An editorial in the NYT yesterday called for the FDA to prohibit partially hydrogenated oils because the fats they contain promote heart disease. Now I guess I should agree; for one reason, my family has a history of life-shortening heart attacks. For another, I live in Wisconsin, a pro-dairy place that has an interest in banning partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. I have heard that it is illegal in Milwaukee for restaurants to put margarine instead of butter on the table unless a patron asks for it. My Bunco friends tell me that margarine does not exit your system for 14 days. I also read on a menu (in a hamburger restaurant) that margarine is one carbon unit away from being plastic. However, can this editorial be serious?
If we are going to call for the FDA to start banning food products that can promote life-threatening conditions, then is vegetable oil the place to start? I assume that over time, the FDA has considered and then rejected arguments to ban produts that clearly lead to life-threatening diseases like tobacco and alcohol. Why does the FDA not ban these substances? Of course, these substances are addictive, so black markets will appear to fill the void. I doubt that a margarine black market would appear. Lots of people would say they are addicted to junk food, but probably not the partially hydrogenated vegetable oil in the junk food. I would assume that innovative cracker and cookie companies would come up with a substitute, although it might be more expensive and might reduce the shelf life of the products. So, banning vegetable oil might not be subject to that argument. OK, how about the argument that banning substances that may have long-term health risks is overly paternal where a warning may be as useful? (I am ignoring the effects of lobbyists for tobacco/alcohol companies or cookie/cracker companies.)
If we go down this road, then what about red meat? (I can feel my entire home state shudder at that thought.) Or at least organ meats? Whole milk? Egg yolks? Cream? Cheese? (Gordon, it's only a hypo -- don't worry). Now these things at least have some protein attached to them, so in moderation they can be good for you. Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil may not have healthful uses in any quantity. But neither does high fructose corn syrup, which is not very good for you, either. Let's ban that, too. White sugar has no healthful properties and promotes both cavities and obesity. Let's ban that while we're at it.
Have I convinced myself that we should ban partially hydrogenated vegetable oil? No.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d834806a0a69e2
Links to weblogs that reference Prohibiting Dangerous Substances:
1. Posted by Eric Goldman on June 26, 2005 @ 11:02 | Permalink
The Wisconsin law is Wisconsin Statute 97.18(4): "The serving of colored oleomargarine or margarine at a public eating place as a substitute for table butter is prohibited unless it is ordered by the customer."
2. Posted by Car on June 26, 2005 @ 12:04 | Permalink
I think that whether one believes that warnings are a better way of dealing with food safety issues than banning dangerous products depends at least in part on whether one trusts those responsible for giving the warnings. I’m ineligible to give blood because I lived in the UK in the period before the UK government took aggressive steps to stamp out mad cow disease. I vividly remember John Gummer (at the time the UK's Minister for Agriculture) trying to prove that there was no problem with British beef by showing that he was willing to feed a hamburger to his young daughter. So it feels all too familiar to be living in a country where governmental authorities claim there is no BSE problem and omit to disclose information that consumers should be given. Of course, if governmental authorities can't be trusted to make full and accurate disclosures about food risks, they probably can't be trusted to ban dangerous products either.
3. Posted by Peter H. Huang on June 26, 2005 @ 13:58 | Permalink
A related conference that focused on credit cards, but contained papers that are relevant for thinking about paternalism & bans versus warnings, etc. is this conference: Homo Economicus, Homo Myopicus, & the Law & Economics of Consumer Choice. A schedule & drafts of some papers & PowerPoint presentations from this conference is available on-line at: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/events/consumer-choice-conf/).
4. Posted by Scott Moss on June 26, 2005 @ 14:47 | Permalink
Similarly, I love the attacks on "fast food," as if McDonald's were worse for you than the pizzeria next door or the mexican food sit-down restaurant.
I eat a lot of McDonald's. I know the calorie/fat count of everything I order there -- in part because, unlike the pizzeria or Mexican place, they have a poster and handout with all their nutirtional data. I used to eat at pizzerias a lot too (when I lived in NY, where there are zillions of GOOD pizzerias), and my meals there always were worse nutritionally than my McDonald's meals.
This hubbub about vegetable oil and fast food shows a big minus of health/safety regulation: our information is so imperfect, and the system is so susceptible of "capture" by corrput lobbying (e.g., the margarine ban in Wisconsin), that even if perfect regulation would improve society, I'm a bit pessimistic about the odds of perfect regulation in this area.
5. Posted by Christine on June 26, 2005 @ 15:36 | Permalink
Caroline, it's interesting that your blood is banned because you might have eaten some hamburger meat, but the actually meat wasn't banned. Hilarious.
Peter, thanks for the conference link. Nice to see you in cyberspace.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
