The Nanny State
Tweet
I’ve got to call B.S. on this. New York City is overstepping their bounds by getting into what kind of ingredients businesses can use in their food. It’s one thing to supervise the cleanliness of a restaurant. It’s a whole other to go to this level (I also don’t agree with smoking bans, by the way).
15 Responses to “The Nanny State”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Would transfats be approved by the FDA today if Crisco had created them in 1990 and not 1900?
Almost certainly not.
It’s actually less nanny state than cigarette smoking — I can choose which bars and restaurants I go to and they can have signs posted on them.
It is much more difficult for a citizen to know what foods on a menu have transfats in them.
Stupid *ss feel-goodism. Are they going to ban all food from ruminants? Beef has trans fats. What about plain old saturated fats? They’ll clog your arteries in heartbeat (TM Dugger). Ok to swill that stuff down by the bucketfulls?
You know what. Telling people whats there is good. Dictating what they eat is bad.
“Are they going to ban all food from ruminants?”
That’s a pretty unthinking, knee-jerk response.
The ban is on all but small amounts of “artificial” trans fats.
The food industry has added these artificial trans fats to suit its own bottom line interests. Why can’t the city take steps to protect the health interests of its citizens in response?
Because the citizens can make up their own minds.
Only if they have the information.
If you want to talk about a Proposition 65 effort in which all menu items would state their trans-fat content…. Please do so.
What is the difference between transfat and other food additives?
I’ve got no problem with the information being disclosed, but the ban is ridiculous.
O-Dub, where is your medical degree from that you can toss off the ban as “ridiculous”?
Perhaps you’ve had a stroke and can evaluate it?
Or you have an organic chemistry degree?
You’ve reviewed the relevent information from JAMA and the National Academy of Science and are aware that trans fat consumption has no safe level? That trans fat raises LDL and (unlike saturaed fat) perverselt lowers HDL?
I would allow trans fat, so long as it was disclosed, along with it’s level, EVERY SINGLE TIME A FOOD CONTAINING IT IS MENTIONED… In every fast food joint, bistro, fine dinig establishment, bodega, food market and vending machine.
Every menu, every time. Every wrapper, every time.
Of course, this will cause the same consternation and outrage from those who just don’t care if I have to put a gun to my head every time I buy a meal.
Nanny state? Why not try to make an argument?
The argument is, if the law forced disclosure, no problem, but to simply ban an ingredient across the board is overreaching the role of government.
Oliver,
City health inspectors do more than simply inspect restaurants and publicize the results. They also have the power to shut restaurants down for health code violations in order to protect public health.
How this ban different from the reasonable authority that we already expect the health department to excercise?
I have to say that I was initially opposed to the smoking ban in Los Angeles — when I was a smoker. Now that I’ve been quit for 5 years I can still sympathize with smokers but I love being able to walk into a restaurant and bar knowing that it won’t be filled with smoke. It isn’t even something I have to think about now.
On this issue, I’d rather simply choose a restaurant or enjoy a meal without having to inspect their ingredient list. Does that make me a lazy consumer? Maybe. Then again, being lazy is what consumerism is all about!
It’s overreaching, frameone. I hate smoking and have never smoked. In fact, my mother had a heart attack at 44 largely thanks to smoking (she quit that day and has been clean since). But I think government goes too far with these things. If someone wants to go to a smoky bar, go for it, its their lungs. People like me will go to the non-smoking one. But it’s my choice, not the government’s.
“But it’s my choice, not the government’s.”
So what your saying is that if you want to choose to eat artifical trans fats, you should have that choice?
The food industry didn’t ask anyone if we wanted it in our foods in the first place. It made a decision based on its own best interests and that was enough.
But now that we know it’s unhealthy, now you’re fighting for your right to eat it? Even though it should never have been there in the first place?
I don’t understand that.
Why does the government regulate food or drug safety at all? Do you think the FDA should stop all study and regulation of
food additives?
errrghhhhh….I hate doing it, but I agree with Paul…perhaps with different reasoning.
Like tobacco (cigaretttes really), trans fat cost me a ton of money. The ill health effects lead to more heart disease which I end up paying for….through medicare or higher health insurance costs. Because we already live in a “nanny” state where health care is considered a “right”, we end up paying for peoples bad habits. If I knew everyone was going to have to pay for their health problems themselves, then I could let my libertarian streak run wild…but they won’t.
So maybe if you want to put some enormous tax on trans-fat to pay for all the extra coronary artery bypass operations I could abide by letting people eat it…otherwise I say if it can go without any great difficulty then “adios…”
“…I hate doing it, but I agree with Paul…perhaps with different reasoning.”
I hate to do this to you pedro but I also agree with your reasoning.
must be the christmas (chanukah, kwanza,ramadan,flying spaghetti monster…did I miss any) spirit…oooh, it kinda gives me the willies….
This may be evidence that Oliver is completely wrong on this though, if Paul and pedro agree on something…just a thought…
Trans fat serve a practical purpose in food functionality and stability. But all foods are unhealthy if used unwisely or out of balance. Trans fats in proper moderation are deadly for no one and result in d*mn good pie crusts. Ironically, things like pam oil are now being recommendd as a viable alternative to trans fats. We weren’t far from banning palm oil a few years back. Its on the AHA’s watch list. And of course how many of you remember CSPI’s “Cruel Oil”. Same bullsh*t. Sort it out better. Why not ban saturated fats? Let the people decide.