Open Market

Can You Smell What the Trial Lawyers Are Cooking?

Steve Milloy has a terrifying vision of the future over at FoxNews.com on how trans fats could become the next billion dollar liability bonanza:

However, the Democrat takeover of Congress raises concerns because trial lawyers are historically among the Democrats’ biggest financial supporters – almost 10 times greater than the food industry in 2006 ($65 million vs. $7 million). While Congress has no direct authority over the FDA and its staff, Congress may pressure the FDA and its leadership to change the [generally recognized as safe] status of trans fats in other ways -- such as through its investigative, appropriations and legislative powers.

 

A change in the status of trans fats would clear the way for personal injury lawyers to sue (perhaps on a class action basis) and start collecting big bucks for the alleged 1-in-5 heart attacks that the Harvard cabal blames on trans fats. It could be a multi-billion dollar payday that ranks among the most lucrative personal injury litigation for the lawyers.

 

And people like John Banzhaf are just waiting for the day.

 

--Richard Morrison

Health is in the Eye of the Regulator

This New York Times article about the nutritional content of grocery store foods unintentionally raises some good points about why a de facto government monopoly on food labeling and nutritional claims is a bad idea: sometimes, they get it wrong. Sometimes, consumers want something different. And sometimes, the standards are so complex as to be meaningless.

If the ostensible purpose of having these regulations is to mitigate information asymmetry between consumers and producers, perhaps a system in which defining “healthy” levels of sodium takes a cool 50 pages is not the best way to go. Do labels based on such rules really arm consumers with good information? Only if they read this consumers’ guide to nutrition labels, which clocks in at 13 pages, before going to the store.

So without the government, how could we ever possibly know if our food is good for us? Hannaford, a grocery chain in New England, is taking a stab at it, offering its customers information that is far more, well, digestible (pun only vaguely intended) than the required labels; it rates products with 0 – 3 stars indicating the overall nutritional value:

Hannaford says it is not trying to be preachy or to issue a yes-or-no checklist, just to offer guidance to shoppers who want it […] Furthermore, the company said, there is a place for no-star foods in every balanced diet.

“We are saying there are no bad foods,” said Caren Epstein, a Hannaford spokeswoman. “This is a good, better and best system.”

This point always gets lost in nutrition debates: some foods should be eaten in moderation, and others should make up a bigger part of your diet, but it’s all just food. Cookies and french fries and thick juicy steaks won’t kill you. I know, it’s anarchy. Strikingly, this pivotal point doesn’t just lost in the public debate, it gets lost in the very Times article in which it appears! Intrepid reporter Andrew Martin writes:

People who choose to adhere closely to the Hannaford ratings will have Spartan diets indeed. Not only did cookies and potato chips rate poorly, but so did whole milk…and products with nourishing-sounding names like Healthy Choice Old-Fashioned Chicken Noodle Soup.

He then notes again, presumably un-ironically, the comments of the Hannaford people:

Hannaford officials and members of the advisory panel emphasized that foods with no stars were not meant to be shunned.

“They are not everyday foods,” said Ms. Sutherland. “They are great sometimes foods.”

Sigh.

Oh, and a special shout out to the mom who unabashedly said, “I buy whatever it is on my list. If my kids want Cheerios, I buy them Cheerios and don’t look at the stars.” That’s a fine piece of parenting there. No doubt General Mills is to blame for your kids getting too much fiber.

--Brooke Oberwetter

The Fat Acceptance Movement Needs You

Jacob Sullum over at Reason reviews two of the latest books on weight loss industry and the obsession with the obesity "epidemic" in America. He summarizes his reaction with the simple plea: "Lay off the fatties. They're not hurting anybody - maybe not even themselves."

Link from Arts & Letters Daily.

--Richard Morrison

Internet Medicine: Does that Make Al Gore My Family Physician?

A new study finds an increasing number of doctors using information from Internet searches to help diagnose illnesses:

The internet search engine Google has added another impressive string to its bow - by helping doctors diagnose illnesses, according to a new study.

 

Researchers found that almost six-in-10 difficult cases can be solved by using the world wide web as a diagnostic aid.

