Must Big Brother dictate our diets?
As you may have heard, the city of New York will be introducing a ban on the use of trans-fats at all restaurants.
Perhaps the market can dictate if this makes sense: restaurants could encourage consumers to frequent their establishment by letting customers know they do not use trans fats, does Big Brother need to force all restaurants to do so?
What about the mom and pop shops that make smaller margins? Using trans-fat free oils may increase their costs and put them at a greater disadvantage to larger establishments. Besides the economic argument, there is also the argument that it is not the job of the government to dictate what ingredients restauranteurs can and cannot use, assuming these ingredients do not directly harm patrons. We as consumers have a responsibility for our own health; we do, of course, expect that restaurants are not poisoning us. We do also have a choice -- we can choose to visit the restaurants that are health conscious versus the grease barrel down the road.
Americans cannot depend on the government to be told how to be healthy; it should be an individual lifestyle choice and individuals should have to take responsibility of their individual choices. Admittedly, if I have a choice, I'd rather eat at a restaurant serving food without transfats, but I like having the choice. I don't see why the government needs to decide for us.
While this may provide some health benefits to many New Yorkers who are oblivious of what they are eating, this also begs the question, "Do we really need the government telling us what we can and can't eat?"NEW YORK (AP) -- New York on Tuesday became the first city in the nation to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants, leading the charge to limit consumption of an ingredient linked to heart disease and used in everything from french fries to pizza dough to pancake mix.
In a city where eating out is a major form of activity -- either for fun or out of hectic necessity -- many New Yorkers were all for the ban, saying that health concerns were more important than fears of Big Brother supervising their stomachs.
"I don't care about what might be politically correct and what's not," said Murray Bader, nursing a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts on Tuesday morning. "I want to live longer!"
Perhaps the market can dictate if this makes sense: restaurants could encourage consumers to frequent their establishment by letting customers know they do not use trans fats, does Big Brother need to force all restaurants to do so?
What about the mom and pop shops that make smaller margins? Using trans-fat free oils may increase their costs and put them at a greater disadvantage to larger establishments. Besides the economic argument, there is also the argument that it is not the job of the government to dictate what ingredients restauranteurs can and cannot use, assuming these ingredients do not directly harm patrons. We as consumers have a responsibility for our own health; we do, of course, expect that restaurants are not poisoning us. We do also have a choice -- we can choose to visit the restaurants that are health conscious versus the grease barrel down the road.Americans cannot depend on the government to be told how to be healthy; it should be an individual lifestyle choice and individuals should have to take responsibility of their individual choices. Admittedly, if I have a choice, I'd rather eat at a restaurant serving food without transfats, but I like having the choice. I don't see why the government needs to decide for us.
posted by Josh at 1:43 PM
2 Comments:
"Besides the economic argument, there is also the argument that it is not the job of the government to dictate what ingredients restauranteurs can and cannot use, assuming these ingredients do not directly harm patrons."
To me the economic argument makes a some sense although I'd like to see it backed up with comparative cost figures of how much trans fats versus non-trans fats cost.
The other half is spurious. Trans fats are harmful to patrons, that's why the move was made to ban them.
Your choice is not limited at all. You can still eat all the natural saturated fat you like - dig into that juicy ribeye by all means. But if you want to consume oil that has been artificially hydrogenated for the purpose of increasing its shelf life, you'll have to look outside of New York. Is that a choice really worth fighting for though? And does this really signal the thin end of the big government wedge? I think not.
To your question: "Does we really need the government telling us what we can and can't eat?" I reply: "Sometimes we does." - Grammar Nazi Achtung!
i wonder how much taste is different with hydrogenated oils.
a different look at it, if the food industry uses a chemical that has recently been noted that causes severe health risk and the government is now voting on banning this substance...
would you fight for your right to consume it if it made the food just cheaper or tastier?
a part of me says that we're not ready to let go of hydrogenated oils because it's a little more friendly than some foreign sounding chemical..
but a part of me knows that i have no idea what hydrogenated oils are other than the fact that it's unhealthy.
is there any reason you would want these oils over other alternatives? i can see why people who make food would want them, but not on a consumer basis..
Post a Comment
<< Home