Government Control Over our Heat and What We Eat

The Declaration Of Independence clearly states that the business of government is to secure our rights. I am wondering at exactly what point did the goal of our elected government change from "securing our rights" to the regulation our personal behavior.

The fact is that there has been increasing government intrusion into our daily lives that go far beyond that original intent of the Declaration Of Independence for many years. Smoking and cell phone bans in restaurants, mandatory seat belts in automobiles, and excessive small business regulation to name just a few.

Indeed, some government intrusion of our civil liberties in an age of terrorism on the Federal level is necessary to protect our safety. However, it does seem to me that we have lost our way from the fundamental values of our Declaration Of Independence when we allow government to police our diet and mandate thermostats that give utilities control over the comfort of our own homes and businesses.

Consider the recently proposed state update to building (energy efficient) standards in the state of California. It would allow utilities to regulate the temperature of buildings in emergencies through a radio-controlled thermostat. This radio-controlled thermostat (called a Programmable Communicating Thermostat) would be required in the state of California in all new homes and commercial buildings beginning in April 2009.

This mandatory thermostat (called PCT) is described in the proposed plan to function as follows: "Upon receiving an emergency signal, the PCT shall respond to commands contained in the emergency signal, including changing the set-point by any number of degrees or to a specific temperature set-point. The PCT shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during emergency events. The PCT specifications require them to include a "non-removable Radio Data System device that is compatible with the default statewide DR (Demand Response) communications system, which can be used by utilities to send price and emergency signals."

In effect, homeowners and business owners would not be able to change the thermostat in their own homes or businesses whenever utilities call an "emergency event" such as the imminent threat of power blackouts. The utility company would completely control the customer's thermostat on a remote basis. This proposed state update does not provide any exception for health or safety concerns. It also does not even clearly define what these "emergency events" that allow utilities to control the thermostat in your home are. The proposal is scheduled to be considered by the state of California Energy Commission, later this month.

Of course if this mandatory thermostat proposal is allowed, then who knows where this type of government intrusion into our personal life will end. Remote water usage control by water utilities will probably be next. Home and business electricity monitoring and control will soon follow. Eventually your home's heat, air conditioning, water, and electricity usage will be subject to remote monitoring and control through utilities. It use to be said that in life "you get what you pay for". In the future that saying may have to be changed to "you pay for what you are allowed to get, when you are allowed to get it."

Next, consider the fact that New York City has become the first major city in America to ban trans fat (partially hydrogenated cooking oil ) in all of its restaurants. Several other cities are debating the issue to decide if they will follow with a trans fat ban of their own for restaurants. Restaurants are struggling with the problem of how to maintain the taste of their food under the trans fat ban.

Of course the politicians have not told the restaurant owners what they should use for cooking oil in place of trans fat. The restaurants could simply use saturated fat to replace the banned trans fat. Some of us recall that the move to use trans fat occurred as a result of a decision made 20 years ago to switch from saturated fat to trans fat since the latter at that time was thought to be healthier.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who banned smoking in bars and restaurants during his first term as mayor, has led a crusade to ban trans fats in New York restaurants by July 2008. The elimination of trans fat in New York restaurants means different things to different people. Some people think it will cut down on people's intake of junk food and reduce obesity. Others want to reduce the public's exposure to bad cholesterol produced by trans fat that can lead to heart related problems.

Trans fat, which are favored by manufacturers because of their long shelf life, are also found in pre-made products like pancake and hot chocolate mix sold off the shelf daily in any grocery store in New York. In effect, Mayor Bloomberg has decided that restaurants cannot sell products that are cooked in trans fat cooking oil, but grocery stores are allowed to sell trans fat in packaged form.

Also, consider that several years ago, butter was thought to be bad for you. This led to the promotion of margarine as a healthy alternative to butter. It is clear to see how misguided this health initiative was since margarine is made of the same trans fat which is identified as a major health risk today. Since margarine is made of trans fat why was margarine not banned in New York City as well as trans fat cooking oil?

Another concern with government getting into the business of regulating what we eat is the public relations problems that could result. People think that food like hamburgers and french fries become healthy for them just because they are cooked in oil that does not contain trans fat. Also consider where all this could lead. The government ban on trans fat could easily be extended to other products as well. Soon there could be a ban on salt, salty snacks, caffeine, carbonated beverages, sugar and sugar products, and anything else thought to be bad for your health at any moment in time.

Confusion, chaos, and inconsistency are what happens when government tries to legislate what the free market should control. People need to decide what is good and bad eating behavior for themselves and act accordingly. If they fear trans fat then they should not go to the restaurants that produce those products. The restaurant would suffer financially until it changes behavior. This is how our free market system works.

The Declaration of Independence said the business of government is to secure our rights. To "secure our rights" does not mean that state and local governments should control our heat and decide how and what we eat.