New York City has decided to ban trans fats from being served in restaurants, prompting the usual libertarian argument that this limits consumer choice, as if any consumer would choose trans fats if given a real choice. Trans fats are a serious health liability and add absolutely nothing to flavor. They simply extend shelf-life, so they are a benefit to the producer and the retailer, not the consumer. The consumer’s health is the collateral damage resulting from the manufacturer’s desire to maximize profit. At best, the consumer may benefit indirectly from a slight reduction in the price of goods, but this variation in retail value has been found to be negligible.
Libertarians would have us recoil in horror from the “nanny state” preventing restaurants from serving trans fats, as if this were an affront to liberty, but instead would allow businesses to poison their customers (who never know the trans fat content of the food served) as if this were a sign of freedom. When consumers have no knowledge or control over the content of their food, it is difficult to see how they are acting freely. Given the opportunity, many businesses will poison their customers to the maximum extent permitted by law, which is why the FDA came into existence in the first place. Far from being advocates of freedom, the libertarians would make us slaves to the whims of unscrupulous businesses who would hydrogenate harmless fats into killer fats in order to maximize shelf-life. This is but a minor example of the greater fallacy of libertarianism: that government regulation is evil, but the same level of coercion from business is good. While the tyranny of the state is to be feared, it is no greater freedom to be at the mercy of private enterprise.