Rand Paul Fights Dastardly Government Plot To Squash Trans Fat Freedoms
The Food and Drug Administration is phasing out trans fats, prompting noted defender of freedom Rand Paul to warn, “They’re coming after your doughnuts!”
They are not, in fact, coming after your doughnuts. Trans fats are not essential to make doughnuts or, really, anything. Some restaurants still use trans fats because, even though they’re incredibly bad for you, they’re longer-lasting and slightly cheaper than other oils, and very few customers would ever know the difference. …
The doughnut ban is just the latest assault on freedom in the imaginary world in which Rand Paul spends most of his time. In this world, the IRS has hired 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce Obamacare, Obama is giving away free phones, Medicaid is bankrupting Kentucky hospitals, and all sorts of other terrible things that aren’t actually happening are happening.
It’s just one more example of what Paul calls the nanny state where “everybody’s got to eat the right thing, and you can’t eat a doughnut.” I suppose Paul thinks this fits neatly in with the right’s outrage over things like New York Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on gargantuan-size sodas. (Remember Sarah Palin at CPAC with her Big Gulp?) Unfortunately, Paul’s arguments have a few problems.
For one thing, as mentioned above, the ban is not on doughnuts, but on the use of trans fats, a wholly unnecessary ingredient in any food production which is very, very bad for your body. Most of the foods we now buy are trans fat free as a result of consumer preference. Once trans fats became a labeling requirement, consumers chose healthier alternatives, which in turn led manufacturers to largely eliminate their use. But not all food is labeled. When you eat at a locally-owned restaurant, you could be ingesting enormous quantities of trans fats without knowing it. The FDA has decided that’s not okay, and is phasing out the use of trans fats altogether. They are not, however, targeting doughnuts.
Still, this is a terrible assault on freedom in the eyes of Rand Paul. But the question has to be asked: whose freedom? Is Paul really worried that millions of Americans are being denied the right to poison their arteries for no discernible benefit to themselves, even taste? Or is Paul more interested in protecting the ability of business owners to put whatever the hell they want into products sold to unwitting consumers? If you guessed ‘b’ – you’re a winner!
Rand Paul’s brief political career is already rich in statements of pure “libertarian” principle barely masking contempt for business regulation aimed at protection of anything or anyone. Not only does he not believe the FDA has any business protecting consumers from trans fats that’ll stop your heart, he has questioned the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the grounds that business owners should have the right to discriminate, “It’s not all about race relations, it’s about controlling property, ultimately.”
He’s also not a big fan of workplace protections or environmental regulations, telling Fox Business in 2010, ““get rid of regulation. Get the EPA out of our coal business down here. Get OSHA out of our small businesses.” He even criticized the Obama administration for pressuring BP in the aftermath of the Gulf spill as “un-American” because, ya’ know, “accidents happen.”
The upshot is that Rand Paul’s libertarianism isn’t at all about individual freedoms — it’s about the unfettered free market. Tell me again how Rand Paul is so different than any other Republican?
Copyright 2013 Liberaland
By: Sandi Behrns
Sandi Behrns is a noted policy nerd, new media & web developer, and consultant to progressive organizations and campaigns. She is a senior contributor to Liberaland, and the Executive Editor of Progressive Congress News.