They care so much about me

All hail the nanny state, children.

There are so many posts relating to Montgomery county in this blog. Perhaps it is time to add a category to the Categories list for all posts that reference it?

The article says that things are exempt if they have .5 grams of transfat or less per serving. Serving size is not yet legislated, is it? Did they think to include the definition of a serving into the legislation? Or could they not possibly imagine that anyone would takes steps to avoid the intended effects of this most public spirted measure. If a meal has 50 grams of transfat, call that meal 100 servings. Boom, instance compliance.

bret, are you pullings my chain? Is that really your definition of freedom? Perhaps we should help you increase your travel freedom by outlawing driving for everyone else at the times that you prefer to be on the road. Perhaps we should enhance your housing freedom, by refraining from bidding against you for properties.

This will not increase the number of places that you will eat at. The world is not static. People will respond to this dictum. New restaurants, ones that may have offered trans and non trans fat meals, restaurants that may have been some of the greatest dining experiences ever, may choose not to open in Montgomery County. Some restaurants will close, some will move across county lines when their leases expire, some restaurants will raise their prices to such an extent that they are no longer attractive to you. Some restaurants will change their recipes so that they are no longer appetizing. You may find that your actual set of restarant choices has diminished, because restaurants are too far away, charge too much, offer less menu selection, offer poorer service as competition has diminished and so on and so on.

I hope you are just kidding with that post. Otherwise, I fear for the quality of my life any time you excercise your "freedoms".

scott clark, I certainly put the quality of my life ahead of yours. No, I'm not yanking your chain. I'm not interested in being poisoned (unknowingly) so your quality of life can be higher, thank you very much.

Oh, I absolutely agree that my freedom comes at the expense of someone else's freedom.

However, that's not a sufficient argument against it. My freedom to walk about without being murdered certainly restricts the freedom of would be murderers. My right to person and property certainly impinges on the freedoms of would be muggers, assaulters, burglars, and robbers.

Obviously the harm from second hand smoke is a bit grayer an area than the harm from outright murder. And trans fats even less clear, no doubt. But to me they are sufficiently similar that I'm quite willing to be on the side of the majority and impose a bit of tyranny on y'all that seem to need the freedom to have tobacco smoke and trans fats in your restaurants. Note that if the majority didn't agree, I'd be plum outta luck and I'd have to live (or die) with it.

Bret,

The difference is that a murderer or a mugger doesn't have your consent to perpetrate their behavior. As far as I know, no restaurant is pulling you in at gunpoint and forcing you to eat.

Bret,

This bill tramples on everybody’s rights without actually protecting anyone in any meaningful way.

It doesn’t simply mandate that restaurants list hydrogenated fat and the amount used in a dish or in a specified serving so that you may be informed when choosing your meal (a cheaper and simpler alternative). Instead, it outlaws trans fat except under special circumstances. Under no condition does a restaurant have to tell you that you’re consuming trans fat (or any added saturated fat, for that matter). Obviously, if you consume several dishes (or servings) cooked with 0.5 grams of trans fat, you could consume several grams of trans fat without ever knowing it! Since the 0.5 grams is within the law, the fact that trans fat was used does not have to be revealed to you. Moreover, since trans fat has roughly the same effect as saturated fat, as Russell pointed out, you may be consuming palm oil instead and you’re no better off. This bill is a way to terrorize businesses without actually helping you get the information to make your own healthy decisions.

This is entirely different from smoking. When you smoke, there is a neighbourhood effect. That is, you’re not the only one forced to inhale your chosen toxin in an enclosed space. When you eat trans fat, you’re the only one directly effected.

Matt C. wrote: "The difference is that a murderer or a mugger doesn't have your consent to perpetrate their behavior."

Certainly restaurants do NOT have my EXPLICIT consent to put trans fats in my food.

If mugging in public places was legal, then a mugger would have my implicit consent to attempt to rob me if I entered a public place, just like restaurants do have my implicit consent to poison me if I eat there – except in Montgomery County.

