* NYC is Trans Fat Free *
Wow, that's catchy...if this becomes the official slogan of the trans fat ban, I expect just compensation. New York City, you were the first to lead the fight on smoking bans, and now this...I'm very impressed.
Finally, I can take "harmful health effects of trans fat" off my list of 'Things Far Too Many Americans Pretend Do Not Exist' (also, a big thanks to Al Gore for helping some of the late bloomers to see that global warming is not just "the sun being really happy"). Next up: "rampant American poverty", as well as a favorite of mine, "evolution".
Way too many Americans look like this...thanks for doing your part NYC.
11 comments:
A letter that could very well be sent in the near future:
Dear Sen. Karcher,
Please eat a donut (or doughnut, however you want to spell it), and leave Americans to their own devices. What ever happened to personal responsibility? I will mail you a gift certificate for a lifetime supply of McDonald's French Fries. Hopefully, you will be able to realize that you can go to the gym if you want or just eat them and do nothing.
Thank you,
Americans with Brains
P.S. Isn't there a property tax problem or something like that in NJ?
Very typical response, but so many flaws.
First, "What ever happened to personal responsibility", you ask? That's exactly the point! When personal responsibility gets so poor that it starts affecting all members of society, including record medical costs thanks to an obesity epidemic, it's time for something to be done. Same exact circumstances as smoking bans, which prevent the rest of society from being harmed by those who've lost all sense of "personal responsibility".
Second, of course people can just "go to the gym" or choose to eat or not to eat foods with trans fat. BUT, you have to consider the impact of cheap, convenient high trans fat foods on those individuals who can't afford better options. Once again, we can't pretend that the lower income class "chooses" to eat McDonalds, when it's all they can afford. They should suffer increased health problems because we don't hold massive restaurant companies accountable for the food they make?
And, finally, I'm tired of hearing the excuse "don't we have other problems to worry about". Yes, we do, there are plenty of problems to worry about. And there are plenty of people to worry about them. There's enough of us in society and in government to worry about the genocide in Darfur, property tax reform in NJ, the Iraq war, healthcare reform, land development, the fate of the space program, the enviroment, and especially the potential poisons of the food we eat in America. With the technology of today and the evergrowing complexities of our society, it's no longer an option to say "we have other things to worry about". Plus, we wouldn't have to spend so much time worrying over problems if we took the necessary actions to solve them.
Like NY has done.
You probably believe we should give free needles to criminals too. You should also try to respond to the questions instead of pooh poohing them. Trans Fat vs. Property Taxes? Open a paper and see what the people of NJ say should be dealt with first. You probably want to start with the Opinion Pages around the end of September, you know, when Sen. Karcher received death threats because she was neglecting the concerns of her constituents. People being stupid and eating unhealthy food is not an epidemic, it's a choice. And smoking is a poor example. I never got second hand trans fat at the bar so saying exact same circumstances is far from reality. Even with all the people in government, this is not an issue that should be a priority. People eating food is not a problem. I wonder what will happen to the people who are so poor, that all they can afford is this food, once the switch to a more expensive ingredient, if they'll be able to afford the same number of meals each week? (I stretched it out because I doubt that it would cost so much to eliminate a meal a day but with the stretches in arguements you're making I figured I was allowed at least one) This doesn't solve the public policy issues of poor people being limited in food choices, it simply passes a greater cost burden on to them in the long run. The founding fathers would be disgusted at this type of legislation.
I do love a lively debate. I'm gonna go for another round...
1) I don't think the issue of needle exchange has a lot to do with this discussion, beyond being a tad overdramatic. Also, I clearly debated each point you made, giving my reponses to your points, and did not "pooh pooh" your argument.
2)I never said anything close to the notion that the people of NJ care more about trans fat than property taxes. Clearly, property taxes is one of the most important state issues of NJ. The point I made was that just because there are those issues that are greatly important to the people of NJ and America (think: property tax relief, Iraq War, etc.), that doesn't mean we don't have the ability or responsibility to deal with other issues with a lower priority.
3)You misunderstood my example of smoking bans. I never referenced second hand smoke as being equal to "getting second hand trans fat"; I was referring to the incredible medical costs associated with illnesses of smoking, which was a very large financial burden to the American people as a whole, and is less of a burden thanks to smoking bans that prevent the harmful effects of smoking from reaching non-smokers.
