Via Radley Balko comes this example of paternalistic overreach from Chicago, where they've apparently already banned the sale of fois gras and now are proposing to ban the sale of french fries because - surprise, surprise - they're bad for you:
If the City Council can ban foie gras, a fatty liver delicacy that most Chicagoans have never tasted and cannot afford, why not ban a product that's known to cause obesity and heart disease? Chicago's most powerful alderman raised that question Wednesday, then began to answer it -- by thinking out loud.
Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th) has an ordinance pending that would ban Chicago grocers from selling meat treated with carbon monoxide to make it look pink and more appetizing.
Burke said it "might be a good jumping off point" to target french fries and other fast food that's cooked in artery-clogging oil and food that's processed or loaded with additives and preservatives.
"You know the way things are going in this nation. The problem with obesity is continuing to be a big problem. A lot of that has to do with saturated fat and the way fast foods are produced. Maybe we should start thinking about a local ordinance to restrict some of those unhealthy practices in preparing meat products," said Burke, who pumps out more consumer-oriented ordinances than any other alderman.
Some people think I'm paranoid when I say that this trumped up obesity "epidemic" is a pretext for more government control; those people are out of their minds and ignorant of history. We're already seeing lawsuits against fast food restaurants for making people fat. This is the next big wave in paternalism, all justified by saving people from themselves and by saving the nation money on healthcare. Welcome to the world of the health nazis (and Godwin's law can go to hell, it's still a good phrase).
- Log in to post comments
Indeed, the slope I mocked on a previous thread appears much more slippery and closer to fruition than I thought possible: your powers of slope prognostication are formidable, and I stand corrected.
They should vote to ban the dammed Cubs... Cub Fandom is bad for one's mental health, leading to neurosis and depression and excessive consumption of warm beer. Can be mitigated to an extent by small halter tops and occasional wins. And don't get me started on that Steve Bartman!
Isn't it better to have a nation of fat people rather than a nation of starving people? There are a lot of people in poor countries that would love to have abundant food, and here we are trying to regulate what we can and cannot eat.
while I certainly don't think we need to legislate protection from obesity, you can't deny the evidence that obesity and the health problems that come with it are dramatically on the rise. However, it's not the government's problem-it's our problem as individuals.
The article never mentions banning french fries. Just some oils used. Some fast food chains fry in an oil mixture that's higher in trans and saturated fats than pure vegetable oil. They do so because it produces a fry that's closer to lard fried fries and the oil, because it's more saturated, goes rancid more slowly so they only have to change out the oil every couple of weeks instead of every week.
And the banning of fois gras has nothing to do with paternalism. It's done with the intention of preventing the force feeding of the geese used to produce fois gras. This isn't to say that regulating/banning cooking oil in restaurants is a good idea, but they are not proposing a ban on french fries. (At least, based on the limited quotes given, such as "Burke said he doesn't know enough about the subject to identify the specific oils he would target" and the note that it wouldn't be about french fries in particular.)
I agree with mathyoo and I firmly disagree with any talk of legislating diet or anythign like that. It's idiotic and yes, even evil. Besides, everyone knows the only 100% healthy diet is all Soylent Green all the time.
But I do want to disagree with Ed's characterization that the obesity epidemic is trumped up as a "pretext for more government control." Maybe this is just hyperbole on Ed's part, and if so, fine, but I see no evidence that the government is somehow making up the idea that we're getting fatter (I know I am). I think they're just doing what governments often do when faced with a perceived problem: take the easy way out.
Food makers are being lazy (or cost effective) using corn syrup and sugars where they aren't needed just to prolong shelf life or make the food more appealing. Consumers are being lazy about watching what they eat and exercising. Politicians are taking the lazy way out and trying to pass legislation to ban the foods rather than try and educate people about how to live healthy.
You know, maybe if they dropped the corn subsidies, using all this corn syrup in stuff might become less common.
I remember an old album by Allan Sherman:
"My mother told me to clean my plate because there were starving children in China [or Armenia] . The children are still starving and I got fat"
It's easier to make laws than to change memes.
Byron wrote:
And people who don't want to eat french fries cooked in such fats should not eat french fries cooked in such fats. Restaurants make such choices all the time. French restaurants choose to cook with real butter rather than substances with a lower fat content. Why? Because it tastes better and their customers eat there because the food tastes good. In my own specialty, barbecue, when I cook a brisket or make pulled pork, I choose the cuts with the highest fat content. Why? Again, taste. It's none of the government's business what people choose to eat.
Again, why is this the government's business?
