Policy Wise

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The recent decision by New York City’s Board of Health to ban the usage of trans-fat in all restaurants (and catering units) in the city bothers me. Ever since I heard about the initial proposal few months ago, I have not been able to decide whether it is a good or bad idea.

On one hand, the ban is a classic example of the government poking its nose in matters that should be left to individual choice. It sets you on a slippery slope of nanny-statism and is arguably just a step away from enforcing daily compulsory jogging. On the other hand, since trans-fat does increase the risk of heart-attack and other medical conditions, there is the question of a burden on the public health system (leaving aside the libertarian argument that the state has no business being involved in health-care at all). Even if you have private medical insurance, your falling sick probably raises the overall premium for the population. Besides, you are taking up the time of doctors and nurses who could be treating other patients.

Two similar examples in this context is the ban on smoking in public places and the mandatory usage of helmets while motorcycling. The ban on smoking is less ambiguous in the sense that one individual’s habit should not affect the health of another directly. In case of helmets, one can argue that chances of a fatal injury requiring intensive medical care is much more probable than the possibility of say an heart attack due to consumption of trans-fat. In both these cases I am in favor of state intervention.

Coming back to the ban on trans-fat, Professor Richard Posner, of the Becker-Posner Blog, performs a crude cost-benefit analysis and in conclusion says (H/T: Confused):

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.

Do read the full post - this is a surprising endorsement from an usually libertarian voice.

Still, one wonders how much purpose the ban will serve. Folks who are diet- and health-conscious (and therefore at low-risks for diseases) already avoid trans-fat as much as possible. And such people are usually of an economic status to be able to make the choice of eating healthy. Those who live sedentary life-styles are at a higher risk for diseases anyway - trans-fat or not. For the urban poor and inner-city population, such a ban will also raise the cost of eating. Besides, one remains free to cook with trans-fat at home.

My personal preference would be to not ban trans-fat altogether, but rather force restaurants using the oils to prominently declare as such. Leave it to the consumer to make the healthy choice.

(Thanks to Confused for inputs and discussion that lead to this post.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!