RSS 2.0 FeedDon’t Like Unhealthy Food ? Don’t Eat It
by Doug MataconisWhile cities such as New York pass citywide bans on the use of trans-fat in restaurants, the residents of a small town in England show us that, when it comes to dealing with bad food choices, government regulation isn’t necessary
McDonald’s is closing its outlet in a town known for quality food and healthy, local produce.
The fast food chain in Tavistock, Devon, simply wasn’t being used enough by locals.
So after seven years struggling to make ends meet in a town that has won many accolades for the quality of its food, McDonald’s will finally shut up shop on Saturday.
John Taylor, chairman of Tavistock EatWise campaign, said: “Because of the quality of our local food McDonald’s has not been able to compete.”
In other words, people decided on their own not to go to McDonalds and to choose healthier alternatives, and McDonalds got the message. Not only does this show the power of consumer choice, it reinforces a point that the food police often miss; the reason these so-called unhealthy foods are so prevalent is because people choose to go there. Change consumer choice, and you’ll change the market.
Previous Post:
The War On Trans-Fat
The Nanny State Comes To Manhattan
But the British are smart enough to exercise free-will.
Comment by Kris Raven — December 7, 2006 @ 10:14 amMost Americans are too stupid to act independently, thus it’s probably better to proscribe foods, for the customer’s own good.
[...] It seems like people can make their own choices without the nanny government involvement, and pretty good ones. After all the solution to a problem will be usually less government rather than more of it. (thanks for The Liberty Papers for finding this!) Technorati Tags: The Free Market – Public Health – Trans Fat – Libertarianism [...]
Pingback by It looks obvious » The sane approach — December 7, 2006 @ 11:11 amAll this blather about how the market providesa solution willfully ignores the facts of this article: Tavistock is a wealthy suburb. Of course higher-priced luxury items such as food produced without cheap chemical additives like trans-fat (e.g., organic or whatever ‘quality local foods’ means) will do better in such a market, given all the press trans fats have been getting.
(“Trans fats” are the product of hydrogenation, and industrial process that “increases the shelf life and flavor stability of foods containing these fats.” They are additives companies use for financial reasons having little to do with the health of their customers.)
Cheap fast food joints are the ones using it, and because they make for cheaper food, people who can’t afford to prioritize health over pure economic costs are being fed manifestly unhealthy products. McDonaldses across Britain aren’t going under, one restaurant in one affluent village is.
Comment by D. J. — December 7, 2006 @ 12:02 pmDJ,
Two points
1. Even people who aren’t “wealthy” (however you might define that) have the opportunity to make choices. They don’t have to go to McDonalds, or Applebees….and if they do, they don’t have to get the thing that’s most heavily laden in fat.
2. If people choose to eat “unhealthy” food, that’s their right. I don’t see it as the governments job to tell them otherwise.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 7, 2006 @ 12:06 pmShould companies be able to put poisonous additive in its food? Trans fats are an industry standard in fast food because they’re cheap. This only benefits the consumer, because the playing field is more level.
Listen, I live in New York City and I’ve been known to eat at just the sort of cheap greasy restaurant that cooks with hydrogenated oil, so this directly affects me (and not you). In terms of personal liberty, I’m satisfied (as a civil libertarian) that I can use all the trans fat I want at home–but if I want to have a public establishment, it becomes the public’s business.
Comment by D. J. — December 7, 2006 @ 2:01 pmJust to clarify: When dealing with bad food choices, I don’t think government regulation is absolutely necessary–it just works better.
Comment by D. J. — December 7, 2006 @ 2:02 pmSo the public’s business trumps the personal liberty of the owner of the dining establishment?
Individual property rights apply the same regardless of whether all you own are the clothes on your back or a large chain of restaurants.
Comment by mike — December 7, 2006 @ 2:10 pmDJ,
Three points.
1. Trans-Fat is not poison any more than sodium is poison. Taken in excess it can have an impact on health, but one dose, or several in moderation, will not kill you.
2. Since when is what I eat the public’s business ?
3. When you say that government regulation “works better” when it comes to “bad” food choices (which I define as food choices you, or the food police, disagree with), can I assume that what you really mean is that the average American is too stupid to think for themselves ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 7, 2006 @ 2:14 pmMike,
Good points, I’d just add that the restaurant owner isn’t the only one whose liberty is impacted — laws like the one in New York also impact consumer choice.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 7, 2006 @ 2:14 pmMike:
So the public’s business trumps the personal liberty of the owner of the dining establishment?