Rick Dakan wrote:
Do we have a lot of overweight people in the US? Yep. I'm one of them. But it's not an "epidemic" - a vastly overused word that should apply only to infectious diseases. And it clearly is providing a pretext for more government regulation of our private choices. And that was my point.
Isn't the prevention of cruelty to animals the government's business? Personally I'm not of the impression that the methods used to create fois gras is necessarily 'cruel', or at least any more cruel than the way beef, poultry, etc, are prepared, but I'm assuming that is the purported reason for the ban, and that it doesn't have anything to do with whether eating fois gras is healthy or contributes to obesity.
I'm in full agreement with your overall point that the government should be hands-off our private choices.
Dave L wrote:
I think if raising geese for fois gras is regarded as "cruelty to animals" that requires government intervention, then so is most of the ways that we raise and kill animals for food. But eating animals is a part of the natural order and animals do not have rights, as humans do - the very reason why it's illegal to hunt and kill people but not illegal to hunt and kill animals.
Ed, leaving aside the question of whether animals have rights, is it your opinion that regulations prohibiting cruelty to animals are justifiable or not? If I own an animal, does that give me the right to treat it any way I please?
I think the production of foie gras, like the production of veal, likely crosses the line into animal cruelty farther than most factory farming techniques (some of which themselves may also cross the line, not only in animal cruelty but in human working conditions and the externalities imposed on surrounding properties, e.g., from animal waste contaminating groundwater).
Ed I'm curious: what would you say animals 'have' then if not rights? Technically it *is* illegal to hunt and kill animals; the government specifies where, when, and most importantly what animal and what weapon can be used to hunt them. I don't think that I can go hunt deer with a Taser and then club them to death with a baseball bat for example, and I'm assuming it's primarily because it's a cruel and painful method. If it's illegal to hunt and kill people because they have rights, why is it illegal to not use any weapon to hunt and kill animals if they don't have 'rights'?
Ed Wrote:
"But it's not an "epidemic" - a vastly overused word that should apply only to infectious diseases. And it clearly is providing a pretext for more government regulation of our private choices. And that was my point."
I totally agree with you on both your points - "epidemic" is an abused term and the gov't is using it as a pretext.
My point was simply that I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that the government is pushing this "epidemic" meme in order to make a power grab. I'm not sure that's what you meant in your original post, but it could be taken that way. I honestly think these politicians are just reacting as they do to almost everything - lashing out blindly with ill-thought legislation because there's an opportunity to do so. And even if the word "epidemic" were excised from the discourse, I think they'd be doing the same thing if they got the sense that enough people were worried about it.
I guess, having just had an infuriating "debate" with a coworker about his 9-11 Conspiracy Theories, I'm sensitive to any claims that the powers that be are orchestrating a power grab when in fact they're probably just snatching at any power that passes within reach.
While I think that banning the use of particular fats for frying crosses the line, I'd have no objection if Chicago mandated that restaurants list their ingredients on menus or posters. The restaurant would be free to use whatever ingredients they wanted, but it would be easier for customers to make informed decisions. My wife works in cardiology, and she frequently sees patients who have no idea how much fat and salt is in apparently innocuous restaurant food.
To be honest, I really don't care what others eat. In general, one should be able to enjoy whatever they like. But there is a limit to one's freedom of choice and that is the point at which one's actions adversely affect others...namely me. People's unhealthy food choices adversely affect the cost of my health insurance just as rates of smoking or other unhealthy activities. The fact of the matter is the amount of intake and type of intake has a significant impact on one's health and thus the lifetime cost of their healthcare. Normally, that's of no consequence to me except when I'm in the same group health plan as these people.
If my insurance carrier decides to charge those above a certain BMI higher rates for health coverage, similar to tobacco use, I'm all for it since it would relieve me of having to carry some of the burden of their poor health choices. It's the same issue with smoking. If you want to pollute your lungs, damage your health and shorten your life, hey, whatever. However, when one's activities have an adverse impact on my physical or financial health I'm going to push back. If that has to be through city ordnance, than so be it.
I think the whole issue of animal cruelty is quite gray, and I don't pretend to know exactly where to draw the line. Perhaps someone else has one, but I've never heard one that was quite satisfactory. It seems obvious enough that cruelty for its own sake is vile, but then where do we draw that line? Even if we conclude that it's cruel, is it more cruel than, say, shooting one with a bow and arrow? Hunting may be seen as a reasonably efficent and painless way to control the animal population, but a large number of animals get shot but escape, only to die a painful and lingering death some time later due to the wounds. If we decide that raising veal is cruel, are we not making subjective judgements about the quality of life of animals? And if we do so, how do we distinguish between that and, say, raising chickens, where they exist for a few weeks at the most, are kept penned up in a barn with millions of other chickens and then slaughtered? If there is some coherent way to distinguish between all of these without going to one extreme (outlawing the eating of meat) or the other, I'm open to hearing it.
