Judge Posner commented on the trans fat ban in his blog today. His analysis was much more of a cost-benefit analysis than was my look at the issue a few days ago. His conclusions stated "My cost-benefit analysis is, necessarily, highly tentative. However, it inclines me to a sympathetic view of the trans-fats ban. I anticipate strong opposition from libertarians."
I have one quick comment on his analysis. He states that "no one wants his restaurant experience poisoned by having to read a menu that lists beside each item the number of grams of trans fats it contains." He quickly disregards this option while I feel that it may be the best option available.
I do not think that this statement is necessarily true. The presence of trans fat does not have to be so intrusive. Many restaurants do use an asterisk to indicate that something is spicy. Some similar universal symbol could be used for the presence of trans fats. I do not think the precise number of grams needs to be stated on the menu (although it should be available upon request). This will not "poison" the restaurant experience. It will get people thinking about the issue and will cause some change.
Posner's Comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Posner may respond to your spicy foods analogy with the following. Unlike foods that are spicy, foods that contain trans-fat are documented as being unhealthy to virtually all who consume them, which isn't necessarily the case with spicy foods (which may be unhealthy only to those with special medical conditions). Since Posner did make the point that knowledge about trans-fat wasn't widespread, people would continue to harm themselves without really knowing it.
The obvious counter-argument is that just like smoking, information about unhealthy things circulates around, so that people don't have to know the exact medical facts about smoking, for instance, in order to know that it's harmful to health. The unhealthy consequences of consuming trans-fat would circulate as well, meaning that individual consumers should have the choice about whether to consume trans-fat--and this relies in part on how risk-averse they happen to be (perhaps consuming that tasty hamburger outweighs the harm of increasing one's trans-fat level). Therefore, it appears as though providing labels would work.
Posner may respond to your spicy foods analogy with the following. Unlike foods that are spicy, foods that contain trans-fat are documented as being unhealthy to virtually all who consume them, which isn't necessarily the case with spicy foods (which may be unhealthy only to those with special medical conditions). Since Posner did make the point that knowledge about trans-fat wasn't widespread, people would continue to harm themselves without really knowing it.
The obvious counter-argument is that just like smoking, information about unhealthy things circulates around, so that people don't have to know the exact medical facts about smoking, for instance, in order to know that it's harmful to health. The unhealthy consequences of consuming trans-fat would circulate as well, meaning that individual consumers should have the choice about whether to consume trans-fat--and this relies in part on how risk-averse they happen to be (perhaps consuming that tasty hamburger outweighs the harm of increasing one's trans-fat level). Therefore, it appears as though providing labels would work.
Post a Comment