Slashdot Mirror
US FDA Moves To Ban Trans Fat
UnknowingFool writes "Citing growing health concerns about trans fat, the FDA today proposed measures to eliminate it from the U.S. food supply. While trans fat can still be used, the new measures now place the burden on food processors to justify the inclusion of it in a food product as experts have maintained that there is no safe level of consumption and no health benefits. Since 2006, the amount of trans fat eaten by the average American has declined from 4.5g per serving to less than 1g as restaurants and the food industry have reduced their use of it. There will be a 60-day public comment period for the new proposal."
TFA is more specific than the brief above describes.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Since 2006, the amount of trans far eaten by the average American has declined from 4.5g per serving to less than 1g
Are we thinner yet?
...does it give the federal government the power to ban food or food ingredients?
Especially if the food in question does not cross state boundaries, and thus should not be subject to the interstate commerce clause?
Trans fats appear naturally in small amounts in things like cream.
Cream, being mostly saturated, zero carb and choc full of fat soluble vitamins is a very healthy food.
There is plenty of reasonable hypothesis that the small amount of trans fats in milkfat has a hormetic effect. It is the bulk trans fats in engineered foods that is toxic.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Why not targeting high fructose corn syrup instead?
It is far more harmful and sugar is a better (albeit pricier) replacement.
You mean I'll not be able to buy any more beef tallow pudding? I eat that stuff by the spoonful!
So either make a requirement that all food additives follow guidelines to provide "safe levels of consumption and health benefits" or let consumers and corporations work it out on their own. Targeting individual food products is as productive as targeting individual financial products or individual companies in regulation. It just creates more work ... oh; nevermind, figured that out.
Smoking = tax money
Trans fats = no tax money
Debate over.
Ban HFCS instead.
Trans fats are stable and solid at room temperature. This is desirable in a food product. Trans fats are horrid, but they may or may not be more horrid than whatever comes along to replace them. The real solution is for the US government to stop subsidizing processed food by making corn and soy artificially cheap. As long as McDonald's is cheaper than quality vegetables, people will continue to eat garbage.
Vegans have diets that are so low in the LDL (bad) cholesterol that they can be too low. It turns out that you need some LDL cholesterol, or you bleed to death. It is only "bad" when you have too much of it.
Humans can produce their own LDL, but for some people that is not enough and they need dietary LDL. Partially-hydrogenated oils provide that need without requiring a vegan to eat any animal products.
Vegetarians who eat milk, eggs, or fish don't have this problem. But vegans do.
Of course, it is also true that a lot MORE people are dying of heart disease because of too much LDL than are dying of anything because of too little, so I think this battle is up a very steep hill.
It's not enough that we tell people what they eat may be bad for them, now we enforce it. How long before meat is banned? Sugar? Fat? Salt?
Yeah I think it is unfair that ChiChis was run out of business. If people want to eat hepatitis A tainted food, they should be allowed!
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
It's not enough that we tell people what they eat may be bad for them, now we enforce it. How long before meat is banned? Sugar? Fat? Salt?
I tend to agree with this in principal yet as it stands consumers are denied the ability to know how much trans fat is in the shit their eating due to the infamous 0.5g/serving threshold loophole.
Either change labeling laws or get rid of the shit. Changing labeling laws would essentially have the same effect anyway I suspect.
Please look up "begs the question."
We're all socialists whenever it benefits us. Do you favor zoning laws that set minimum parking requirements instead of allowing store owners to decide how many parking spaces to provide for their own customers? If so, then you are a socialist, even if you are able to rationalize such laws.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
+1 Funny (demolition man reference)
If you really feel the urge to eat partially hydrogenated vegatable oil, you can always grab a spoon and a tub of margarine and gob away to your heart's content.
This is pretty specific. We are talking about a low cost additive with known health risks and no shortage of drop in replacements. This is really more of a food safety issue then anything else, similar to requirements around cleanliness in food manufacturing plants or not allowing lead pipes for potable water.
Jesus Christ. The guy you were replying to was being sarcastic (like a 5 year old child). He's a Big Government stooge, just the way you like your stooges. So you two are in violent agreement.
Totally the same thing, Jeeves. What next from your ilk, a Cyanide reference?
Yeah, like turr hurr, if people want cyanide laced Tylenol they should be able turr hurr!
Shut the fuck up. Trans fats are nowhere near as dangerous as people claim, they can be safely consumed in moderation and actually make many baked goods taste better.
You can safely consume trans-fats, you can't safely consume Hep A. The FDA's job is not to be our health watchdog. If it were, they'd ban all sorts of things people get obese or sick from when eaten to excess.