Rick Dakan wrote:
I don't think it operates that openly, and I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think it is simply the nature of government to expand its scope and authority, and I think all of human history bears that out. We don't have to have politicians gleefully rubbing their hands together like the Emperor in Star Wars, uttering "omnipotent power is mine" in a creepy voice in order to recognize that we have a real problem with paternalism. If someone gets hurt or dies from something - riding a motorcycle, bungee jumping, smoking, eating bad food, playing with firecrackers, etc - there is an immediate push to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. But that usually entails more and more regulation of every choice we make as people and it leads to the kind of obsessively over-regulated society we have now, where you can't even go fishing without registering with the government first (not that I have any interest in going fishing).
"Burke said he doesn't know enough about the subject to identify the specific oils he would target"...
This kinda sums up another aspect of the problem: tastes and technology changes, so the regulatory process just can't be expected to keep up and stay relevant. All We're likely to get is a lot of silly rules and no visible long-term benefit.
As for the obesity problem, I've heard some say it's more of an inactivity problem. Perhaps we need to encourage more physical activity among all ages (no, not just high-school football and "prestige" sports).
paleotn wrote:
You have just articulated the perfect excuse for virtually any law anyone would like to pass. Want to go back and try alcohol prohibition again? Your argument defends it perfectly - alcoholism has high social and medical costs and thus whatever the government wants to do is justified. Want to ban bungee jumping or sky diving or eating fatty foods? You've given us the perfect excuse. Wanna ban soda pop or cigarettes or McDonald's or riding motorcycles or jet skis or playing poker, we've got the rhetorical justification laid out above. For that matter, wanna ban homosexuality? Why, look at the cost of medical care for AIDS patients - the perfect pretext for sodomy laws. Your argument can automatically translate virtually any private action I might take into something that has an indirect effect on others and is therefore subject to regulation. The result could be, quite literally, the end of liberty.
I was going to let this pass but when I see such religiosity from a science website I have to jump in. Despite your claims the proposed laws do not restict what anyone can eat - they restrict what ingredients restaraunts in this jurisdiction will be allowed to put in their food.
Almost all cities already have laws that restrict such things for both health and safety reasons. The line as to what should be permissable and what should be left to the chef to decide is not a hard line. It is subject to what protections the people, who elect the council, wish to impose in their area as new infromation becomes available about health risks - or as they become more or less risk averse.
If the elected councilpersons don't get it right they are subject to redress from angry voters during council meetings, by way of letters to the local press and at the ballot box. There are no moral absolutes here. Health conscious voters can argue this out with laissez-faire cafe owners at council meetings and in the local diner. Our system is designed to make such choices possible. Some cities will opt for more protection, some less. They all won't always get it right - but they can go back and fix it when they figure that out. That's how the system is supposed to work.
Even scientists can have belief systems that distort their perceptions and conclusions.
paleotn,
it's good to see someone has the right priorities on when to limit anothers rights/pursuit of happiness. as for your "burden" of having to pay for "others poor health choices", maybe you should focus your legal impulses toward the health care industries (whose profits are quite healthy) rather than reactionarily trying to limit an individual's life choices. as ed pointed out above i'm sure there are more than a few things you enjoy which can and do incurr cost onto others.
i'm an ex-smoker and i still get infuriated over the audacity of the extent of the anti-smoking legislation, under the guise of protecting us from ourselves (or hypothetically) saving you a few bucks. the reactionary rationale stated in your comment has no limit.
pelican's-point writes:
Religiosity? There is nothing the least bit religious about this. And your distinction is meaningless for the argument that I'm making. What's the difference between telling a restaurant that they can't cook with trans fats - which their customers want because it makes the fries taste better - and banning the production of Oreos or potato chips or anything else that the government deems is bad for us? And if they can do that, why can't they require that no stores can sell items that are high in fat or sugar content? Ribs are high in fat. Brisket is high in fat. But I choose to eat those things because I enjoy them, and it's none of the government's business - or yours, for that matter. People choose to eat McDonald's french fries, which are cooked in bad fats, because they taste better. Every time they've tried to change over to a healthier frying substance, the customers have complained and sales have gone down. That's their choice.
