Posted by
Andrews on Monday, May 05, 2008 6:29:32 PM
I recently saw a news story about small bakeries in Baltimore looking for an exemption to Baltimore's "transfat" ban. Apparently the law already exempts pre-packaged cookies and cakes, but these small bakeries are arguing that banning transfats is driving them out of business and are looking for an exemption of their own.
But enough about those specifics, the terms of the ban are not my topic today. All I wanted to establish is that those who should know, bakers, are saying that the transfat ban is causing them hardships. And why do I want to establish that? Because if a law causes economic hardships for citizens, one would hope that there was an even greater benefit.
And in this case, there is none.
No, I don't mean the benefits don't match the costs, I mean there is no benefit. As in nothing, zero, nada, zip. The science has been pretty clear for a long time, the original studies, very small and inconclusive, were exaggerated by CSPI and headline hungry politicians latched on to the CSPI PR campaign and banned something that is harmless.
If you doubt me, check out the articles I mention in the appendix.
Of course, this is nothing new. The EPA director responsible for banning DDT admits that the science was inconclusive, but he had to enact the ban to show the newly founded EPA "had teeth". Likewise, all the economic boondoggles during the Carter administration, all trying to fix the "stagflation" they could have solved easily by shutting down the printing presses. Or the silly "stimulus" checks we are receiving now.
Politicians are terrified that they might miss an opportunity to "do something" and become a hero, so they involve themselves in everything, even when they would be much better off leaving things alone.
And that would be fine, I suppose, if political action were harmless. Or, it would at least be relatively harmless, simply a waste of time and money. But political action is not harmless, and all these fell good actions, all this "doing something" to assuage public fears, is far from harmless. As the bakers' petition shows, these actions have very real costs, very real consequences, and with no matching benefits.
But, then again, we have only ourselves to blame. Politicians only leap before they look because the public responds to any problem by demanding "someone do something", and because the public is so quick to crucify anyone who takes time to think before acting.
It is time we began to view politicians differently, and exerted different pressures on them. We need to stop calling for instant reactions, and ask for slow, deliberate responses. We need to stop punishing those who waited too long to act, and instead punish those who react too quickly. Yes, from time to time, we may have to suffer a bit longer, but, in the long run, I think we will avoid much more harm.
---------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
I know that many on the left have made
silly accusations against
junkscience.com, but as the articles I am about to cite simply comment on various published journals, I fail to see how the author's lack of peer reviewed articles or the source of his funds could have any influence. Let's face it, facts are facts, whether presented by an oil company employee or a member of Greenpeace. One's bias does not prove or disprove facts.
Then again, he does sometimes provide his own opinion or even mention facts. But I have never heard his critics actually dispute anything he says, they simply scream about published articles and oil money and think that is a substitute for proof.
So, here are several articles on the lack of science behind the transfat scare:
Fear of Margarine: The Transfat Myth
Fat Police Indict Margarine
Kooky Cookie Lawsuit
McJunk Science
Harvard Researcher Admits Bad Dietary Advice...
Latest USDA Research Confirms...
And the classic essay on all things relating to CSPI:
False Alarm
If anyone has other good source, post a comment, and I will add it to the list.