Today’s “Daily Journal” guest columnist is Donna Martinez, associate editor of Carolina Journal.
When the waiter at my favorite restaurant tempted me with a selection of rich desserts, I reluctantly said, “No, thank you.” My husband, on the other hand, quickly pointed to a slice of creamy cheesecake—and requested two forks—just in case I changed my mind. Which, I did.
I paid for it the next day, when I doubled the length of my walk to work off the extra calories and fat. But the way some policymakers are talking these days, I wonder how much longer you and I will have the right to share a dessert with dinner, no questions asked.
The legislative and rhetorical assault on Big Food didn’t end when Hillsdale College’s Robert Murphy handily refuted thoughts of a fat tax. The new battleground toward more government food restrictions involves trans fats. According to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) web site, trans fats are linked to high cholesterol, which is linked to coronary artery disease.
For a year now, the FDA has required packaged foods to note trans fat content on the label, a move that will cost the industry an estimated $140 million to $250 million. No matter that removing trans fats is likely to increase production costs, and therefore, cost you and me more cash.
I can’t help but hear in the back of my head the standard “if-just-one-person-can-be-saved” speech bureaucrats use to justify imposing expensive, and many times needless, regulations designed to rescue us from ourselves.
At least for now, the feds still believe Americans have a right to buy packaged food that contains trans fats. But in New York City, the politicians are far down the “government knows what’s best for you” road. Big Apple bureaucrats will soon control much of what can be served at a city restaurant. Beginning this summer, New York eateries can no longer use oils that contain trans fats. And by next summer, all trans fats must be removed from all New York City restaurant foods.
New York’s food fight is featured on this web site, which praises the regulatory war against trans fats and solicits donations. For just $25, a donor gets two bumper stickers and a T-shirt— available in extra large—evidently for those trans fat haters who don’t have the willpower to stop eating them, or other things.
So how’s this mixing of food and government playing in North Carolina? Thank goodness, some people aren’t swallowing it. In a Jan.17 Asheville Citizen-Times story, Michael Baudouin, executive chef of Bouchon in Asheville, told the paper the New York ban is over the top. Weaverville resident Ron Cook endorsed disclosure but not a ban.
Common sense still has supporters in Asheville. The debate, however, is much more fundamental than serving food containing trans fats. The more significant issue is the appropriate role of government.
John Locke, and the forefathers he inspired, taught us to tip the scales in favor of freedom. Only when the people are unable to safeguard themselves from an outside threat should government step in to do the job.
However, the use of the blunt instrument of government to erect barriers for all in an effort to protect a few is on the rise. John Stossel of ABC News, the John Locke Foundation, and the Cato Institute are among those who have documented the policies.
To reverse course, we must expect adults to live with the consequences of their choices. Even when it means they eat too much. Or exercise too little. Or select a loan product with a high interest rate. Or ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
When personal decisions lead to societal dilemmas, individual choice should be the preferred tool to solve the problem. Choice, coupled with kindness, will give us the courage to urge others, and ourselves, to look in the mirror and determine that if help is needed, it should come from family, friends, a doctor, a community group, or a church.
We should expect more from ourselves, not from government.