Back in 2003, when New York State passed one of the nation's strictest bans on public smoking, citing the public-health risk posed by lighting in restaurant or tavern, opponents wondered, "What's next?"
Donut prohibition? Jail time for sitting on your couch all day? Fines for walking at a pace too slow to qualify as aerobic exercise?
Supporters of the ban scoffed, saying that risks affiliated with burning tobacco, coupled with rising health-care costs, presented a danger to the general good that could only be addressed by making it illegal anyplace people gathered indoors, other than a private home. The idea that the ban set a lousy precedent was little more than whining, they said.
Well, last week, the New York City Board of Health voted to ban trans fats from the Big Apple's restaurants. Trans fats, for those who avoid breathless reporting on constantly shifting health trends, occur naturally in meat and dairy products, but are found primarily in partially hydrogenated cooking oils -- the kind often used to deep fry chicken wings, French fries and, yes, donuts.
The ban doesn't forbid the sale of deep-fried food of any kind. Not yet, anyway. But in the meantime, it does mandate that restaurants stop using most non-hydrogenated oils by July 1, 2007 and go completely trans fat-free by one year after that.
It would be easy to chalk this up as an instance of downstate silliness, except that the armies of self-righteousness pushed through a citywide smoking ban as a warm-up to the statewide law.
And giddy with success, the enemies of partial hydrogenation are sure to be marching on Albany before long, too.
Unlike the smoking ban, a change in cooking oil isn't going to put anyone out of business, though. In many cases, a statewide law wouldn't mean anything.
At Eatza Pizza in DeVeaux, owner Ramsey Yates wasn't sure whether the oil he uses in his deep frier had trans fats or not until he checked. It doesn't.
"I pay a little more for my oil, to make sure I use vegetable oil," he said.
And not because of any health studies or self-important not-for-profits telling him he should, either.
"I just like the taste better," he said.
Which goes to point up the absurdity of the law and the entire campaign behind it.
The Web site Bantransfats.com boasts of its various victories, starting with a 2003 lawsuit against Kraft that led the elimination of trans fats from Oreos. That triumph yielded, well, not much.
Does the use of healthier oils mean that you can sit in front of the television and devour an entire bag with no ill effects? Or eat a dozen chicken wings or a dozen donuts every day and not worry about becoming morbidly obese?
Of course not.
Which raises another question -- what, then, is the point?
That answer is pretty simple, too. The legality of trans fats might not make any real difference in your life or health. But it makes those who have made a mission out of prohibiting it feel so very much better.
Same with the smoking ban. Most of those who worked hardest for its passage would never deign to set foot in one of the neighborhood taverns or mom-and-pop restaurants who were devastated by its passage. But while those places were nailing up the plywood across the state, those who pushed for the ban patted each other on the back and smiled a self-satisfied smile.
These people could have devoted their efforts to making a real difference in the wellness of the nation, like lobbying for universal health-care coverage or an increased emphasis on fitness in schools.
But those things would cost money and face stiff opposition, with little opportunity for easy wins.
At least this surge of do-gooder meddling isn't going to force anyone into Chapter 11 -- Yates said it only costs him about $6 more per week to fill his fryers with the higher-grade oil.
The campaign has also provided producers of processed food to reap free publicity. The Taco Bell chain, for instance, announced last month that it will remove all trans fats from its vomit-inducing recipes. So if you eat a couple meals a day there, you probably won't become morbidly obese, or anything.
And makers of products that never had any trans fats in the first place can now justifiably emblazon "0g Trans Fats" on their packaging.
The truly ominous element in all of this is the ever-increasing willingness of the public to let government at all levels trample in places where it has never before been allowed to even tip-toe.
Several states have passed laws that make it a crime for foster parents to smoke when their wards are in the house. Arkansas and Louisiana have made it a crime to smoke with a child in the car.
Nobody is arguing that smoking around a kid is a good idea. But there are a lot of things that are bad for children, from too much of the wrong television to indulgence in the pop-culture fad of the moment. Should the government install chips in your cable box or satellite dish to make sure your daughter doesn't overdose on trampy-looking dolls?
Maybe it's too much to ask for people to get riled up about another government imposition on their ability to make their own decisions. Especially with another season of American Idol barely a month away.
After all, nobody aside from a few columnists who hate America anyway complained much when Congress gave the federal government overseen by President George W. Bush -- who has made so many good decisions about so many things over the past six years -- the power to jail any one of us indefinitely at any time for no reason at all.
So to all of you working so hard to pass laws that do little but make yourself feel even more self-righteous, congratulations.
Though for what, who knows?
And thanks.
For nothing.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | December 12 2006 |