Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

it will be done for us.

[Robin Garr]

Here's the New York Times story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/healt ... 31107&_r=0

My response to it:

Whoa! This is big, and frankly, given that trans fats are right up there with cigarettes in terms of their direct and immediate danger to human health being beyond proven, I think this proposed federal ban is a good and gutsy move.


In today’s political environment, though, there’s bound to be pushback, both from big industry with its deep pockets, and from the large number of everyday Americans who’ve drunk enough right-wing Kool-Aid to be prepared to believe the worst of government, even in the face of a public-health proposal well rooted in scientific evidence to the contrary.

Start the popcorn popping, folks, in a pot full of sweet, safe Omega-3 fatty olive oil. This could get interesting.

So... at what point does personal responsibility come into play? If we are incapable of making these choices for ourselves then let's take it to the extreme...

Reinstate Prohibition. Alcohol related deaths are crazy high.

Maybe they should make it so cars don't go faster than 30 miles an hour. That would save lives too right?

Ban tanning beds. Tobacco. Religion. Pit bulls. European soccer events. Asteroids.

I mean, really?

Well I certainly understand the line of thinking I think it's absurd for the federal government to propose it outright ban. As Robin mentioned it's along the lines of tobacco which has been proven to be detrimental to your health so while they're at it why don't make-believe ban it? People have to take responsibility, government can't and shouldn't dictate our lives.

Banning things works. Look at Schedule 1 drugs! Those don't exist anymore.
It's true.
They're gone.
Thank goodness.

Just think what a lucrative black market this will create!

Actually, government regulation works really well in many, many cases:

smoking ban
safety regs on automobiles
regulations on hazardous waste
zoning
food and restaurant regs

the list can go on. The argument needs to be made in this specific case, I think.

"People have to take responsibility, government can't and shouldn't dictate our lives."

Five years from now we'll look back on it as a good step, the same way nobody looks back to leaded gasoline as an era of freedom, just an era when the use of polluting gasolines was shifting costs from the oil companies onto the environment. Right now people getting sick off of trans-fats are shifting their massive costs onto society (dictating, if you will) in terms of raising people's rates or expecting Medicare or the ER to pay for it, and that needs to end.

I should clarify, the people shifting costs onto the rest of us are the manufacturers of trans-fats foods, not the consumers of said foods. Personal responsibility isn't the issue; corporate responsibility is.

[Robin Garr]

Just a few posts above ...

... there’s bound to be pushback, both from big industry with its deep pockets, and from the large number of everyday Americans who’ve drunk enough right-wing Kool-Aid to be prepared to believe the worst of government, even in the face of a public-health proposal well rooted in scientific evidence to the contrary.

I don't have any problem banning a bad ingredient. Complete Prohibition of anything rarely works, and I don't want the government to ban doughnuts, so if there'a something in there like Trans-fat that can be replaced with a marginally healthy alternative, let's do it.

Well, the idiocy of this is pretty obvious, but...

...there’s bound to be support, both from the liberal media with its deep pockets, and from the large number of everyday Americans who’ve drunk enough left-wing Kool-Aid to be prepared to believe the best of government, even in the face of a well-documented history of failed bans and other government programs.

There was a King of the Hill episode about this. Arlen banned trans-fats, and the food immediately started to be terrible and bland, so Mr. Strickland opened up an illegal food truck serving the delicious trans-fatty stuff, bribing the cops with "salad" to turn the other cheek while they made a fortune selling real fried stuff.

I'd be lying if the idea wasn't really tempting, but I guess a federal-level ban would require going to Mexico to get old-fashioned Crisco and ain't nobody got time for that.

It is worth noting that this proposed federal ban comes after a sharp drop in trans-fat usage brought about by awareness campaigns, PR needs of the food industry, etc. So, now that it is well on the down-side, the ban will kick in to complete the job.

"the idiocy of this is pretty obvious... a well-documented history of failed bans"

I would really like to hear an explanation for why I should believe trans-fats are more like like heroin and cocaine than they are like leaded gasoline, asbestos, DDT, CFC's in aerosol cans, kepone, thalidomide, or seatbelt-less cars.

Otherwise (and at the risk of being labeled an idiot), I think a trans-fat doughnut is almost 100% replaceable with a non-trans-fat doughnut, and there won't be a black market in trans-fats any more than there's a black market for lead paint. King of the Hill was a funny show, but in real life I think it's abundantly clear that people do not prefer the taste of trans-fats like Crisco and margarine to butter and lard.

Also, here's some empirical data from New York's successful ban on trans-fats:

"An analysis of 6,969 receipts collected from chains like McDonald's, Burger King, Subway, KFC, and Pizza Hut in 2007 found that the average fast-food meal contained 2.9 grams of trans fat. A sample of 7,885 receipts from 2009 found that after the ban was put in place that number dropped to 0.5 grams, an amount deemed negligible by the FDA."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... ssful.html

Iggy, I think you need to note the emoticon at the end of Jeff's note--I think he was tweaking Robin.