And, if you would like a better example, I can go with traces of toxic chemicals in food. Trans fat has been scientifically proven to be toxic to the human body, leading to obesity, cancers of the digestive tract, problems with blood pressure, etc. If trace levels of some other chemical agent were found in many, many food items and caused these kind of health problems, we would have no problem banning that chemical agent. Somehow, over the past 50 years, during the corrupting of modern food processing, people pretended that trans fat was less like a toxic chemical and more like any other ingredient. Finally, science is proving otherwise and legislators are starting to wake up.
4)Your premise that the cost would be passed onto the consumer, which would actually harm the poor in the long run, is flawed. First of all, health is much more important than cost, so I'd rather the country face the issue of foods that are a bit more expensive than allow restaurants to continue to harm people with they low priced foods. Secondly, it's clear that the increases in prices will be minimal, because restaurants, especially fast food chains, will not risk driving away consumers with significantly higher prices. Much of the cost is likely to be absorbed into the companies, which are making such incredible profits as it is, it will minimally affect their bottom line. And, related to this issue, is the increase of the national minimum wage. Increase the national minimum wage and the people that are most likely to eat at low-cost food establishments will be able to afford the new, healthier food that costs 30 cents more.
5)Bringing the founding fathers into this issue is somewhat ridiculous, considering the founding fathers could not know about 90% of what has played out in modern society. But, if we consider the founding principles of this country, you are right to assert that the founding fathers believed that the government should not inject itself into the lives of the individual. However, I doubt the founding fathers would agree with a blatant disregard for public health, and allow their individually earned finances to be spent on trillion-dollar health costs that can be prevented with the enforcement of rational health policies.
6)Again, it's all about the degree to which this has become a public problem to society as a whole, mostly due to the loose regulations of the food industry. If John Smith wants to willingly engage in unhealthy behavior, caused by companies trying to make the most amount of money over the shortest time with the cheapest product, I have no say in that behavior. But, when I have to pay for Mr. Smith's diabetes medical costs of 20 years, and his children's diabetes medical costs of 50 years, costs that would not happen if a harmful substance that has taken over the food industry over the past century was replaced with healthier counterparts, costs that if gone would allow for money to be instead allocated towards, say, property tax relief for the people of NJ, than society has a say.
1. The ban is too paternalistic, plain and simple. In my opinion, the restriction this places on individual liberty outweighs, by a significant margin, the benefits (if there are any) of the ban.
2. I'm hesitant to believe that the ban will have any effect whatsoever on medical care costs, or any other "externalities" caused by trans-fats.
3. People who lead unhealthy lifestyles will continue to lead unhealthy lives. The fact that there will no longer be trans-fats will not change the fact that these people make poor decisions when it comes to food.
4. McDonalds and fast food is not cheap. It may be true that the poor are more likely to eat fast food than the rich, but that's only because they're less likely to eat at sit-down or higher end restaurants. They are still making the choice to eat out rather than cook their own food, the latter of which is vastly cheaper, especially for families.
I tend to disagree about how "the restriction this places on individual liberty outweighs, by a significant margin, the benefits of the ban", for one important reason. Trans fat is toxic to the human body and, until relatively recent scientific research, it was not considered harmful by the food industry. If the ban was on a food ingredient or additive not definitively linked to harming the body, then I would 100% agree that the government does not have the right to ban said ingredients used in restaurant cooking.
Then again, alcohol and smoking both cause great harm to the body and neither are banned. BUT, great restrictions have been placed on the sale and use of these products, in an attempt to curb their harmful effects. So, I am certainly willing to agree that a total ban of trans fat may not be the most appropriate solution for America; instead, taking steps to greatly reduce the use of ingredients with trans fat, including setting much higher standards of health for our food and directly implementing incentive programs for businesses that comply willingly, would be a better course of action.
Still, I think it's overly pessimistic to say that improving the quality of American food production doesn't matter because people will still make poor choices. Beyond that, the point is that trans fat is not a "poor choice", it's a toxic one. A poor choice is not eating vegetables and fruits, and never exercising. Those choices won't definitively lead to diabetes and obesity epidemics. Being a part of a food industry that offers an abundance of trans fat-laden options transcends poor choices into the realm of systematic toxicity.
And, of course preparing your own food at home is cheaper than eating out at a restaurant. The trans fat issue deals only with restaurants, so when I was talking about fast food being "cheap" and more trans fat-heavy, I was comparing it to other restaurants.
UPDATE: I was just talking to Adam and he thinks that we might be talking on different wave lengths. I would never support banning the sale/purchase of items being served in restaurants (like a burger or french fries at McDonalds), and the ban doesn't do that. What it does is it makes the restaurants use ingredients that will produce the same foods without trans fat (like using certain healthier cooking oils instead of frying with trans fat-laden lards). This is similar to when the government stepped in after Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' exposed the horrors of factory conditions, or when the government stepped in because the level of tar in cigarettes was extremely high.