.5/g per serving of Trans-fats will not hurt you. Silly point.
I support accurate labeling, however, and do not support scurrilous behavior where people knowingly sell products without at least letting you know.
"Warning! This product contains trans fats created from a process to make vegetable oil turn rancid more slowly, but, on a per-calorie basis, is approximately 2.5x as bad for you as animal fat, which is the stuff you are supposedly using vegetable oil trying to avoid soas to not have heart attacks."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Honest question... how would it require any more overhead to put a tax on it than to ban it, which is what they are proposing?
I'm only suggesting that if they are wanting to do the latter, they should just do the former. Or would you just rather take people's choice away completely?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
doesn't we have other more dangerous things to worry about, like absurd levels of white sugar and HFCS in the diet?
ordinary garden variety saturated and unsaturated fats. vegetable oil, lard, etc.
those substitutes are much better though for most people, you'll just have to be careful and be thankful things have to be properly labeled by law
With the trend toward government medicine, politicians now have a whole new reason to push their tastes on us for our health. This trend will only continue, under the usual reasons:
I'd rather see limits on sodium, since it's overloaded into everything from dough to freezer meals. Try cutting back on it, and you'll suddenly see it everywhere.
I don't think you're wrong, just crazy. I imagine I would probably be healthier if I ate like you, except mentally, where I would be going insane because most things that are particularly tasty are not low-carb.
Well informing is not the same as banning. I don't mind the former, but the latter encourages a nasty anti-liberty path. There's a huge list of foods and foodstuffs the leftists would love to ban and/or ultratax. I don't want these soccer mom associations deciding limits on my freedom. As long as the packages are clearly marked, I can make my own decisions.
.5/g per serving of Trans-fats will not hurt you. Silly point.
There is no basis for such conclusions without first knowing how many "servings" would normally be consumed.
Serving size is completely arbitrary some have been intentionally reduced to avoid having to put a number other than 0 in the trans fat column.
This has the effect of the consumer being lied to about the nutrition of the shit their eating.
Trans fats do not make food taste better. Fats do, but trans fats offer no advantage there and have a much bigger downside.
At least in the USA, that's an obsolete definition.
It's usually called 'classic liberal' or 'libertarian' these days.
Liberals in the USA are the party of big government and hate freedom.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Because taxes should not be used as punitive measures. That's what gets people to hate them.
That doesn't mean they should be banned. Informed consumers can make their own choices. You've chosen to ban them from your diet and that's fine. Allow others the same choice.
For now. This law would _ban_ margarine.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There are a few significant health benefits to nicotine.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
.5/g per serving of Trans-fats will not hurt you. Silly point.
lets say eating an oreo cookie is 0.2/g and they define a serving as 2 cookies. Then oreas are sold in "lunchable snack packs" containing 6 cookies.
So kid gets 3 servings of cookies get's 0.2*6 = 1.2g of transfat, parents think they haven't had any yet. Then the same thing happens in half the things in the sandwich, the other desert, and 3 other meals the kids eat. So tracking by label you've eaten 0, while tracking what was actually in the food you ate gives you 28grams per day...
Of course oreo's says they don't use transfat anymore at all, so its just a theoretical example.
But the point stands, if its not labelled, you don't know what is there. We can argue the merits and amounts of anything that is 'good or healthy', but its shocking that there is any legitimate reason to argue about labeling. Things should be labelled. Period.
And if a company doesn't want to label something, that's a red flag that they probably should be labeling it.
It's worse, people are cottoning on to this, it's fucking addictive poison which wreaks havok on the body in a biochemical sense.
Transfats certainly aren't "the good fats" but people aren't getting as fat from fat than they are sugar.
Dumbasses
Tobacco products are something used directly by consumers, they aren't an ingredient. People buy cigarettes, etc. specifically.
Artificial trans-fat is not something consumers purchase and use. It is an ingredient in other food items where it is frequently hidden.
Thus, it is not necessarily an informed choice, like tobacco products.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Oh noesies! 1.2g of trans fat?! How ever will little Jr. survive!! There's nothing wrong with small or even moderate amounts of trans fat.
You can. It's not hard.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Ohhhh boy, and here comes ReichStagFred88 to goose-step all over internet jokes.
OK, this whole thread might be a stupid argument, but damn if that's not one funny bastardization of someone's handle!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
-1 Redundant (we know it's a Demolition Man reference, Captain Obvious)
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Just say "sugar" - there's no reason to specify what kinds. It's all fructose and glucose in varying proportions. Doesn't matter how or why.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
>There are a few significant health benefits to nicotine.