In a word, yes. There is no law against eating trans fat. There is no law against serving someone a plate of nothing but trans fat. There is a law against charging someone for serving a customer trans fat.
Individual property rights apply the same regardless of whether all you own are the clothes on your back or a large chain of restaurants.
Actually, they don’t. The restaurant is a corporation, an artificial entity chartered by the state. You were not. Now, if you’re arguing that individual rights as well as civic and criminal liabilities should apply exclusively to corporations’ owners, doing away with the corporation as an artificial person, I would whole-heartedly agree. Something tells me you’d rather keep the state involved in this particular matter. I could be wrong.
In the same way your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, when something involves the public exchange of government currency, the government is automatically involved, not only as the protector of public safety, but as the force behind which any contract ranging from the restaurant’s deed to the agreement with the margarine distributor, is based.
Doug:
Trans fat is not poison any more than sodium.
Actually, the leading cause of death in America is heart disease, while a low-salt diet has not shown significant health benefits, but neither of these are strychnine, obviously.
Taken in excess it can have an impact on health, but one dose, or several in moderation, will not kill you.
That’s why this law only target public businesses which serve tens or hundreds of doses per day.
Since when is what I eat the public’s business ?
It’s not. It’s what you serve in a place of business open to the public. You can still go to the supermarket and buy all the Crisco you desire.
What you really mean is that the average American is too stupid to think for themselves ?
Well, yes and no–the leading cause of death is still heart disease, so the answer to the above question is probably yes based on this evidence, but that wasn’t my point. I don’t know how many Americans are “average” anyway.
When a consumer buys a tub of shortening from the supermarket, they know what they’re getting. On the other hand, you could go to a fancy restaurant and ask for a meal without trans fat, and the cook could ignore you and still use it. Truth be told, I think a labelling law would have been a more subtle way of handling the issue, but it is what it is.
You can still eat trans fat in New York City. You just can’t charge for it.
Comment by D. J. — December 7, 2006 @ 2:53 pmDJ,
Given your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable for New York to forbid the selling of foods containing trans-fats in supermarkets, or to forbid selling the trans-fat’s themselves.
We obviously have a difference of opinion. I trust the average American to make decisions that will be to their benefit. You, and the City of New York, obviously don’t.
And, more importantly, if I want to go to a restaurant and eat a nice, big juicy burger and fries full of trans-fats, why shouldn’t I be allowed to ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 7, 2006 @ 3:20 pm“Cheap fast food joints are the ones using it, and because they make for cheaper food, people who can’t afford to prioritize health over pure economic costs are being fed manifestly unhealthy products.”
Comment by VRB — December 7, 2006 @ 3:23 pmI do think D.J. is right about this. Food that is organic, low fat, low salt or salt free and less fat or leaner meat always cost more. I think cost can limit choice. Although, I don’t think going to a fast food restaurant is a cheap choice. The cheaper choice would be to cook yourself.
Given your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable for New York to forbid the selling of foods containing trans-fats in supermarkets, or to forbid selling the trans-fat’s themselves.
Yep. But they aren’t doing that, and they never will. I’m sure everyone involved thinks it’s a bad idea that wouldn’t work. I’m not categorical that way, and I don’t think being so doctrinaire is a good idea, either. In the same way, I don’t think they’d be justified in banning all fat from foods either, even though it’s bad for you. Cigarettes are still legal, too.
VRB:
“I think cost can limit choice. Although, I don’t think going to a fast food restaurant is a cheap choice. The cheaper choice would be to cook yourself.”
Absolutely right. And if you do, you can use all the trans fat you want–that’s individual liberty.
Comment by D. J. — December 7, 2006 @ 3:35 pmDJ, haven’t come across you in a while… Welcome to the Liberty Papers :-)
My wife pointed out an online poll last night on one of the news sites (yes, an online poll is not exactly “scientific”). It asked, “Should the government ban the use of trans-fat in restaurants”. The choices:
1) Yes, because trans-fat is unhealthy.
2) No, the government has no business regulating this.