Nonsense. I don't care whether "the people", through whatever democratic process they use, decide that I can't eat foods that are bad for me, or can't serve foods that are bad for me to others. They have no legitimate authority to do so. They don't have the authority to tell me what I can and can't eat. Passing laws democratically that take away our freedom is no different than a king's decree. Democracy matters not a whit; freedom matters greatly.
Re religiosity: I was commenting on your fervor, not the Godly content ;)
Society constantly draws these lines. There are millions of ordinances in cities all over that limit your freedom every day. In some communities you can't put junk cars on your lawn, you can't water your lawn or run your lawnmower on certain days. You can't drive over a certain speed past a school, etc. etc. There are tons of zoning laws saying what you can build and where. Each one of these ordinaces limits someone's freedom and liberty.
They are all the result of health and safety conscious voters drawing lines by way of their local government. They don't always get it right. And egregious overstepping of local laws can be redressed in the courts.
I'm not defending their (possible) choice to draw this ordinace. I'm just saying that drawing these lines - in thousands of communities throughout the US by way of city councils - is democracy at work. It's not always perfect but it's the best system I've seen so far. Say that protecing themselves aginst trans-fats is foolish and unnecessary if you will. I'll listen to your reasons.
But, but don't say that this isn't democracy. That's exactly what it is.
pelican's point writes:
Which makes the claim no more reasonable. It's simply ridiculous to label every strongly held opinion "religious". Religions are specific types of ideas and it has nothing to do with how strongly someone feels.
And we can debate over each and every one of those as to whether they are a legitimate and justified intrusion on our liberty. Some will be and some won't be. But merely saying that all laws restrict our liberty does nothing at all to justify any particular restriction of liberty. As a general rule, I'm for a rather dramatic scaling back of many of these laws, and I'm certainly not for going further and passing more laws that tell us even what we can and can't eat.
Most of the laws you mentioned have nothing to do with health and safety. And I would argue that health and safety laws should only protect the individual from someone else, not from their own choices. A law that violates our liberty is wrong - each time, every time, no matter how it was passed. I don't care the slighest bit about democracy; I care about liberty.
That crazy French philosopher Michel Foucault called it "bio-power".
Ed said,
Then you don't like seat belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws. The problem is, people who don't wear seatbelts or helmets cost me tax dollars. So do the millions of overweight and obese poeple in this country. Is the imposition on me enough to justify ordinances and laws to protect me? Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe that will change as technology advances - I'm not taking a stand on that.
I am saying that we have a system that gives voters the right to consider these (and many other things that could impact their taxes, health or safety) when they elect their city councils - or state governments or whatever.
Perhaps, in some little town someplace, the cafe is not going to be able to serve you trans fats in their blue-plate special. You see that as an imposition. I support your right drive on to the next town to get your dinner - and complain like hell if you want.
But, that's democracy at work and I do care about that. Because so far, that's the only system, ugly as it is at times, that consistently provides the most people with the most liberty - more than any other system that anyone's ever come up with.
Just the fact that millions of people have to live together and share resources and space and air and water - means that we all can't have all the liberty we'd like to have. You can think of it as the price we pay for the huge amount of liberty we do have.
But I really do support your yellin' about it when your favorite liberty (to order trans fat from the menu in this case) might get stepped on. Yell about the stupidity of the ordinance. It's a good thing you can yell - but it's also good that some stupid city council someplace has the right to pass that stupid ordinance if their stupid citizens decide that's what they want.
It's all part of the package deal that allows these necessary impositions on liberty to be drawn as fairly as possible - and adjusted when necessary - like on the next election day. Or in court if the ordinance really violates a basic liberty. That's how the system works.
pelican's point writes:
No, I don't like such laws and think they should be gotten rid of. I find it fascinating, though, that you are essentially taking the position that whether a law violates liberty or not doesn't matter as long as the law is passed democratically. It's not difficult to demonstrate how absurd this position is, and I'll do so below. But as I stated above, this argument that government intrusion is justified because fat people, or smokers, or motorcycle riders, have an indirect effect on you through increased social costs is the perfect justification for any intrusion into our private lives. It defends motorcycle laws, but it just as easily defends mandatory urine tests for fat content, a ban on cigarette smoking, a return to alcohol prohibition, and a million other oppressive laws. Once that argument is made, all limits are gone - there is virtually nothing the government could not justify with that as a pretext.
Let's put a little twist on your example:
"Perhaps, in some little town somewhere, the cafe is not going to be allowed to serve food to gay people because it's against the law in that town. You see that as an imposition. I support your right drive on to the next town to get your dinner - and complain like hell if you want."