It protects you from the diseases of old age.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Is the health cost worth the benefit?
>Food processors will change over to oils like coconut, palm kernel oil, and animal based oils because they can be solid at room temperature,
Yes. This would be an enormous improvement.
>My wife has a severe allergy to palm based oils making it difficult to shop in the grocery store.
Between gluten exposure, compromised gut bacteria and inflammation due to a poor consumed fat ratio, I'm sure she could take steps to improve her malfunctioning immune system.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
>most things that are particularly tasty are not low-carb.
You do know that fat is the most effective transport for flavor right?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Sorry, your joke was too subtle for Slashdot today. Including the typical hyphen at the end may have helped.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
>I've been told that trans fats are very bad and saturated fats are bad.
No, bulk trans fats are very bad, small amounts appear to be fine. Saturated fats are very, very healthy.
>What I've wondered is: if I'm going to eat something bad, and one of my options has a lot less saturated fat but a little more trans fat, how do I decide if this option is the lesser of the evils.
Easy, eat the saturated fat.
>At what rate should you trade saturated fats for trans fats. I've tried googling, but no luck.
Eat as much saturated fat as you want. Eat trans fats in the small amounts that appear in dairy products. Stop eating when you are satiated.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Ignorance is no barrier to Slashdot.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I overheard a co-worker talking about her diet the other day; she was actually trying to argue against eating vegetables because they contain carbs! True story.
I felt compelled to point out to her what one of the coaches from Biggest Loser (the skinny red-headed guy) once said in an interview: "Nobody ever got fat from eating vegetables."
Your carb rant just made me think of it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Many things that are particularly tasty are not low-fat, either. Many things that are the tastiest have fat *and* carbs. :p
So, yes I did know that. I wouldn't want to not eat much fat, either. I think I'd be happier, taste-wise, eating no fat than no carbs, but both would suck. (I'm not saying I would want to eat a dish that was nothing but carbs - I'm just saying, the difference between a dish with a base of rice or noodles, and the same dish only with the rice or noodles removed, is immense.)
Is that why it is illegal in most states to sell raw milk despite it being an extremely healthy and natural product?
Only I can judge you.
That fails to address why we shouldn't put it on the label.
If you're ok to go die in a ditch because you ate a dozen Krispy Kream donuts every day, then fine, have at it, but if you want to join the health care system, then we all should get some say in what you can and cannot eat.
It does affect the overall cost to all of us, so it isn't just "personal choice".
That depends. Are the transvestites sweet and from Transylvania?
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Trans fat lobbying isn't as big as tobacco lobbying. Plus, there are people who vote specifically to protect their access to their tobacco addiction.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Pure socialism doesn't work.
Happiness is somewhere in the middle.
You still can, just like you can smoke a carton of cigarettes and drink yourself into a coma for the night.
People just aren't free to pass it off as medically neutral calories.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Think of trans-fats as being like saturated fats that your body can't remove and will stay in you for a long time. They have an accumulative effect that is much harder to manage.
I am seeing this story getting traction all over the place using similar rhetoric. What the FDA proposed was removing artificial trans fats from the "generally recognized as safe" category. Which seems reasonable since it is not generally recognized as safe any longer. This isn't some kind of government over reach this is simply using new science to update the classification of a food additive which is really nothing new.
I for one do look for trans fat content and avoid it as much as possible; so more aware how prevalent it is
and approve such a move even as they mention it's on it's way out (I haven't seen it).
I live in the USA so it's not going to happen, but to reduce Corn syrup/sugar would go a long way to show they cared about ones health.
I also live in an area with a high Mexican population; so shop at their authentic Mexican stores, as their products contain sugar not Corn syrup/sugar.
Corn syrup - Corn sugar I'm even confused of the difference only that both are a product of Corn and not healthy (digested lower in ones system than sugar)
The FDA did stop corn syrup being called corn sugar which is a start -
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/05/30/154009682/fda-rules-corn-syrup-cant-change-its-name-to-corn-sugar
There was a /. article awhile back I don't comment on about Mexicans being the fattest population,
I tend to disagree with the findings.
I had to find my way. Meat with green veggies is fine. Cream is fine. Eggs cooked with cream and cheese are excellent. Fermented foods are fine. Eating lard in isolation is not fine, it's gross.
Some things appear to be an acquired taste. I can eat butter straight up, but it took some adaption. Now I enjoy it.
