Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Ban on trans fats worth supporting

5/14/07
In an unexpected amendment to an unrelated bill, the state Senate last week approved a ban on restaurants serving food prepared with frying oils containing artificial trans fats. The contentious legislation now moves on to the House, where it will likely get a stormy reception.
Legislators clearly mean well; trans fats, listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, are believed to be harmful because they wreak havoc with cholesterol levels, leading to heart disease. But the question on the table is whether legislation is the proper avenue to pursue these supposed health benefits.
Libertarians decry the rise of the so-called "nanny state," typified by laws requiring helmets on motorcycles and seat belts in cars. They ask, reasonably, why is one person’s safety choice the business of the state? The ban on driving with hand-held cell phones is often lumped in with those laws, but doesn’t really belong there — if an activity presents a driving hazard, it’s much more than the violator who is put at risk.
But the fight against trans fats falls squarely into this realm. It’s one thing to go after vending machines in schools; children who are bombarded with ads for junk food all day should at least be sheltered at school. (Easy access to soda and Twinkies defeats the purpose of gym class.)
But shouldn’t adults be free to eat what they want? Should a restaurant be cited for using the wrong cooking oil? Won’t restaurants that advertise an alternative attract people who care about such things?
In other words, can’t the market handle this one?
It can, but it might take a few thousand more deaths for that to happen. Relying on the market to solve safety issues is effective over the long term, but in the short run, it’s better to take action when the opportunity is available. Heart disease is the No. 1 killer in America, and with the medical community strongly behind the move to get rid of trans fats, the Legislature must take action.
A car company that manufactures defective wheels would eventually get caught by the free market; enough people would see that the brand was unsafe, and would switch to a better one — thereby causing the first brand to upgrade as well to catch up. But wouldn’t it be better for the government to mandate better wheels to begin with? The same result is achieved, but no one has to die to get there.
It’s the same scenario here. Get rid of the trans fats, encourage healthy eating and common sense, and remove unnecessary risks. We can’t legislate our way out of heart disease, but we can take steps.

No comments: