine. Consumers demanded trans-fat free products and got them, even without government intervention.
pizza 11y ago
Navel-gazing: from a public health perspective, aren't widely-prevalent 'creeping' factors of the leading killer in the US the low-hanging fruit to ban?
dasil003 11y ago
I'm sympathetic to the idea that government regulation has a lot of problems and should be used judiciously. However I think when it comes to the food supply and what people are eating I think a laissez faire approach is dangerous simply because of the incentives involved. On one hand you have the big food producers whose incentive is to maximize profits by doing two things: using the cheapest ingredients to make the most appealing products. The nutritional value of the food doesn't enter into the equation at all really, at most it's the perception of the nutritional value as a marketing property of the food. On the consumer side you have people who want something convenient and tasty, and who will have to make quite a conscious effort to pursue nutritional soundness that runs contrary to their immediate lizard-brain response to whatever food is available. Given this reality, I think it's foolish to assume that the best science is going to make it to the forefront and be generally reflected in public awareness and the food supply. Especially considering the volume of bogus "science" that is funded and filtered by companies like Coca-Cola in order to post-hoc justify their cash-cow products.
3pt14159 11y ago
If health care costs weren't socialized (they are) and if people were educated (they aren't) and if food always came with accurate labelling (it doesn't [1]) then I'd agree with you. But ultimately each individual does not have time or intelligence to research the heck out of each different field. I'm broadly a libertarian too, but we don't live in a free and intelligent utopian world yet, so let's just ban the transfats and radioactive paints and save everyone some trouble. [1] 0.4 grams of transfat rounds down to 0, and restaurants are not required to track it.

bdamm 11y ago

If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? This story is an example of the government doing what it ought to, helping the people be defended from the bad behavior of corporations and society in general. There is a larger question of how much harm should a product cause society before the government decides to put a stop to it. I would like the government to have a standard by which any issue is put to the test. The nanny state doesn't bother me as much as its arbitrary selectivity and application.

splat 11y ago
> If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? But in what world is that true? In any grocery store you can get food that is organic or non-organic, GMO or non-GMO, with sugar or sugar-free, with fat or fat-free, kosher or not kosher, vegan or non-vegan. We consumers have more food choices today than we've ever had in the past. To claim that "all food producers" will just "use the same cheapest ingredient" is a straw man.
- eli 11y ago
  I think the "known to the state of california to cause cancer" warnings are on so many things that they are effectively meaningless. So that's probably an example of a required warning that has little effect.
- asnyder 11y ago
  Unfortunately, this isn't true. In many non-privileged areas you may have supermarkets like c-town, associated, fine-fare, or other non-boutique supermarkets that mostly stock mainstream products from mainstream food producers, as such they usually have very limited selections of organic and non-GMO foods, if any. So unless rules like these are passed, those groups are reliant on companies changing their behaviors based on market trends (such as rice krispy treats removing high fructose corn syrup from their boxed product). Worse, even in those cases most large food producers tend to roll out the "healthier" products specifically to the privileged areas, leaving the non-privileged with "worse" product.
  - refurb 11y ago
    I think issue of limited (and bad) food options has less to do with government regulations and more to do with the economics of those areas.
- feld 11y ago
  Apparently you've never been poor or lived in a food desert. Poor people can't buy Organic non-GMO things; they're not affordable. If we ban this, they stop consuming it. Later in life we aren't picking up the tab for their health issues. It just makes good economic sense and it's moral, too.
crazy1van 11y ago
> If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? The only way that would happen is if consumers all decide to prefer the cheaper ingredient. Based on the number of higher end grocery stores and restaurants I've seen open within the last few years, I don't see that as likely at all. After all, a lot of food producers have already willingly decided to ditch trans fat.

MacsHeadroom 11y ago

>This isn't a chemical that you accidently inhale once and are dead an hour later. This is a substance that if you consume it throughout your life, increases your risk of other health issues. That does not seem ban worthy. On the contrary, there is an argument to be made that this is exactly the type of substance which is ban worthy. Obviously dangerous substances need not be banned, because their harm is enough to deter use. While less obvious, slow to damage, substances will not see less use without regulation.

refurb 11y ago
less obvious, slow to damage, substances will not see less use without regulation If you went to your supermarket a year ago (before the ban) you'd have a hell of a time trying to find margarine. Consumers demanded trans-fat free products and got them, even without government intervention.

pizza 11y ago

Navel-gazing: from a public health perspective, aren't widely-prevalent 'creeping' factors of the leading killer in the US the low-hanging fruit to ban?

dasil003 11y ago

I'm sympathetic to the idea that government regulation has a lot of problems and should be used judiciously. However I think when it comes to the food supply and what people are eating I think a laissez faire approach is dangerous simply because of the incentives involved. On one hand you have the big food producers whose incentive is to maximize profits by doing two things: using the cheapest ingredients to make the most appealing products. The nutritional value of the food doesn't enter into the equation at all really, at most it's the perception of the nutritional value as a marketing property of the food. On the consumer side you have people who want something convenient and tasty, and who will have to make quite a conscious effort to pursue nutritional soundness that runs contrary to their immediate lizard-brain response to whatever food is available. Given this reality, I think it's foolish to assume that the best science is going to make it to the forefront and be generally reflected in public awareness and the food supply. Especially considering the volume of bogus "science" that is funded and filtered by companies like Coca-Cola in order to post-hoc justify their cash-cow products.

3pt14159 11y ago

If health care costs weren't socialized (they are) and if people were educated (they aren't) and if food always came with accurate labelling (it doesn't [1]) then I'd agree with you. But ultimately each individual does not have time or intelligence to research the heck out of each different field. I'm broadly a libertarian too, but we don't live in a free and intelligent utopian world yet, so let's just ban the transfats and radioactive paints and save everyone some trouble. [1] 0.4 grams of transfat rounds down to 0, and restaurants are not required to track it.