Now, I would prefer, as Methinks mentioned up above, that restaurants simply list the ingredients for each dish, much like stores do. I always read ingredients at the grocery store and never buy anything with hydrogenated oil.

However, that's not a libertarian compatible solution either, is it? I don't think Russell Roberts would like that any better at all. It would also be quite expensive.

bret,

having a law passed mandating an ingrediant list would not be "libertarian compatable". You're right.
Asking a restaurant owner to publish the list, only patronizing establishments that published their ingrediant lists, and things along those lines would be "libertarian compatable". They would also be more likely to get at the truth and be accurate, as list publishing would be voluntary, they may even be proud of their ingrediant list and want to spread the word. If it were imposed on someone who did not want to publish it, they may just publish anything, they would not want to spend the necessary costs to post an accurate list, then that posting law would require a new set of police to determine the accuracy of the lists, just like this actual county order means additional expense to enforce compliance.

tarran wrote: "you could always ask the restaurant staff if they serve food with hydrogenated oil…"

Indeed. I have, many times. Not one restaurant has ever been able to answer the question with any confidence.

There's an inherent problem here. Knowledge that trans fats are fairly bad for you (and very bad for me) is relatively recent. Not that many people understand this as is clear from the comments here. The amount of time that it will take for this information to propagate through the population such that people will demand trans fat free food at restaurants without legislation will be decades, at the minimum. During this time, people's health will be compromised without them even knowing what's going on.

The argument for private free markets is that they are better at aggregating and acting upon distributed information. In this case, the information is NOT distrbuted, so the market cannot take the information into account and ends up with a less optimal outcome.

Thus I cannot back libertarian solutions in this particular case.

Noel Yetter wrote: "I have, y'know, PRINCIPLES."

Wow, you still have your PRINCIPLES! Ahhhh, to be young and foolish again. Someday, your wisdom teeth will come in.

The 0.5% limit is needed because there is trans fat in natural animal products, so you would have to probably ban steak if you set a 0% trans fat limit.

I've got to admit that there is some really solid research on trans fat risks: doubling coronary heart diseases risk and 73% higher female ovulatory infertility risk for each 2% increase in trans fat calorie intake. Eating trans fat increases the percentage of trans fat found in human breast milk. It is a little scary.

Even Crisco, the first commercializer of trans fat production, now has a <1 gram of trans fat per serving.

Interesterified fats, which some are looking to as an answer to making more solid and less liable to go rancid fats, may also have health risks as bad or worse than trans fats though.

Bret,

I never eat trans fats and I've seen eateries proudly advertise on menus that they don't cook with hydrogenated fats at all. And this without a mandate! I've found hydrogenated fats fairly easy to avoid by educating myself about which foods are most likely to have them and which aren't.

At the end of the day, you don't have to eat anything you suspect has hydro fats in it and you are not compeled to eat out at all. When in doubt, order a salad with olive oil and vinager. Otherwise, cook it yourself.