69% chose option 1. That shows you exactly how much the American public cares about liberty.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 7, 2006 @ 4:40 pmHey Brad–
Don’t show that poll to Doug, he has these ideas about “average Americans.” =)
Comment by D. J. — December 8, 2006 @ 7:30 amD.J. the point of liberty, is that it isn’t constrained by others choices; except in how you interact with others.
The only justification I could even remotely make of this, is that it’s a public health issue because the public has to pay for all those folks who use medicare and medicaid, and die of heart disease.
Of course since medicare and medicaid shouldnt be paid for by the public anyway…
Comment by Chris Byrne — December 8, 2006 @ 10:06 amDJ,
The “average American” was educated in government schools. That makes their ability to employ critical reasoning quite suspect.
They vote to take away your liberty, incapable of realizing they’re also losing their own.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 8, 2006 @ 12:47 pmChris:
You have got to be kidding. Of course your liberty is constrained by others’ choices. From the goods available to you to the property you claim to the quality of the air you breathe, your ‘liberty’ to choose this or that is always constrained because all you have are choices offered to you by the outcomes of others’ actions. We depend on others for survival and always have.
You can pretend that every ‘manjack is an island’ all you want, but everything around you was provided, supplied, manufactured or merely influenced by someone else whose choices have necessarily constricted your liberty to do this or that, particularly when it comes to your actions.
Individual liberties–freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and so forth, may brush up against societal constraints from time to time, but they’re much more likely candidates for the kind of liberty you describe. But the liberty to treat others in a certain way, or to enter into contracts, etc. is a wholly different creature.
If you believe in free will (and I do), then power is the ability to dictate and constrain the choices of others. There will always be people more powerful than you, and they will necessarily be constricting your ‘liberty.’
Brad-
Comment by D. J. — December 8, 2006 @ 3:52 pmHa! I suppose if we were all educated by the Church we’d be masters of critical reasoning. I wonder how many of the posters here went to public schools… I know I did.
DJ,
I went to public school… You couldn’t tell? Maybe it didn’t take. ;-)
FYI, setting up a strawman about us all being “educated by the church” doesn’t hold a lot of weight with an atheist like myself. If we had a market in education, we wouldn’t have only parochial private schools. Besides, we currently have Montessori schools, and prep schools, which aren’t religious. The only difference is that those schools cater to the wealthy, while parochial schools cater to everyone.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 9, 2006 @ 5:56 amDJ,
Yes, other peoples’ expression of their liberty does affect my ability to express my own. Often, though, it doesn’t prohibit me to express my own.
For example, I’m a beer drinker and a homebrewer. 20 years ago, before the “craft beer” craze, there was not a wide selection of beer in the supermarket. You had Miller, Bud, and Coors (I’ll leave out that one of the critical causes of this situation was Prohibition). At that time, if I wanted a wider variety of beer, I would have had to brew it myself.
There’s a difference, though, in the market not providing something and the government banning it. If I, before this craft beer craze had hit, had decided to open a brewery (difficult, I know, because I was a child), it would be my own ability to understand the pulse of the market that determined if I was successful.
The government, on the other hand, experimented for a little over a decade with making it illegal to buy, sell, produce, or transport alcohol. And then until 1978, it was actually illegal to homebrew beer. What would it mean if I wanted special styles of beer before 1978? Well, I couldn’t buy them from Bud, Miller, and Coors, and I couldn’t [legally] produce them at home.
The market sometimes makes it difficult to exercise liberty (although increasingly less often, with the rise of the internet). The government doesn’t try to make it difficult, though, they just outright ban it and threaten to toss you into jail if you violate their ban.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 9, 2006 @ 6:07 amFirst, although I’m not a Christian, I find that people educated in Catholic schools, especially Jesuit schools, can generally exercise far better critical thinking skills, understand logic much better and have much better skills in the basics required for higher education than those educated in public schools. And, interestingly, are no more inclined to believe that the government should legislate morality than those educated in public schools. No scientific basis to this, of course, simply my observations. I think your implication is false until you can show otherwise.
Second, your constant support for government intervention and intrusion appears to me to prove Brad’s point.
Third, while I would say that NYC is on the wrong track here, I see no reason, in a constitutional republic, that they cannot do what they are doing.
Fourth, comments about the majority believing something is right hold little sway with someone that believes that democracy is another word for “tyranny of the majority”.
Comment by Adam Selene — December 9, 2006 @ 9:36 am