They Protect Me From Me, But Who Protects Me From Them?
by Wilton D. Alston
by Wilton D. Alston
DIGG THIS
"The
day may come when the courage of men fails; when we forsake our
friends and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this
day! This day we fight!"
~
Aragorn, The
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
I’ve already
lamented the use and abuse of high-fructose
corn syrup (HFCS) in pretty much all processed foods. It seems
clear that the state, in an effort to "help" corn farmers,
has hurt everyone else. But at least in that case, albeit difficult,
we can still choose to avoid that poison. Several respondents
to my essay made that point in their messages to me. It’s tough,
but the choice is still there. I agree, although without the state’s
involvement, our choices would certainly be larger. Then again,
that’s always the case, is it not? As Manual Lora and I tried to
convey in our
most recent joint essay, choice for each of us is best for all
of us.
Enter the
Trans Fat Police
In a twist
of irony only available from gubmint involvement, New
York State recently imposed a ban on trans
fats. For those who haven’t heard, trans fats are the result
of trying to make vegetable fats, typically not suitable for cooking
and baking due to molecular structure, into a substance suitable
for both. For instance, to get that "moistness" that we
all crave in our baked goods, one generally must use oil that is
solid at room temperature. (And this is verified by my memory of
my Grandma’s biscuits!) This is relatively easy if one uses animal
fats (lard, butter) or some tropical oils (coconut, palm). But somewhere
back a decade or two or three ago, it became unpopular to use saturated
fats.
It also became
unpopular to use imported tropical oils, particularly coconut
oil, although even with their high saturation level, they are
still some
of the healthiest oils one can consume. Not that surprisingly,
the soy lobby (or the edible oil industry, if you prefer) authored
most of the information used to vilify tropical oils. (I know –
shocking.) Luckily, plentiful (cheap) oils were available from the
fertile farmlands of the North American Continent. Unluckily, these
oils were naturally polyunsaturated – lacking in hydrogen atoms
along the chain of carbons – and therefore less than optimal for
baking.
Worse yet,
these fats were unstable and spoiled rather quickly, particularly
when heated. Science came to the rescue and found a way to add hydrogen
atoms along the molecular chain of these oils – via a process know
as hydrogenation
– creating what were called partially hydrogenated oils. The resulting
substance could be used for baking and was still vegetable-based.
Healthy, cheap, and produced on this continent – a veritable "trifecta"
– Yahtzee!
Not quite.
It was more recently discovered that these fake fats were actually
much worse for you than the stuff they replaced. (That there
are still people using margarine at this late date is testimony
that this information hasn’t quite reached the hoi polloi.)
Health-conscious people began to raise a stink about these "trans
fats," while study after study illustrated their awesome power
for clogging arteries better than even the lardiest lard
ever supposedly could.
[As an aside,
studies seem to show that the prevalence of clogged arteries in
the U.S., where a "war" on saturated fats has been waged
for decades, is much higher than that among cultures whose diets
are just chock-full of fat from blubber. When people from these
cultures – e.g., Inuits
– switch to more "mainstream" diets, they experience
an increased rate of heart disease. (Maybe consumption of dietary
fat per se isn’t what makes you unhealthy?) But, I digress.]
Here we are
with trans fats being banned. This occurred long after they had
been placed in just about every baked item sold in the overwhelmingly
large – nearing gargantuan – processed food market in the U.S.
The problems
here are almost too many to name. First of all, people are (or should
be) free to choose. If they really don’t want to consume
trans fats, they are free to not do so. If a restaurant wants
to use them, I am free to not dine there while you are free to enjoy
them if you like. Everyone is happy. Secondly, the prevalence of
trans fats is largely the result of government interference anyway,
so why would even more government involvement make things
better? Let’s review this little scenario.
- Initially
people are free to use whatever they want, including lard, butter,
coconut oil, olive oil, and/or palm oil, etc. (Some people are
fat, but hey, that was less about the fats and more about their
lifestyle choices, among other things.)
- Aggressive
lobbying by the edible oil industry causes adoption, at the federal
government level, of dietary goals and guidelines that incorporate
the mistaken idea that consumption of saturated fat causes heart
disease. (State intervention makes finding a domestic substitute
for these fats financially critical.)
- Because
of inherent limitations, polyunsaturated vegetable oils are unsuitable
for baking; partially hydrogenated oils are developed to mitigate
these effects. (Manufacturers, seeking to maximize profits while
meeting the federal guidelines eagerly incorporate this crap into,
well, everything.)
- After years
of clogged arteries, heart attacks, bypass surgeries and the like,
somebody discovers that making a cheap vegetable oil into a baking
fat via the magic of chemistry also changes the properties
of that oil for the worse. (Who knew?)
- State intervention
seeks to preclude that which was originally facilitated largely
by state intervention – trans fats are banned. (Complete symmetry
is achieved.)
Conclusion
Isn’t it always
the same thing? Second verse same as the first. By the way, any
similarity in the conclusions I draw here and the message from my
HFCS essay is entirely intentional. But let’s be clear. It’s not
my place to make choices of this type for anyone else and neither
is it the government’s place. (I’ve already got a mother, but thanks
anyway.) Let the right and the responsibility rest where they should.
As a matter
of fact, if you want to sit by the dock of the bay stuffing your
face with beef-tallow-soaked fast-food French fries, washing them
down with a carbonated beverage just chock-full of HFCS while taking
the edge off with an unfiltered cigarette delivered by an illegal
alien after it was manufactured in a Cuban factory and subsequently
soaked in crystal methamphetamine, I could not care less. I celebrate
your decision to "do it your way." I might, in the words
of Tony Soprano, suggest that you "consider salad" and
I’d likely advise you of the dangers of "tweaking" but
hey, it would still be your choice.
And, if you
and your friends want to open a restaurant where second-hand smoke
is actually on the menu, right next to endangered fish delicately
pan seared with a delightful, but trans fat-laden chipotle sauce,
I’m cool with that too. (Let’s just say I’m easy and leave it at
that.)
My message
here is simple: I don’t want your choices to become my choices because
the lobbying group you hired can convince some slacker with a congressional
budget that it’s a good idea. Furthermore I don’t want my personal
choices – be they good or bad – reduced because of similar
chicanery. Is that too much to ask?
But
let us not forget Aragorn’s words. Change has to begin with us.
Maybe, just
maybe, if each of us realizes and acts upon the fact that the ultimate
choice – and responsibility – should always be ours, we’ll get to
start choosing for ourselves sooner or later.
Hey, I can
hope.
January
31, 2007
Wilt
Alston [send him
mail] lives in Rochester, NY, with his wife and three
children. When he’s not training for a marathon or furthering his
part-time study of libertarian philosophy, he works as a principal
research scientist in transportation safety, focusing primarily
on the safety of subway and freight train control systems.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Wilton
D. Alston Archives
|