 

Doctors fight disease by carrying about two million facts in their heads but with medical knowledge expanding rapidly, even this may not be enough.

Fred has written on this topic before, but from the patient’s side. He explains how online resources are helping people take change of their own health and well being:

The hierarchic medical structure of the past—the doctors as high priests dispensing their knowledge in oracular fashion—is rapidly being replaced by the noisier, but vastly more knowledgeable Web.

As the mainstream infectious diseases of the past fade into history, people find themselves affected by less common diseases, by rarer side-effects, by ailments with no clear etiology. But this is almost equally true of their physicians who, increasingly specialized and dealing with a few thousand patients a year, are unlikely to encounter your particular malady.

The Internet, in contrast, has made it possible for victims of "rare" conditions to find ways to communicate with one another. These sites today are generally "noisy" and a bit paranoid; many of their sponsors and members see rare contaminants or industrial pollutants causes for almost everything. Nonetheless, they are maturing. While some argue we need government oversight of this profusion of speakers, the solution to bad information is not censorship but rather better information.

Let’s just hope the FDA doesn’t hear about this. Before you know it, only board certified physicians will be allowed to post comments on WedMD.com.

--Richard Morrison

Schlitz for Me, But None for Thee

There are two great stories linked from Hit and Run on the economics of alcohol regulation and how governments are unfailingly bad at anticipating the reactions of consumers to regulation of personal choice.

First, Kerry Howley points out this article in the Toronto Star on new regulations imposed on Vodka in Russia:

An attempt to crack down on bootleg liquor has backfired spectacularly, with dozens of Russians dying and more than 2,000 in hospital as a wave of alcohol poisonings sweeps the country.

[…]

The epidemic follows the introduction earlier this year of new excise stamps aimed at fighting widespread sales of counterfeit alcohol. That has driven up the price of alcohol, and bureaucratic bungling has delayed distribution of the stamps, causing shortfalls.

[…]

Shortages have led to a boom in sales of illegal, homemade spirits and alcohol substitutes, such as cleaning solutions, lighter fuel, anti-freeze and rust-removing chemicals.

Second, Radley Balko points to a Seattle law banning the sale of 29 brands of cheap booze in areas frequented by the homeless. The ban was intended to curb consumption on the street by the city’s poor and homeless residents. But as Radley points out, “Poor people in Seattle have since switched to the 30th and 31st cheapest brands.”

Mmmmmm…Nothing hits the spot like a 24-oz bottle of Ice House.

--Brooke Oberwetter

 

 

Lomborg on the Stern Review: "...selective...flawed...sloppy...one-sided..."

Our friend Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, has an excellent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal (subscription only) today taking on the Stern review of the economics of global warming:

Faced with such alarmist suggestions, spending just 1% of GDP or $450 billion each year to cut carbon emissions seems on the surface like a sound investment. In fact, it is one of the least attractive options. Spending just a fraction of this figure -- $75 billion -- the U.N. estimates that we could solve all the world's major basic problems. We could give everyone clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education right now. Is that not better?

 

We know from economic models that dealing just with malaria could provide economic boosts to the order of 1% extra GDP growth per capita per year. Even making a very conservative estimate that solving all the major basic issues would induce just 2% extra growth, 100 years from now each individual in the developing world would be more than 700% richer. That truly trivializes Mr. Stern's 10% to 13% estimates for South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

Last weekend in New York, I asked 24 U.N. ambassadors -- from nations including China, India and the U.S. -- to prioritize the best solutions for the world's greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus. They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning.

 

We all want a better world. But we must not let ourselves be swept up in making a bad investment, simply because we have been scared by sensationalist headlines.

 

Hopefully Bjørn’s work will help keep the alarmist crowd from suggesting that Stern’s extreme predictions are now somehow part of the “consensus” on climate change we keep hearing so much about.