Now, why do we - and I would hope you as well - automatically reject this idea? After all, it's "democracy at work", to use your phrase. But we reject that out of hand. Why? Because such a law would be oppressive, it would violate individual rights. I don't believe for a moment that you really think that as long as the law is passed democratically, then it's okay. I think you just use that as an excuse when you support the law. When you see the law as oppressive, you don't care whether it was passed democratically or not either - nor should you. Democracy, when it violates liberty, is no more legitimate than monarchy. Thomas Jefferson taught us this long ago when he said:
This is a straw man. No one is arguing for the liberty to do absolutely anything we want to. I'm only arguing for rightful liberty.
Laws established to"protect people from themselves" are bad enough in any case, but when it comes to products that affect people in clearly different ways, they are ludicrous. Just because I can't have a sip of liquor without downing the whole fifth and getting in bar fights doesn't mean you should lose your right to enjoy an after-dinner martini; just because I have 10% body fat and a cholesterol of 160 despite eating fast food every day doesn't mean that your pudgy self can maintain the same profile on the same diet.
The "obesity epidemic" per se is not hysteria. Americans are in facts expanding at an impressive rate across all strata of the populace, with attendant morbidity rising. But not only are laws aimed at curbing this trend inappropriate in citizen terms, they would never, ever work anyway. Christ, you think I can't whip up a fatty meal if I want one? Might as well try banning mouths.
Addendum -- despite my own use of the term "obesity epidemic" (the media's pet term,not the government's), I've always frowned at its use. I'm confident weight gain is not pathogen-borne and that you can't catch it just by hanging around fat people. Stupidity, however, I'm not so sure of.
You make good points and you argue them well.
However, ordinances that regulate what ingredients a restaraunt may serve, based on health risks to the public, are not discriminatory - except by way of the behavior that is deemed unhealthy. Banning the use of trans-fats is similar to requiring restaraunt employess to wash their hands after using the restroom - as a means to eliminate feces in the food they serve. You can argue that the danger of trans-fats is overblown if you wish - that's good - that's part of the process. But then, the council gets to vote on it - that's good too.
Comparing food service regulations to a refusal to serve gays is what I would call a strawman. I think you could see this difference if you weren't so religious about this. ;-)
I appreciate your position on most things I read here. Although I'm probably more liberal than you in some areas, in this case I see mine as the more conservative position. I'm saying that thousands of cities spread out all over the country balancing these non-basic rights between its citizens when they come into conflict is much better than a federal government imposing a blanket solution on everyone - whether that solution is a blanket prohibition of trans-fats in restaraunt fare - or a blanket prohibition of anti trans-fat ordinances.
Rightful liberty. See, that's the problem. When we're talking about things like food regulations different folks are bound to have different ideas of what rightful liberty means. Some will say the restaraunt's right to serve anything that isn't non-toxic is paramount. Others will say that some foods (that they deem dangerous) should not be served within the city limits (of their uptight town).
So who gets to have their way? We have a system that resolves that question pretty well, I think. There are many areas where the system doesn't work - like our draconian drug laws, for example - where real liberties are violated and real lives are destroyed. I'd be happy to let town councils deal with the trans-fats anyway they want if we could get some sense into that part of our criminal justice system (and get the religion out of it).
If you still disagree show me an absolute basis for saying that regulations against serving certain ingredients deemed unhealthy by the citizens of a town is different from requiring employees to wash their hands. Thanks for the great discussion - and for the great blog.
pelican's point wrote:
You've managed to simultaneously miss the point of my analogy and replace it with one that is entirely off point. I didn't say that my example was wrong because it is discriminatory, I said it's wrong because it's oppressive. It violates rights - both the right of the gay person to eat a meal in the hypothetical town, and the right of the restaurant owner to serve them a meal. And your analogy is absurd for the obvious reason that fatty foods are not disease-bearing, they're simply bad for you. People choose to eat fatty foods all the time, just as they do all sorts of things that are bad for them. Again, there is absolutely no distinction between the law you're defending - a law banning the use of trans fats in restaurants - and a law that bans the sale of any food the government deems to be bad for us. Using the very same reasoning, we could go right back to prohibition. Using the very same reasoning, we could ban hang gliding, soda pop, barbecued ribs and anything else the government decided should be banned. It literally removes all limits on laws that control what we eat.
And I think it's crystal clear in this conversation that the one blinded to the implications of his own bad arguments is you.
And what on earth is the relevance of applying such labels to the arguments? It is as pointless as it could possibly be. It has absolutely nothing to do with which position is true.