There are some misconceptions about the definition of "trans" fats (vs. "cis" fats), and also about the difference between naturally occurring trans fats, and the ones that result from the hydrogenation process.
First, the difference between "trans" and "cis" positions of atoms on molecules. A fat molecule is made up of three fatty acids chains attached to a glycerine molecule (hence, the term "triglyceride"). To picture the molecule, look at your hand (the "glycerine molecule" and extend three fingers (the "fatty acid chain").
Mono- and diglycerides (emulsifiers, for example), are constructed on the same glycerine molecule, but only have one (mono) or two (di) fatty acid chains. (Your hand with one or two fingers extended.)
Depending on the original source of the fat (cow, pig, soybean, palm tree, etc.), the length of the fatty acid chains can vary. Also depending on the source, the "open" positions on the fatty acid can vary from lots (polyunsaturated) to one (monounsaturated) to none (saturated). Usually, the more "open" positions along the fatty acid molecules, the lower the melting point and the more liquid the fat. So, soybean oil is liquid at room temperature, vs. butter or lard, which are solid at room
temperature (I consider room temperature below 98 degrees!)
Anyhow, it's these "open" positions along the fatty acid chains that can accept a hydrogen atom. That's what happens when fats
are hydrogenated–hydrogen (a gas made up of a single atom) is added to the fat, and the hydrogen can then attach itself to the "open" positions along the fatty acid chains.
Normally, the atoms along the fatty acid chains are in what's called a "cis" position. Think of this as a position that looks like your right hand. However, sometimes the atom can become attached in the "trans" position (think of this as a left-handed position that is the mirror image of the "cis" position).
There is such a thing as naturally occurring trans fat. Our bodies have evolved over eons, in response to the foods that were
available (think "natural" foods, like beef fat, cow's cream and butter, olive oil, etc.). So, our bodies have enzymes that
recognize and can process molecules that have atoms in both the "cis" and "trans" positions.
And, in fact, there are studies underway that show that some naturally occurring trans fats are okay and/or actually beneficial (for a somewhat technical article, you can check out this website:
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/bauman/human_health/index.htm).
For example, butter has naturally occurring cis and trans fats. One of the studies underway is testing whether actually
increasing the amount of a particular naturally occurring trans fat in butter can increase the health effects of this naturally occurring trans fat.
So, banning all trans fats is not a good idea, and may not even be possible, given that some trans fats are created by
nature and not by man.
That said, the trans fats that are created during hydrogenation are apparently along the fatty acid chains in positions that are not easily recognized by the enzymes that
normally would digest the fats for energy in our bodies. As a result, those "manufactured" trans fats (for lack of a better way of putting it) are the "unhealthy" ones whose consumption should
be limited, at least until their interaction in our bodies is better understood.
I agree that should be an individual choice, but an informed one. Customers shouldn't be scared off by the fact that there are trans fats in butter and lard, because these are natural, and our bodies know how to deal with them. And customers should be encouraged to enjoy other types of products that may have trans fats in them in moderation (if only the concept of "moderation" was understood by Americans, we wouldn't be in this boat!).
Anyhow, I hope that this explanation clarifies the difference a bit. Meanwhile, let's keep our fingers crossed that politicians don't start banning other foods, or our lives are just going to seem a lot longer!

Bret incorrectly wrote this:
“Oh, I absolutely agree that my freedom comes at the expense of someone else's freedom.
However, that's not a sufficient argument against it.”
Yes it is. For many reasons, well illustrated above. And in your newspaper. And on the nightly news. And basically everywhere nowadays.

If you do not understand why, you need to ask yourself, “Am I getting in someone else’s way, not exercising common courtesy, not imposing my views on someone else who may not share those views, not forcing someone to pay for something they do not agree with, not coercing people into behaviors they normally wouldn’t engage in, etc.?” These are completely foreign questions to people of Bret’s ilk.

Bret doesn’t understand the concepts of freedom and personal responsibility.

Matt – too late.

According to Bret’s warped (modern) liberal worldview, imposing freedom of choice on individuals is “hostile.”

That’s an amusing view.

By the way, Bret, Eminent Domain is indeed theft, runs contrary to such minor legal complications like “The Magna Carta,” and is indeed unconstitutional, especially recently:

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Files/Multimedia/532.pdf

No one is trying to impose any beliefs on you. No one. Just don't impose your tyranny on me. Eminent Domain is not a right it is a theft. Force of government does not make a right. Please feel free to read Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty.

Last time I post because you are completely illogical.

Mesa EconoGuy,

Kelo lost, no? Apparently the supreme court didn't agree (in majority) with you and that amicus brief from the Goldwater Institute?