If I eat carbs I put on weight. So YMMV.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
"begs the question" does not mean what you think it used to mean any longer. The definition got changed; you lost. Get over it, AC.
there is reason to specify what kinds.
practical point of view, some "sugars" (as consumer would buy them) such as pure coconut palm sugar have slower uptake, lower GI.
you'll probably wail that is because it is a mixture of sugar with an oil that slows uptake. so what? if you're baking a cake, you'll be better off using that "sugar"
Or beef tallow like they used to fry McDonald's French fries when I was a kid. No artificial trans-fat there. (Yes, I know one of the reasons they don't use that any more is that if they used either of those then they couldn't sell their stuff to Muslims or Hindus.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
there are more kinds of sugar than fructose or glucose, by the way. best review your biochemistry book
Saturated fats are very, very healthy.
That is a complete and total lie. Unsaturated fats are healthy for you (as long as you don't ignore that they are very calorie dense), saturated fat is still most likely a killer. While there is some minor controversy still within the medical community about the link between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease, the overwhelming consensus is that saturated fat is bad for you. The odd exception is coconut oil for reasons that still aren't fully clear yet.
My advice is to simply pick whatever option has the least of both, and the one that has the least trans fat if there isn't an option that's low in both.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Well yes, but not in "white sugar" and "HFCS". They're nearly the same thing (50/50 fructose/glucose in one and 55/45 fructose/glucose in the other).
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
>That is a complete and total lie.
No it isn't. You may have noticed how people have become less healthy as they removed saturated fats from their diet. You may however missed the vast body of evidence that has replaced the crappy epidemiological evidence that wrongly implicated saturated fats in the 70s.
> the overwhelming consensus is that saturated fat is bad for you
No. This is the thoroughly debunked consensus. It is not longer consensus.
> The odd exception is coconut oil for reasons that still aren't fully clear yet.
It's ketogenic. The metabolic pathways that make this true are fully understood.
>My advice is to simply pick whatever option has the least of both
I will not be taking your advice. I'll go with the science myself. I'll stick to fats that aren't trans and don't oxidize at the first sign of oxygen.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Good choice of words there! Can anyone name any circumstance where eating any kind of shit for any reason is a good thing? One should always assume that eating shit is bad so don't eat shit. No one needs to lie to you! Shit is baaaadd umkay!
no, 100% sucrose in one, gastric acidity does a hydrolysis conversion but does that really go to 100% in the stomach with other foods in there?
It's not punative... nobody's doing anything wrong.
My point was that it would be more productive to tax it than to ban it, because they could at least collect some money for its use.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Which proves his point. It's cheap everywhere but here so the problem must lie with us. You may be too young to remember the US's hate for the Commies but it was pretty damned bad. This "grudge against Cuba" claim is just as valid as any other claim the slashbots have posted today.
Yes, but the problem with that is if you make crappy food choices, then we all have to pay for your health care.
If you're ok to go die in a ditch because you ate a dozen Krispy Kream donuts every day, then fine, have at it, but if you want to join the health care system, then we all should get some say in what you can and cannot eat.
It does affect the overall cost to all of us, so it isn't just "personal choice".
I would gladly pay more for the freedom of others to make poor personal choices. Freedom isn't free.
If they ban it, then it's not a choice at all.
If they tax it, they can at least make some money off of people who continue to make poor health choices... (much like cigarettes, for that matter). Further, if the tax is high enough, it may tend to dissuade people on limited incomes from spending their money on it when healthier alternatives are available for less.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Vegetables are overrated. I avoid them except as decoration for meat.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
They should fully hydrogenate themselves.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
If the coconut or palm oils come from plantations in places like Indonesia or Brazil where the rainforest is being destroyed to plant the trees then its not that good.
The metabolic pathway for sucrose begins with hydrolysis. No other way to use it.
Exactly! Fructose from, you know, _fruit_ is apparently not supposed to be so bad but if you take the mostly-glucose from corn and process it to create a higher ratio of fructose to glucose it's not now supposedly a horrible and toxic plague on humanity. If the problem is too much fructose, then that would mean that glucose syrup from corn should be _better_ for you than fructose from fruit juice. Also, since fructose is sweeter, less is needed so the total amount of sugar in the product can actually be reduced a bit when using HFCS versus cane sugar. In any case, targeting just "corn" sounds absolutely idiotic in these circumstances!
On the other hand, trans-fats (note, NOT all hydrogenated oils, just tran-fats) have been shown to be directly harmful. Labeling should have warnings and they shouldn't be able to say "0g trans-fat" when there is 0.499999g per absurdly-tiny "serviing." They can also ban trans-fat as an additive if they want, but such prominent labeling on food could pretty much have the same effect anyway.
No it isn't. You may have noticed how people have become less healthy as they removed saturated fats from their diet. You may however missed the vast body of evidence that has replaced the crappy epidemiological evidence that wrongly implicated saturated fats in the 70s.