Well, admittedly I don't know much about trans fats, aside from a brief reading of Wikipedia.
What do you mean by "toxic"? Where exactly is the line between "unhealthy" or "poor" decisions and toxic ones?
Also, you said that "you have to consider the impact of cheap, convenient high trans fat foods on those individuals who can't afford better options." This implies not that you're comparing fast food to other restaurant food, but to all food options generally, so I still stand my claim that price is not a factor in this equation.
Also, does fast food have more transfats than regular restaurant food?
By "toxic", I mean that trans fats are directly linked with causing deteriorating medical conditions to humans (diabetes, obesity, blood pressure problems, etc.); and, "toxic" also refers to the degree in which these harmful effects are likely to occur, which with trans fats appears to be a great degree. When I say toxic, I think of lead-based paints or tar in cigarettes; we found out that these agents have the ability to seriously harm our body with moderate contact or usage. So, in contrast, eating chocolate on a regular basis is not toxic; sure, eating tons of Hershey bars (which have no trans fat, by the way) might make you get fat, but they won't have direct and overwhelming harmful effects to your health just from regular consumption...eating a good amount of McDonalds french fries, cooked in trans fat-laden oils, will not be as nice to the body over time.
And so, I was using this distinction to draw a line between Americans making poor decisions (eating tons of chocolate, no exercise) and making "toxic" ones (decisions made in a food industry that is knee deep in trans fat). Once again using the lead-based paint example, how are we to expect consumers to make safe home painting decisions if an abundance of the paint sold to them is likely to cause severe levels of harm? Likewise, how are we to expect consumers to make healthy eating decisions when an abundance of trans fat-laden foods set them up for doom? (also, obviously, lead-based paint has been off the market for many decades, but you get the point) And, when the "toxic" aspects of food are gone, and people still insist on eating chocolate instead of fruits and whole grains, then that is their choice, but having a large ass from chocolate and having childhood diabetes from trans fat have two very distinct financial and sociological effects on society.
About my comment that "you have to consider the impact of cheap, convenient high trans fat foods on those individuals who can't afford better options", again, I was only trying to talk about the aspect of our current culture that is eating-out-obsessed (I didn't explicitly say that but, that's what I was trying to get to). I was saying that, assuming we admit that Americans are highly obsessed with convenience and reducing effort (which I think is fair to assume, seeing how Americans eat food out at much higher rates than decades ago), then for that kind of restaurant-driven America, the poor will end up at McDonalds and the well-off will end up at a nice, healthier restaurant. Your absolutely right, price is not a factor when you consider eating food prepared at home, but clearly our society eats out an enormous rates (I think the last statistics had families eating out more than not), so you have to take that into consideration when talking about where people spend their money on food.
And yes, absolutely, fast food chains use ingredients that have some of the highest trans fat levels in all food processing. Look at french fries: an order of McDonald's large french fries has 8 grams of trans fat (30 total grams of fat, which is about 1/2 of your recommended daily fat intake...HALF, from an order of large fries); this is because of the oil they use (called partially hydrogenated oil), which could easily be replaced with a non-trans fat oil (like peanut oil or vegetable oil) that does cost a little more (but would make very few waves in the insane bottom line that McDonald's has). Regular restaurants that are less obsessed with profits (like a classy steak place in NY, for ex.) tend to use these healthier oils, but that is certainly not true for all of them. (You can go on Google and search for "trans fat", and also "french fries" and "oil", and you'll see lots of interesting info...in fact, check out this article from Feb 2006 on the rates of trans fat in McDonald's fries...[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11241228/] ).
To say regular restaraunts are less obsessed with profits I think is overstating the issue by a long shot. The average restaraunt in New Jersey only sees a one to three percent profit each year. If they aren't obsessed with profits at that margin, guess what, they are out of business. And businesses will almost certainly pass on any additional cost to the consumer as a pass through. Even with larger margins like a McDonald's would see, certain profits are expected by the shareholders. If these profits are not met or are reduced over time, a companies stock and its overall value can diminish. To prevent this, you can almost guarantee that the extra few cents that will be attached to using other cooking oils will be felt by the consumer.
You may be right about the market effect of restaurants using more expensive non-trans fat ingredients. I would hope that, assuming the predicted health benefits of trans fat reduction are accurate, shareholders and society as a whole would do what's best for our national health, even if it involves some relatively minor financial burdens to these companies.
Post a Comment