Month: November 2013

The FDA is preparing to ban partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), the major source of trans fats in processed food. Jonathan H. Adler spots an irony:

[T]here was a time when groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest were urging fast food chains and others to replace animal fats with PHOs. So while CSPI today praises the FDA for targeting trans fats, it also celebrated decisions by fast food chains like Burger King to start using trans fat-heavy PHOs. In other words, had it not been for the food nannies, American consumption of trans fats might not have been so high in the first place.

David Harsanyi has questions:

Ira Stoll sees inconsistencies:

The FDA says the “trans fat” in old-fashioned margarine causes heart attacks. But plenty of other things also cause heart attacks that the Obama administration has not yet prepared to ban.

Television causes heart attacks by encouraging sitting around on the couch and watching it rather than exercising. Cigarettes cause heart attacks. The Burger King Triple Whopper Sandwich meal will give you a heart attack. Too much Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice cream will give you a heart attack.

Yet the FDA has it in for margarine, not for hot fudge sundaes or television or even Triple Whoppers, all of which would, under the FDA’s proposed action, remain legally available for sale, unlike margarine. … Beyond the inconsistency of it, there’s the failure to accommodate individual preferences. Margarine use in my family was a consequence in part of the Jewish religious prohibition on mixing milk and meat. If you wanted a baked potato with your steak or a chocolate chip cookie for dessert, using margarine rather than butter was the kosher approach. Other margarine consumers may be vegans for philosophical reasons involving animal rights.

Denmark imposed a strict limit on trans fats in 2003. For perspective on the current debate in the U.S., Scientific American talked to Steen Stender, a Danish trans-fat expert who lobbied for the law:

How did industry respond?

Some bakers said that what you call a “Danish” can’t be made in the right way anymore, that we can’t get it to flake in the right way. Then one baker from one of the supermarket chains found that if he used a very meticulous scheme of temperature control during incubation of the fat and other ingredients at just the right temperature and time, he could make Danishes without any trans fat. This company put up a big poster saying “Have a Danish, we are baking for your heart without trans fat.” And in no time other bakers put up signs in their windows saying, “We are baking for your heart without trans fat.” So the industry went along with this initiative.

The industry is increasingly focused on developing treatments for uncommon ailments:

There’s good reason for big pharma’s attraction to rare disease treatments. Revenue from these products has been outpacing sales of mainstream drugs for the last decade, a trend that’s expected to continue for the next 30 years, continuing a trend from last decade. So-called “orphan drugs” (given this moniker because they are for diseases that historically were overlooked by the big drug companies) are protected against competition from generics for seven years in the US, compared to five years for non-orphan products.

The approval process for orphan drugs is also often fast-tracked, lessening the risks of lengthy, expensive and failed developments. Since 1983, when these advantages and generous tax credits for orphan drugs were introduced in the US, an estimated 350 drugs for 200 rare diseases have been approved by the US Federal Drug Administration.  No doubt this has improved countless lives, even if Botox (originally a treatment for uncontrollable blinking and spasms, but now largely used for Cosmetic purposes) and Cialis, the erectile dysfunction product, were both originally awarded orphan status.

But John McDuling warns that trouble may lie ahead:

Insurance companies in the US are typically willing to reimburse the costs of orphan drugs, because they are by definition rarely used, they tend to address life threatening treatments, and they are often prescribed to children and young adults, two groups that are predominantly healthy and therefore usually covered. But this policy could change as more money flows into the sector, attracted by the fat profits on offer, and more rare disease treatments are unearthed.

The are rising concerns that orphan drug treatments could be driving up the costs of healthcare for everyone. Already in Europe, where health care is universal, but public finances are stretched, governments are questioning high reimbursement rates for rare disease treatments.  As the world’s biggest economy struggles to reform its own absurdly expensive healthcare system, orphan drugs could soon be in the line of fire in the US as well.

McArdle urges people with depression to “exercise their Second Amendment right not to have a gun in their home”:

[M]any people who attempt suicide are possessed by a transient impulse. In one landmark study, the majority of people who were prevented from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge were either alive years later or had died of natural causes …. So people who have had major depressive episodes in the past might be well advised to avoid gun ownership or put their guns in the care of a trusted friend. And folks who have recently gone through a horrible life event (job loss, bad breakup or the death of a loved one) would be well advised to get the guns out of the house until they’ve recovered from the blow.

In a recent study, Alex Tabarrok found that each 1-percent rise in gun ownership rates is correlated with a .5- to .9-percent increase in suicides. And it appears the former causes the latter:

If suicides and gun ownership were being driven by a third factor, we would expect gun ownership to be correlated with all suicides – not just gun suicide. What we find, however, is that an increase in gun ownership decreases non-gun suicide. From an economics perspective, this makes perfect sense. … Substitution among methods is not perfect, however, so when gun ownership decreases we see a big decrease in gun-suicide and a substantial but less-than-fully compensating increase in non-gun-suicide – so a net decrease in the number of suicides.

Our econometric results are consistent with the literature on suicide which finds that suicide is often a rash and impulsive decision – most people who try but fail to commit suicide do not recommit at a later date. As a result, small increases in the cost of suicide can dissuade people long enough so that they never do commit suicide.

Previous Dish on guns and suicide here, here, and here.

(Chart from Pew.)

Beutler feels that Obama has temporarily calmed his fellow Democrats:

We’ll know Democrats are warring with each other, or in full retreat from the law, when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can’t restrain rank-and-file members from forcing legislative sabotage on Obama. That hasn’t happened yet. Obama’s administrative fix staved it off for the time being. But the scenario’s not outside the realm of possibility if the relaunch isn’t smooth, and enrollments fail to reach escape velocity.

Sargent urges Democrats to close ranks:

In a general sense, the handling of Obamacare’s rollout in the weeks ahead has the potential to be a defining moment for Democrats. Health reform has been a chief goal of Democrats for decades. It’s the latest effort to build on the great reforms that defined the party in the 20th century, in a way that will update the liberal project for the 21st. Will Dems stand by the law and against serious efforts to undermine it, even if it requires walking through political fire to do so?

Drum’s advice:

There’s no running away from Obamacare if you’re a Democrat. So put all the pressure you want on Obama to get things fixed, but you’d better stick together even if things get tougher than they are now. If you don’t hang together, you will surely all hang separately.