What right is more "basic" than the right to decide what food I wish to eat? And what on earth is the conflict "between its citizens"? What I eat has nothing to do with any other citizen; it is literally none of their business whatsoever. They have no more right to pass a law preventing me from frying my french fries in trans fats than I have to pass a law preventing them from eating kosher food - or requiring them to eat it. It is precisely the same thing. And the distinction between what we can eat and what we can sell is entirely artificial - there is no distinction between banning people from riding motorcycles and banning companies from producing them, or the parts for them.
Utter nonsense. The laws we're discussing are wrong for the precise reason that the drug laws are wrong. They are the extension of the logic of drug laws into dietary laws.
I already did. Not washing one's hands causes disease and the customer can't know whether one is washing their hands or not. Thus, it is entirely appropriate for the health department to punish them if they catch an employee not washing their hands as a deterrent to this unhealthy practice. Foods that are just bad for us, however, we choose to eat every day. We have the right to choose that, and we have the right to pay others to prepare it for us. That's all a restaurant is. Everyone knows that McDonald's food is bad for them, yet they eat there anyway. By your reasoning, the government could shut down all the McDonald's restaurants just as they could shut down a restaurant that is not following health regulations - and that's an absolutely ridiculous analogy. You make these terrible analogies to prop up an obviously weak argument, then accuse me of being blinded by religious fervor. And that's even more ridiculous.
I thought legal positivism was on its last legs, but between the Bush administration and Pelican I'm not so sure. I am as big a fan of democracy as anyone, but that does not mean that all laws are created equal. Ed is trying to make a distinction between regulations which have a "hard" moral or scientific rationale and those which do not. This distinction is highly traditional (hence conservative) and also serves to lift the debate above the level at which various interest groups would have it. This is a positive good.
As Pelican points out, states have a responsibility for the health and welfare of their populace. Granted. This takes many forms, all of which are in some sense an infringement of our liberty. Granted. The question Ed raises is where do we draw the line between protection and paternalism (about age 25 as far as my favorite niece is concerned). Certain restrictions are so obvious as not to require explanation, such as zoning that prohibits large open fires in dense urban areas. Others are more problematic, such as laws requiring motorcycle helmets.
To a certain extent, today's nanny state is technology driven. There was no movement to restrict cooking fats in 1925 because lard, butter, and palm oil were the only economical choices. We now know a lot more about nutrition, and as several commenters have noted, we are one of the few societies in history to be overfed rather than hungry. So be it. Does this give the state the right to micromanage living?
On a strictly utilitarian level, perhaps it does. Bentham's rule of "The best for the greatest number" certainly encourages us to look at the macro costs of any given choice. However, one of the "goods" to be considered is human pleasure -- and how do you quantify that? Further, if one accepts a concept of social contract, an essential part of that contract is to accept others, even in their flawed state, because the resulting social harmony is worth far more than the marginal costs associated with cooking in lard. Where the societal costs are sufficiently great (illicit drugs or overconsumption of alcohol) the state may step in and intervene; even in these cases it is unclear if the the intervention is having any more than a moral force. But to equate defining what fats can be used in frying with basic sanitation regulation is to miss the entire discussion.
kehrsam, you said,
Sanitation is part of health. So is serving nutritious food that won't give your kids diabetes or high cholesterol if served in large quantities over long periods.
Besides, we already define what fats can be used in cooking. Meat processors can lose their license and are subject to heavy fines if they process beef from a feed lot that fed their cows other animal fat byproducts - in order to eliminate the danger from mad cow disease.
I'm not sure anyone could scientifically quantify the difference in health risks to kifds from tras-fat vs. mad cow. But it's good that we have a system that allows cities to consider all these things if they find them important. It's not up to you or me to tell them they can not protect their childrens' health in this way.
Any ordinance will have to go through several public hearings and will be subject to lawsuits if it infringes on civil rights, etc. There's lots of built in safeguards. They may just decide that restaraunts have to post signs or something.
You say,
I agree. But what seems like a clear line to you might seem pretty fuzzy to others - at least to the city council folks in Chicago. Neither you nor Ed have shown a clear reason for drawing that line in one place rather than another. Try again if you like. State a clear constitutional principle why cities can require that employees wash their hands but can't prohibit certain unhealthy foods being fed to their kids.
