Sunday, November 10, 2013

The Nanny State?

The FDA is considering phasing out trans fats as already banned by New York City, Philadelphia, and the state of California.  Rush Limbaugh groused that bureaucrats shouldn't regulate what people eat because it's none of their business. The no-nothings are crying about the "nanny state" that takes away freedom.  Whenever I hear the word "freedom" I ask whose freedom are we talking about.  I know that freedom for the pike is often death for the minnow.  The nanny state argument claims that if people want to eat unhealthily, it only harms consumers of hydrogenated oils.  NOT TRUE.  If peoples' diets make them unhealthy it raises the health insurance rates for everyone.  Further, if the people are on Medicare, it raises taxes to support their care. 
     Finally, some people know their weaknesses and call on the state to help them out in moments of weakness.  If they doubt their own resolve, they may favor prohibiting some foods that promise to taste good, but are unhealthy.  Of course, their freedom to be free of temptation is at the expense of those with dietary fortitude.  Alas, not everyone can be free if interests conflict.

No comments: