A Stitch in Haste

The New York Times forgets that oil and economics don't mix:

Most people who pay attention to their diets know that partially hydrogenated oil contains trans fat that clogs the arteries and reduces the "good" cholesterol that helps unclog them. Beginning next year, companies must disclose trans-fat amounts on food labels. But it is already clear that the Food and Drug Administration is going to have to do more to protect the public from heart-threatening fats.
...
The ultimate aim, however, should be to end the widespread use of partially hydrogenated oils. As things now stand, the F.D.A. acknowledges that trans fats are unhealthy at any level, and yet maintains that the partially hydrogenated oils that contain them are basically safe. The agency can't have it both ways. Public health would be greatly improved if the F.D.A. prohibited their use.

Now I may not know much about food science or nutrition generally, but I do know about economics and business. If companies are using partially hydrogenated oils, then they are doing so for a reason. I don't know whether it's cost, or taste, or shelf-life or government subsidies or what, but it's not just a random decision.

So let's assume, in classic Broken Window Fallacy style, that the government did ban these oils. Food would, in some way, be worse than it is today. It would either be more expensive, or less tasty, or more prone to spoilage, or would otherwise become something less desirable than it is today.

The differential might be small for one bag of potato chips or whatever -- a few pennies or a minute loss of utility for the consumer, either from diminished taste or some spoilage or whatever. But, for better or worse, we eat a lot of potato chips. Aggregate all those "few pennies" or "less tasty chips" over the entire food market and the cost, whether monetary or otherwise, becomes substantial.

But of course the Times doesn't see that cost. They only see the (supposed) health benefits from banning these oils.

Every choice any consumer ever makes involves costs and risks, even if it's just the opportunity cost of the next best alternative. It is fundamentally misguided (or malicious) to call for bans on a product for no other reason than because it is "costly." Basic economics guarantees that banning something is always more costly than not banning it -- if you define "costly" properly.

And as for "public health care costs," the far more intellectually honest concern would be over the cost of public health care, rather than the cost of food additives. "Too expensive for the government" is not the same as "too expensive for consumers."

Just as it would be fallacious to discuss the "cost" of a loaf of bread without including the cost of the heat used to bake it, so too is it fallacious to lament the cost of partially hydrogenated oils without considering the true costs of not using those oils.

Nothing more than a new twist to the same old Broken Window Fallacy.

Perhaps someday consumers will decide that the benefit of not using these oils will exceed the cost of not using them, and then the market itself will "ban" them (compare: the decline and fall first of sugar, then saccharine, and now perhaps of aspertame too, as Splenda becomes more popular). Until then, the Times should remember this basic truth: more choices are always preferable to fewer choices. Taking away a consumer's choices can be as detrimental to his welfare as taking away his money.

(Cross-posted at Bastiat's Window.)