I am saying that because that line can not be determined by any absolute principle, the question is not where to draw the line - but how to draw it fairly so that the greatest number of citizens in the affected city will have input. That's why I'm defending the process of drawing that line - the process that all city councils go through when drawing an ordinance that gives voice and due process to everyone concerned. I'm not defending any (potential) ordinance.
pelican's point:
And the difference, as has been explained multiple times, is that people don't choose to eat food that is contaminated; they do choose to eat food that is bad for them because it tastes good. And they have a right to do that. They have no way of knowing that food might be contaminated, but they wouldn't choose to eat it if they knew. But they know that eating french fries is bad for them, but they do it anyway. They know that eating BBQ ribs is bad for them; they do it anyway. They know that eating bratwurst is bad for them; they do it anyway. And they have every right to do that because it's their life, not yours.
They can protect their children by not allowing them to eat food that is bad for them. But they cannot justly protect their children by making sure that no one else can eat anything bad for them. And this has nothing to do with the level of government. It's wrong regardless of what level of government is doing it.
It's already been stated, many times. You can choose to ignore it, but reality isn't going to change just because you want it to. The distinction has been explained, with no answer whatsoever from you. And again, people can keep certain foods from being fed to their kids; they cannot prevent certain foods from being fed to other consenting adults.
Ed, how would you feel about laws that mandate restaurants to indicate on their menus when trans-fats (say) are being used in the production of food at the restaurant? Would this be a reasonable compromise?
Two points in resonse to Pelican. First, while his unbounded devotion to democracy is admirable, presumably even he would concede that there are limits to the power of a democracy and that a tyrrany of the majority is to be avoided, especially in an area as large as Chicago, where any individual is severely limited in his political participation. An anti-trans fat regulation would be enacted by what percent of the population? Almost certainly less than 1%, and many of those will be interested groups and not parents with children, who presumably we are trying to protect.
Second, Pelican asks for a Constitutional basis for my objection; this is backwards, it is the state which requires a Constitutional basis to act in the first place! Yes, states traditionally have the right to enact legislation to maintain the health and welfare (some add morals) of the populace: The issue is how far to push this power. The traditional test is the proposed legislation must have a rational relationship to the end being sought. In other words, it cannot be arbitrary.
What Ed and I have been arguing is that dispensing with trans fat is more on the arbitrary side of things, in that it will hurt sales of McDonalds fries while having little or no effect on (say) Krispy Kreme, whose product may be just as dangerous on a macro scale.
Finally, government is willing to allow consumers to have tobacco and alcohol products (and profit handsomely thereby) but prohibit bad cholesterol?
So to answer Pelican, yes, local government can do this sort of thing, as there exists at least a tangential reational relationship. That does not mean it is a good idea, and one which is well on the way to tyrrany, not democracy.
The last sentence should have read,
"That does not mean it is a good idea, and one which is well on the way to regulatory tyrrany, not democracy."
Sorry for the word dropping out. I do not mean to imply that democracy = tyrrany unless it is overapplied.
Ed said,
Ed, I have always admire your ability to frame an argurment and support a position, however I think I have to disagree with one little point being perpetuated in your responses to Pelican. Now, let me point out that I agree with you on the liberty issue and the illegitimacy of governments to limit personal choices.
However, in your responses to Pelican you've often repeated the claim that governments have the right to restrict known toxins/disease causing materials from food stuffs, but not to restrict the foodstuffs themselves based on health cost. You do this based on knowledge of the food content and freedom of choice. I would say that in order to be consistent in this idea of 'liberty,' you should actually be against all government restrictions, but for government enforced labeling to allow for consumer choice.
Let me give an example to try and clarify a bit. You have said that its alright for the government to mandate hand washing after using the restroom. I think to be consistent in applying the 'liberty' notion, however, that one would have to support a government program that required restaurants to post whether their employees washed their hands, not a government program that mandates employees washing hands. In this fashion, I as a consumer can choose whether I think the hand washing is an important enough issue to cease eating there or not. Maybe I prefer food that has a little hand filth on it, makes it taste better. Many a griller doesn't really wash their grill for the same reason (though I have my doubts, scientifically).
The argument that the consumer doesn't know about what is in their food is not convincing enough to limit liberties. Instead governments should err on the side of liberty by forcing information about whats in the food and preserve the liberty of the individual to choose whether they want it or not. Probably the same could be said for the current topic on trans-fats and the like. Let people know its there and leave the decisions up to the individual, preserving liberty.
Ralph wrote:
I have no problem with that at all. That allows informed choice rather than denial of choice.
Scott Reese wrote:
I think you've given a hypothetical that is, frankly, rather silly. No one prefers food with urine in it, for crying out loud. I think you have the right to serve food to people that they like; I don't think you have the right to serve food to people that carries easily avoidable disease.
