Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 6:02:36 PM
Yet again, CSPI is pushing for another ban. In this case it is for food dyes, as they claim it can cause already hyperactive children who are "predisposed to be sensitive to dyes" to become more hyperactive. Of course the news is playing it up into "dyes cause hyperactivity", and hyping the story even more.
I have questioned this tendency before, the willingness we show to ban anything that might harm some minute group. I started questioning this when peanuts were banned in many locales to protect those with peanut allergies. Of course, whenever I mention this, someone who knows a person with peanut allergies gets angry with me for opposing such a "sensible" ban.
But they miss my point, yes for the small group which has peanut allergies it seems a sensible move, but what about every other allergy out there? If the small group that has peanut allergies justifies a ban, then does not the group with shrimp allergies justify a shrimp ban? And do not those with celiac disease justify banning wheat, as I think they are even more numerous than peanut allergies? And the list goes on and on until we have nothing left but water.
Now, if private companies want to stop using peanuts or preservatives of dyes, that is their choice. But I do not think the government should get into the business of banning substances because they are troublesome to a small segment of the population. It makes no sense to restrict 99% or more of the population when the less than 1% could simply take care to avoid the substance*.
Perhaps a personal example would help. I am both a vegetarian and keep kosher. Yet I do not demand the government mandate that all food be certified by Vaad Ha Kashrus or the Union of Orthodox Rabbis. Nor do I call for a ban on meat, fowl and fish. Instead of imposing my will on my fellows, I simply read labels.
I am sure some will reply "But what if the label doesn't tell you what is in it?" My reply is you treat it the same way I treat food without kosher certification, you skip it and move on. Nothing says companies have to cater to you, but you can punish those who don't label by buying from competitors. It still is not an excuse to use government force against the rest of us.
Then again, we have all become so used to the government becoming involved in every dispute, protecting us from every possible ill, that these words most likely fall on deaf ears. People have become so familiar with a world where the government does not inspect and certify food, require that information be placed on labels, and prohibit anything it finds objectionable, that my suggestion sounds radical. Which for such a modest suggestion really is rather disheartening.
-------------------------------------------------
* I realize some very small group is susceptible to airborne particles, though I doubt that they are even 0.01% of the population. It is a shame that they are so sensitive, but to limit the rest of the population due to a peculiar disability of a minute fraction of the population still strikes me as a bad idea. It is sad for them that they have this problem, but are we going to limit the entire populace for every condition that effects 100 or more people? We would need to pretty severely limit everyone's options if we do that.