Really. Let's see a few more recent studies, then.
No. This is the thoroughly debunked consensus. It is not longer consensus.
Well then, let's see what major medical and health associations say, then:
It's ketogenic. The metabolic pathways that make this true are fully understood.
Okay, cool beans. Feel free to explain the pathways and why more ketones is a good thing.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Question: Do you believe that tobacco users should pay more for health insurance due to their choices, or would you require that all policies be priced the same regardless of personal choices?
No right or wrong answer, just asking for your view point.
I am very dubious of the government outlawing trans fats. After all, it was not that long ago that they sang to the high heavens the praise of margarine. Government can't be trusted to get these things right and should not be in the business of banning people from eating or using things like this. They might make advisories, which they can later retract when the next fad science produces different results, but regulatory and legislative bans are a bad idea. Government should deal with big problems like war and interstate highways. Stay out of our kitchens and food. Leave the choices up to people.
Think: genetically modified cows safe for consumption by Hindu's as it wont actually contain any cow.
If you want the peasants to revolt, this is a good way to do it
Fried foods cooked in lard taste better. The transition to trans fat cooking oil ended my taste for restaurant fried food altogether.
I hope they will distinguish natural and artificial trans fats.
Natural trans fats can be found in dairy products. They are produced by the bacteria inside ruminants guts. They are the trans-vaccenic acid (produced from linoleic acid, a common omega-6 found in sunflower seeds and soy beans), and the conjugated linoneic acid (a.k.a. CLA, produced from alpha-linolenic acid, a common omega-3 acid found in flax seeds and walnuts). None of them are known to be harmful, ant the CLA is even known to have some health benefits, and is available as dietary supplements
On the other hand, there is the evil artificial trans fat created in partially hydrogenated oils: the elaidic acid. That one is harmful, and it may be because it is an isomer of the well known omega 9 oleic acid (found in olive oil, avocado, hazelnut). It is suspected that enzymes in charge of oleic acid will get confused by elaidic acid, because it chemically behaves like expected oleic acid, but has different physical behavior because it is a trans fat.
Question: Do you believe that tobacco users should pay more for health insurance due to their choices, or would you require that all policies be priced the same regardless of personal choices?
My previous comment is applicable to structures where health care is "free" and everyone pays indirectly by virtue of being a taxpayer.
Competition only works if all feet are held to the fire. This applies to consumers, producers and middlemen alike.
If an insurance company wants to charge Smokey the bear more for lighting up or for eating shit far be it for me to complain about that.
Problem with most health care regimes as I see it insurance fails or at some point is captured and then fails to become an effective proxy for competition. As long as the hospitals feet are not at risk of burning health care costs will continue to be grossly detached from reality.
Well, they are, but it's largely down to the sheer volume of sugar they get through, not the type.
[FUCK BETA]
"you're not thinking Fourth dimensionally, Marty" --back to the Future
Gut bacteria in many people get ahold of sugar and do interesting things with it, so the person gets something other than hydrolysis products to work with....
humans are not beakers in a simple experiment from a textbook
Its been banned here years ago and it has led to general improvements of health and the industry isn't harmed by it.
What they're proposing to do is remove the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status. This makes sense, because in reality it ain't generally recognized as safe. That means it's subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which means that anybody using it in food has to provide evidence that it's the food is safe before putting it on the market.
If there's some application of trans fats that is safe and worth doing economically, a food producer can do the necessary testing. It's not a ban.
Putting a tax on non-GRAS additives makes no sense. Either it's reasonably safe, in which we can just allow its sale, or it isn't, and we don't want it in food anyway.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Oh, should I go with the advice my cardiologist gave me after my heart attack last year, or the advice from somebody called "TechyImmigrant" on /.? What a choice! What a difficult decision!
It is possible that you're completely correct, but that's not something I'm willing to be my life on, and that's precisely what you are suggesting I do.
Do you have pointers to the extensive research that would be required to substantiate this?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yes. But today is the deadline for SP800-90 comment submissions. So not today. I haven't got my comments submitted yet.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
It does affect the overall cost to all of us, so it isn't just "personal choice".
Only because the state is slowly but surely removing all other options (obamacare is only the first step).
I would gladly pay more for the freedom of others to make poor personal choices. Freedom isn't free.
I thought of something else regarding this...
It is fine that you're willing to pay more for that freedom. What happens when I don't want to? Does your freedom override mine? Is your freedom "better" than mine?
I don't want to and am not willing to pay for the poor health choices of others. Why should I?