Ed's money phrase:
The proposed ordinance does not prevent food from being fed to consenting adults. In the interest of reducing the amount of unhealthy foods that get fed to kids it limits the availability of that food by restricting the places where it can be sold. Adults (and kids for that matter) can still go to the grocery store, buy a 5 lb. package of lard, and cook up their own batch of freedom fries.
In the PNW most states require that alcohol only be sold in state operated liquor stores for similar reasons.
There are many ways the ordinance could be drawn to improve the targetting. It could only apply to food being sold over the counter and not served by waiters, for example. I asked why cities can require that restaraunt employees wash their hands but can't prohibit certain unhealthy foods being sold to their kids. (I should have said, limit the availability as the proposed ordinance limits availability, it does not prohibit).
You said
I see no constitutional basis for that. But if I'm wrong, if there is one, then the law will surely be challenged and will make its way to the SC - where a majority now exists who certainly hold a religious belief in the preeminance of the rights of McDonald's investors over those of low-income parents to protect their childrens' health.
And it is the ability of that process to work these things out that I am defending, not that either side is right or wrong, ethically or legally.
pelican's point wrote:
But there is no difference between these two things, as I've already established and you've ignored. First of all, the alderman who wants these laws said nothing about protecting kids, he said he wanted them not served to anyone. Second of all, there is no distinction between banning what can be sold and banning what can be eaten. If your justification for the law is valid, why wouldn't it equally defend banning the sale of lard in grocery stores? Or banning the ingestion of lard by anyone? Indeed, if your justification is valid, those laws must be okay.
You're asking the wrong question - which someone else already told you and you, predictably, ignored it. The question is not whether there is a constitutional right to eat the foods we choose, it's whether there is constitutional authority to tell us what we can and cannot eat. From where would you derive that authority without essentially removing all limits from governmental power? It is absolutely self-evident that the right to eat what we choose is implicit in the concept of rightful liberty. If it's not, then nothing is.
And the arguments I'm making are also a part of that process, arguing that there is no legitimate authority for the imposition of such laws. Those are the types of arguments made in cases like this. So you're left in the bizarre position of arguing that the process works, but that I shouldn't take sides in that process by making the arguments I'm making. If you're not arguing that I'm wrong and you're only regaling "the process", then you're quite literally engaging in little more than mental masturbation here.
What is irritating to me in any debate where you have folks wanting the government to step in and ban this or that (and especially when they actually DO it) is that you can usually find - fairly quickly - another part of the government that is actually promoting same activity through subsidies, grants, tax breaks, etc.
Andrea-
Absolutely, and tobacco is the perfect example. We subsidize the growing of tobacco, then we sue the tobacco companies for making use of the product whose growth we subsidize, and then we tax the product to make back the money that we give in subsidies. And then we tell everyone not to smoke.
Ed -
Yes, tobacco applies, but keeping it on topic here - food. GM foods, pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, hormones/steroids, high fructose corn syrup (I hate this one in particular because it is so pervasive - it's probably in those french fries), processed stuff in general ... how much of this is the government helping companies to sell while at the same time spending billions to tell Americans that we need to watch our diets?
Personal responsibility is all well and good, but not in the absence of honest and transparent information about your choices. Take 7-Up, for example. They're touting their return to nature all over the TV lately - they've gone back to only 5 all natural ingredients (I have no idea how many ingredients they had before). Guess what one of those is? High fructose corn syrup. Sure, it's natural - along the same lines as the "so is arsenic" argument - but it's NOT what people are thinking of when they make the mental connections during the commercial. People think "sugar, lemon, lime, hmm, carbonated water ... hmm, I wonder what else, probably citric acid or something." It's deceptive ... but it helps them maintain their price point.
Anyway, the debate over how food is prepared and presented is, I think, valid. If a vegan goes to McDonald's and orders fries, they deserve to know if the potatoes were cooked in oil with beef tallow. If you order Chicken Selects with "100% breast meat," you don't expect it to actually be "boneless chicken breast, water, modified cornstarch, salt, chicken flavor (yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavoring (animal source), safflower oil, dextrose, citric acid, rosemary), sodium phosphates, seasoning (natural extractives of rosemary, canola and/or soybean oil, mono-and diglycerides, and lecithin)." It's not CHICKEN anymore, it's part chicken, part chemical.
I think those issues are what rests at the core of most of these debates. It's not that people don't believe in personal responsibility, it's that people don't believe in corporations or the government to be honest, so they try to force the issue by taking an extreme path.
And of course, being Chicago, it would only be a matter of minutes before there was a fat-easy on every corner.