As far as I'm concerned, you may call it theft, I don't care. I was just saying the MOST people call it something other than theft, like eminent domain. I was also saying that if the government decides it's okay to take something, it's legal to take it, by definition, in fact. We can argue about whether or not it becomes a "right" but that just becomes a definitional argument, so let's not bother with that argument. I think it becomes a "right", you don't, fine.

Nonetheless, it's legal. And constitutional: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." And the government pretty much decides what the just compensation is.

There are currently multiple cases pending that will force the current court to overturn their incorrect Kelo ruling.

Further, many states have already enacted their own contradictory laws reversing this decision. Any contest of these will result in de facto reversal of Kelo.

Kelo will, in any future legal context, be referred to as the 3/5 law.

"It certainly doesn't violate the constitution."

Bret, what provision of what constitution grants some legislative body the power to make certain trans fats illegal in the first place? Were food bans covered in Article i, ii, or iii? I forget.

Methinks and Isaac:

Using slippery slope arguments is, of course, a slippery slope. Once you start using them something, you tend to use them for everything. So it's best not to ever use them. Oops, I just used one didn't I. Bad me!

It seems to me it a rather long slide down the slope from banning trans-fats to gulags and genocides. But if you are morally incapable to distinguish between the banning trans-fats and genocide, then you should stick to your libertarian principles no matter what. Fortunately, I think that most people are capable of distinguishing between these different classes of tyranny.

So how far am I willing to impose the tyranny of government for certain issues? Oh, about as far as banning trans-fats and smoking in restaurants, and not much further.

"So how far am I willing to impose the tyranny of government for certain issues? Oh, about as far as banning trans-fats and smoking in restaurants, and not much further."

Too bad you live in a country of precedent law. Now that you've opened the door, what is to prevent government from flinging it wide open? It's already busy seizing private property under "eminent domain" laws ala Hugo Chavez. Do you think you'll be asked for special permission if we were to, say, send the Japanese to "special" camps for any reason? In thinking about public policy, it behooves you to think beyond stage one.

Of course, you want to reform the world in your liberal reformist way and you want everyone to share in the costs – regardless of how large – of your personal decisions, as all good leftists do. Personal responsibility for eating habits is completely foreign to modern day leftists.

Bret, you seem to have totally missed my point. I never meant to say that banning transfats was equivalent to setting up gulags, but that your rationalization is just that, a rationalization. You are all for this because it benefits you, everyone else's opinion (dare I say rights) be damned. Saying it's OK because elected officials did it is a pretty weak defense. The regulars on this forum rightfully see this measure as an unnecessary intruion. Sure it may benefit you, but it will potentially deny other people of food that they like and/or make the food even worse for you as they substitute palm oil for the transfat stuff. If they were to ban your favorite food because "It's bad for you" I'm sure you wouldn't be as positive about it.

"So how far am I willing to impose the tyranny of government for certain issues? Oh, about as far as banning trans-fats and smoking in restaurants, and not much further."

See, the trouble is that politician's can't read your mind. Sure, maybe banning transfats is ok in your mind, but someone else wants to ban dairy products or thinks that everything should be organic. If groups start to get their wishes legislated, there's no telling who the politician's will listen to next. Yes, that is a slippery slope argument, but there are few things as slippery as politics… There is no moral defense of this law, only opportunistic ones.

Isaac

"Legislation has no such restrictions."

Indeed. That's how the 16th amendment went from effecting only the super-rich to the tune of no more than 10% of their income to a complex and multi-layered system which consumes a huge portion of the fruits of people's labour.

Why stop at trans fat in an effort to spare your life? Driving is much more dangerous than trans fat. Let's ban driving. People of Middle Eastern decent have proven to be very dangerous, let's ban them too. Alcohol and cigarettes are bad for you. Let's ban them. Pregnancy is unspeakably dangerous for women (even with modern medicine), let's ban or regulate pregnancy.

C'mon, Bret, instead of you taking responsibility for what you eat, let's just make everyone else's life not worth living. Why not? They won't be poisoned.