Tag: FDA

Anti-Trans Discrimination

So over the last few years, the health fascists have been telling us to avoid saturated fats in favor of trans fats. According to their analysis, using trans fats will prevent thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of heart atta- ..

No, wait.

That’s what they were saying. Now they are saying that trans fats are the quintessence of evil, a mass murderer of our body politic, something that needs to be banned forthwith and its inventors shot so that the knowledge of how to make trans fats may be extinguished. And yesterday, the FDA caved, calling for trans fats to be gotten rid of within three years (having been pushed by lawsuits from food nannies).

Take it away, Walter Olson:

It’s frank paternalism. Like high-calorie foods or alcoholic beverages, trans fats have marked risks when consumed in quantity over long periods, smaller risks in moderate and occasional use, and tiny risks when used in tiny quantities. The FDA intends to forbid the taking of even tiny risks, no matter how well disclosed.

The public is also perfectly capable of recognizing and acting on nutritional advances on its own. Trans fats have gone out of style and consumption has dropped by 85 percent as consumers have shunned them. But while many products have been reformulated to omit trans fats, their versatile qualities still give them an edge in such specialty applications as frozen pizza crusts, microwave popcorn, and the sprinkles used atop cupcakes and ice cream. Food companies tried to negotiate to keep some of these uses available, especially in small quantities, but apparently mostly failed.

Even if you never plan to consume a smidgen of trans fat ever again, note well: many public health advocates are itching for the FDA to limit allowable amounts of salt, sugar, caffeine, and so forth in food products. Many see this as their big pilot project and test case. But when it winds up in court, don’t be surprised if some courtroom spectators show up wearing buttons with the old Sixties slogan: Keep Your Laws Off My Body.

Olson also points out that you don’t just ban trans fats; you have to switch to something else. That something else may be palm oil, coconut oil or genetically-modified soybean oil, all of which come with known and unknown health risks.

Anyone want to lay bets on when those oils will turn out to be dangerous? Anyone want to lay bets on how fast we’ll find out that the danger of trans fats has been wildly overestimated?

You can read more from Baylen Linniken, including the details of how this ban came about. What’s striking, however, is the complete and total lack of skepticism in the supposedly fact-based left wing. Vox has run several articles that repeated the health tyrants claims without any skepticism (despite having run numerous articles about how most scientific studies are garbage). Major media networks have mindlessly repeated the FDA’s shaky claim that this will save 7,000 lives a year. None of them have asked with it is the governments business to do this. All of them see this as some sort of progressive victory.

To hell with this. Trans fats are not poison. They are (probably) bad for you. But it’s not the FDA’s job to make us eat right. That’s our job. Their job is to make sure the food supply is safe. Trans fats aren’t nearly deadly enough to warrant a ban. They aren’t even as deadly as the horribly low-salt low-fat high-carb diet the health experts have been pushing on us for decades.

Don’t ban trans fats. Ban the food nannies.

A Trio of Weekend Headdesks

Three stories that aren’t big enough for blog posts of their own … well, they are actually, but I don’t have time to tear into them.

First, you may have heard that the FDA is taking the unprecedented step of banning trans-fats. Actually, they’ve removed them from the list of foods that are GRAS (generally regarded as safe), a first step toward a ban. This despite the fact that trans fats are not dangerous per se. They raise LDL levels and lower HDL levels which may contribute to heart disease. I have no problem with encouraging people not to use them (always keeping in mind that it was the food snatchers who put it there in the first place). But banning?

The trans-fat ban is not the worst thing about the trans-fat ban, though. The worst is the precedent it is setting for banning a substance that does not make people sick and the inspiration this is giving to various Nanny State dunderheads, who are now hoping the FDA will heavily regulate (or ban) genetically modified food — technically speaking, all food is genetically modified. THey also want to regulate sugar. Yes, sugar:

The most outspoken enemies of sugar, like Robert Lustig, are trying to take it off the GRAS list–something that CSPI petitioned the FDA to do last February, asking it to study and determine safe levels of high-fructose corn syrup. The chance of an FDA announcement of that in six years seems pretty unlikely now. But soda makers already have more than dozens of low-sugar and sugar-free drinks: they have scores and scores of them. They’ve quietly been working to solve the problem, while spending (often literally) untold sums not to risk their core products. The advocates against trans fats who seemed so crazy even six years ago, when the New York trans fat ban went into effect, are seeming a lot less crazy today.

No, the advocates against trans fats still seem crazy. They’ve just found an Administration that listens to crazies. Needless to say, the idea of the FDA removing sugar from the GRAS list is insanely stupid. Sugar is natural substance that occurs in many foods and refining it has been around for millennia. Sugar is not dangerous. I repeat, sugar is not dangerous. Eating too much of it can make you fat but that is true of every food in existence. In fact, there is some evidence that the artificial sweeteners he touts are actually worse because they fool the palate and thus interfere with the body’s ability to regulate its sugar intake.

This is a perfect illustration of why you can never given the Nanny Staters an inch; they will demand ten miles and demand that you jog all of them. And without any bottled water.

Our second story comes from my home state of Georgia where Circle K has thrown their lot in for dumbest business of the year:

Johnny Jarriel Jr. has a state permit to carry a concealed weapon. He said that he often carried his pistol in his three years of working at the Circle K on West Stewart’s Mill Road in Douglasville.

Jarriel said he was in the office at the Circle K on West Stewart’s Mill Road on Saturday morning when armed suspect attempted to rob him. He said the man used pepper spray, demanded money and threatened to kill everyone in the store.

“Pointed it directly at my head and said, ‘Give me the money or I’m going to kill you,'” Jarriel said.

Instead of panicking, Jarriel convinced the attempted robber to follow him to the front for the money. When the gunman turned away, Jarriel reached for his pistol.

“He was turning around towards me, but before he got fully…I aimed at him this way and fired three shots,” Jarriel said.

The gunman fled, apparently wounded by one of the shots.

Authorities cleared Jarriel of wrongdoing and gave him back his .45, but the assistant manager was given the pink slip from his employer.

Circle K says this is corporate policy. Circle K is also an idiot. Forbidding employees for carrying guns is corporate policy, not holy writ. They’re acting like waving the rule violation is setting a Supreme Court precedent. In fact, a clerk was killed at that store four years ago. If I ran a store and one of my clerks was murdered, I’d be asking my employees to carry weapons, preferably in open holsters so everyone knows that the store is protected.

The final entry in our Trilogy of Error is that Seattle has elected a socialist to its City Council. Granted, the difference between an admitted socialist and everyone else on the city council is probably minor. But she hilariously calls for rent control, which even liberals admit destroys the supply of housing. She also supports a $15 minimum wage. That may sound swell to you, but if you look at Europe, you’ll find that countries without minimum wages have lower unemployment rates than those with them. Germany, for example, abolished its minimum wage and has 5.2% unemployment.

(Germany and other non-minimum wage countries like Sweden (!!) balance this with stronger unions and social safety nets. There’s a debate to be had whether a no-minimum-wage+safety net system is preferable to a minimum-wage system (although a system with neither might be best). Personally, I think we need people working. The strength of any economy is the total productivity of its citizens. If we’re going to give money away, we might as well give it away to people working for a living. Say what you want about Germany’s system, but if we had 5.2% unemployment in this country, we’d be dancing in the streets.)

So there you have it. Three stories that show our society at its dumbest. Work hard this week, my friends. Someone has to support these cretins.