 | Edwards Stumps in Chicago | |
| In Today's Video Vault | |
| Grassley Swings at (and Misses) Obama | |
| Richardson's Interview | |
| This Just In.... |
| In Defense Of Incrementalism | |
| The War Comes Home | |
| Roe, Not Giuliani, Is The Real Abortion Muddle | |
| Rudy's Party Or Reagan's? | |
| Blair's Influence To Outlast His Iraq Stand |
|
December 10, 2006
The Food Police Are Coming for You
By Trevor BothwellYou knew they were coming.
First they came for the cell phones. Then they came for the cigarettes. Then they even came for the Ephedra (an herbal supplement commonly used in weight-loss aids), which is especially ironic considering what Nanny State--er, New York State--is coming for next: the trans fats.
According to the Associated Press, the New York City board of health has voted "to make New York the nation's first city to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants"--a lede, incidentally, that the AP actually amended from the original, which stated that New York would be the first city to "outlaw the unhealthy oils." Apparently, "unhealthy oils" didn't sound quite as scary as "artery-clogging artificial trans fats." No fear mongering there.
Notice that trans fats are simply "believed to be harmful," but New York City is going to go right ahead and ban them anyway, where the costs of compliance immediately will be imposed on private companies and consumers.
On a personal note, I myself have felt the consequences of the ongoing attack against fatty foods. In fact, I've stopped eating at McDonald's altogether, not because they use "unhealthy" oil, but because I think their food tastes awful now that they've eliminated tasty oils from their food. Like most people, I ate there because I wanted fast food, not health food.
McDonald's historically has been the target of everyone from environmentalists to nutrition nannies, and it should be very clear by now that these anti-freedom activists, continually emboldened by abusive legislation, will not rest until they control every aspect of our lives.
Unfortunately, these types of government regulations always end up benefiting some while harming others. In this case, companies not affected by the ban (like grocery stores) likely will profit at the expense of those that must comply (like restaurants and bakeries). Such third-party force would be illegal if conducted by one private party against another, but somehow it is legal and par for the course when it comes to democratically elected politicians acting on behalf of citizens.
Government-sanctioned coercion is bad enough when it causes economic hardship for private industry. However, such meddling is even more unbearable when government bans and restrictions actually harm the people they purport to help, which in no uncertain terms very well may be the case with this ban on trans fats.
Think about it. Everywhere we see potato chips, nachos, and cookies stamped with a sign that reads "0 Trans Fat" or the like, giving the general consumer the impression that such goodies are actually good for us because they don't contain the ingredient branded the taboo of the day.
Of course, such treats may not be bad for us, per se. However, we're led to believe these foods are healthier than others, even though they still may contain any number of fats or additives that can be harmful if consumed in excess, which is entirely likely and even probable now that we think we're doing ourselves well merely by avoiding those menacing trans fats.
Some of the most brutal regimes in history were those that perfected the art of mind control. Convince people it's a societal good to place bans on this or that--like icky cigarettes or chatty drivers--and you've mastered the most effective tactic of the authoritarian state.
And while you're at it, you might also want to decide which types of cars people can drive, or how much money they can expect to see in their paychecks, or what their kids will be taught in schools, or how they must save for retirement, or when they can collect their retirement, or how much water they're allowed to flush down their toilets, or who is allowed to marry whom, or how much of their property will be taken by the government and given to other people, or ... you know what? I'm getting a headache. But there are dozens more examples of how our lives are managed by the government right here in the so-called land of the free.
Call me crazy, but I believe people are smart enough to be left to figure out what's best for them so long as their decisions do no harm to anyone else, government be damned. That this concept is so obviously anathema to our rulers is reason for plenty of concern.
Will you speak out?
| Sponsored Links |