home | about |

in case you’ve been in hydrogenation-induced coma over the last few weeks, nyc passed a measure on tuesday that prohibits restaurants from using trans fat. this is disturbingly hilarious on several fronts.

1. the LBJ-style uber-maternalization of government. of course trans fats are bad for you, but so are skittles, butter, and cake. historically, government was around for building roads and establishing security. now, it’s here for welfare, education, healthcare, building self-esteem, and establishing insecurity. i once read a delightfully non-pc book by a blissfully out-of-touch southern preacher detailing how the rise of feminism was the cause of all sorts of social evils, including this shift in politics from the safekeeping of the state to that of the individual. if you’re interested, ask me for the title; in public, i’d never admit to believing a word of it.
2. super-confused social liberals’ and conservatives’ heads are exploding. clove-smoking, tree-hugging vegetarians want freedom to choose their own food… they’ve been shouting ‘1984′ the whole week. on the other hand, though, they want to help obese people live more wisely, establish the “positive freedom” of good health, and end socioeconomic exploitation by mcfood. meanwhile, bowtie-wearing, hair-parting stiffs love enacting laws to enforce their conception of what’s right, but they don’t want to let down a great corporate lobby or give up that delicious mcchicken sandwich. here’s an all-too-graphic visual aid to help you remember this point:
3. the government is, almost literally, spoon-feeding us. reality has become a parody of itself. i’ll leave you the pleasure of coming up with other examples.

the one good reason for outlawing trans fat is that state-funded healthcare costs associated with it are exhorbitant (more on healthcare costs in a future post). but other arguments are weak. for example, some people claim that the public didn’t elect to have trans fats in their foods, so they shouldn’t have a say in phasing them out. um, i’m no economist, but i’d say the public demand for crisco since 1911 is a pretty good indicator of its popularity. if consumers are the end-users, they can decide, just as they do with cigarettes. in fact, public information campaigns and heavy taxes on fast food might be a better alternative. as another example, some say there’s a precendent for this measure in laws against drugs and alcohol. but this is a slippery slope argument; it could take us all the way to outlawing too little sleep because it makes you fat.

a lot of the arguments against the law are obvious, but a few warrant mention. first, it’s legally dubious that a city could outlaw something the fda has approved. second, to get the same taste in food, restaurants might use excessively high amounts of saturated fat, which aren’t much healthier (in fact, they’re one of the reasons for the success of the hydrogenated stuff to begin with). third, it could hurt, or even phase out, smaller restaurants more than the chains that are really to blame. fourth, it doesn’t outlaw all the trans fat sitting on grocery shelves: it’s still accessible.

eh, at least we don’t have to worry about the denizens of houston, winner of america’s fattest city four of the last five years. they’d never let legislation like this slip by. i mean, even new jerseyites, not exactly known for their fitness, didn’t let it slide: “elected officials in Chicago and New Jersey met with resistance — and even ridicule — when they proposed similar measures. Democratic state Sen. Ellen Karcher, who proposed the New Jersey measure in October, received such a wave of angry calls and letters that she temporarily closed her office.” (la times)