-- Richard Morrison

Trans-Fatty Criminals

Elizabeth Whelan of ACSH has a great article on National Review Online today about the stupidity of banning trans-fats, as New York City and Chicago have done:

…the food industry has turned the fear of [trans-fatty acids] into a brilliant marketing strategy — trumpeting the “No Trans-Fats” claim on labels. Unsuspecting customers will conclude from the absence of TFAs that products are healthier — and maybe even think they are reduced in calories — when in fact there are no health benefits. All fats, saturated or not, contain nine calories per gram. There are no caloric savings from replacing TFAs with other fats. On October 30, Kentucky Fried Chicken decided to cash in on the trans-fat mania, announcing — while the hearings were in process — that it was phasing out all use of the much-maligned substances. KFC practically claimed that their new line of products, once TFA-free, would be eligible for the Health Food Hall of Fame.

What will replace the allegedly malicious TFAs? In the late 1980s, the Ralph Nader–inspired Center for Science in the Public Interest fomented a frenzy about the beef tallow that fast-food restaurants used to fry potatoes because it contains cholesterol-raising saturated fats — and demanded that they stop it. And what did CSPI recommend to take its place? Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils with TFAs. Now the wheel has turned and CSPI is outraged over TFAs.

Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time that the Nader Safety Army has gotten it wrong. Just to make our General Counsel Sam Kazman happy, here’s the famous photo of Ralph Nader demonstrating how well airbags work on unbelted 3-year olds at a 1977 press conference (as it turns out, airbags have actually been a net safety hazard for young children). Also, is it wise for a 3-year old to be driving a car in the first place?

What's the penalty for child endangerment in Washington, D.C.?

By the way, Jacob Sullum over at Hit & Run also has thoughts on the ACSH report.

-- Richard Morrison

The Sweetest Urban Legend of All

Keeping the holiday theme going, we now turn to the perennial Halloween boogieman, the anonymous candy poisoner. For decades, parents have been warned to check their kids’ candy carefully, lest a cyanide-laced Sugar Daddy make in into junior’s mouth. As Iain has taught us, however, the record books are mighty slim when it comes to any children actually being harmed by psychos intent on taking advantage of the candy-giving season:

Every year, newspapers and television programs warn parents about the "threat' [from poisoning trick-or-treat candy, along] with grave reminders to check apples for razor blades and needles.

 

This year [2003], the Food and Drug Administration has joined in the tale-telling, warning parents to inspect commercially wrapped treats for signs of tampering, such as an unusual appearance or discoloration, tiny pinholes, or tears in wrappers. Throw away anything that looks suspicious.

 

But the FDA is telling just another scary tale, with as much truth as the legend of Hookhand: Halloween candy-tampering is a myth. University of Delaware sociologist Joel Best studied national criminal data going back to 1958 and found only 76 reports of any kind of tampering, of which almost all turned out to be mistaken or fraudulent.

 

In other words, parents, relax. Snopes, by the way, also has the low-down on mythical poisoned Halloween candy.

-- Richard Morrison

Kazman vs. Cupcake

CEI's Sam Kazman had the quote of the day. It happened during a debate on CNBC's Morning Call over whether NYC should ban restaurants from using artificial trans-fats. His opponent showed a 25-year-old cupcake as proof that trans-fats are bad for us. Sam's classic response? Press play to find out!

--Jody Clarke

Smoking your way to the presidency?

I was waiting for Reason to blog about this article in The New Republic. It focuses on the fact that presidential maybe-sayer Barack Obama smokes cigarettes. While that’s hardly a revelation, TNR’s take on it is – smoking gives him an edge as a candidate. Puffing on those cigarettes makes him seem like a real guy and not another synthetic politician.

As writer Michael Currie Schaffer puts it:

For a Democrat who wants to run in 2008, smoking may well be a tactically perfect vice. On the one hand, it sets Obama apart from the likes of Gore and Kerry, who suffered from the public perception that they had been training for the White House--and thus forgoing (or burying) foolish diversions like smoking--since they were teens. And, on the other hand, it may serve to shield him from what could be the major knock on Hillary Clinton--that she is an eat-your-vegetables type who wants to impose her yuppified abstemiousness on the rest of us.

Schaffer may have something here. But don’t expect to see any ads with Obama puffing away. I’ll bet political correctness dictates a nicotine patch soon.

-- Fran Smith