• Tag Archives prohibition
  • Banning Skittles Might Seem Trivial. It’s Not

    My 9-year-old son and his teammates often buy Skittles at wrestling tournaments. Their theory is that eating them before matches gives them energy — especially certain colored ones.

    “The red ones make you kick a**,” one boy told me. (I told him that’s good but that he shouldn’t use that word.)

    As it happens, Skittles has been in the news lately. Proposed legislation in California would ban the candy , which was first introduced in North America in 1979. At issue are several chemicals most people have never heard of — brominated vegetable oil, red dye No. 3, propylparaben, titanium dioxide, and potassium bromate — that critics allege are dangerous.

    “Why are these toxic chemicals in our food?” asked health advocate Susan Little. “We know they are harmful and that children are likely eating more of these chemicals than adults.”

    Candy companies said the claims have no merit, pointing out that none of the ingredients have been banned by the Food and Drug Administration.

    “Food safety is the No. 1 priority for U.S. confectionery companies,” said a spokesman for the National Confectioners Association. “Chocolate and candy are safe to enjoy, as they have been for centuries.”

    Many parents might be shocked by claims that Skittles is harmful, but they shouldn’t be. The war on Skittles is part of a broader effort to control what products consumers can buy.

    That gasoline-powered car you drive? Sorry, it’s an existential threat to the environment. Those large sugary drinks you enjoy with your New York-style pizza? Not a chance . The plastic straw you’re using to sip those drinks with? Also harmful to the environment. And don’t even think about buying a gas-powered stove .

    This is the trendy new strain of anti-capitalism . It’s designed to protect humanity by regulating what you consume — everything from what you eat and drive to the size of your house and how many calories you get to take in each day. The ideology is detailed in German author Ulrike Herrmann’s bestselling book Das Ende des Kapitalismus (English: The End of Capitalism).

    Not all of these efforts have yet been realized, of course. Many, such as California’s ban on the sale of gas-powered cars, are scheduled to go into effect years from now.

    Nor does all anti-capitalism look the same. Some proponents want to eliminate meat consumption to save the planet (in parts of Europe, this is primarily being done through emission regulations). Others seek to protect public health by eliminating foods or food ingredients they deem harmful, as in the case of Skittles.

    But notice the common theme: In both instances, they get to choose, not you. This is what truly matters.

    “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best,” the bestselling economist Thomas Sowell has observed.

    Banning Skittles might seem trivial, but it’s not. It’s an assault on limited government and the idea that consumers should be free to decide for themselves what to consume. It’s a battle over who is sovereign in society and gets to decide what is produced: consumers or planners.

    And that’s what the Skittles fight is really about: politics, influence, and power. Indeed, proponents of the legislation admit they don’t think California’s bill will pass, but they hope it will draw the attention of the FDA.

    “I think its purpose, which is valuable, is getting the FDA to look again at these chemicals and possibly to reevaluate its entire system for reviewing food additives,” UCLA School of Law professor Diana Winters told the Guardian.

    Unlike Winters, I won’t decide for you whether you should eat Skittles. I have no idea what brominated vegetable oil even is. But I do know that tens of billions of Skittles are consumed each year, and children are doing OK. I’m aware of other government bans on perfectly safe candies .

    So yes, I’ll allow my son to keep eating Skittles before his matches. As far as warnings from public health experts, I put as much stock in those as claims that the red Skittles help him “kick a**.”

    This article was originally published by the Washington Examiner.


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. (Follow him on Substack.)

    His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

    Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times. 

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • When Governments Tried to Ban Coffee

    When Governments Tried to Ban Coffee

    Calestous Juma’s excellent and entertaining Innovation and Its Enemies is an interesting tour through the histories of coffee, printing, margarine, farm machinery, transgenic crops, and other innovations that people have fought at various times. It reminded me that we shouldn’t take liberty and the rule of law for granted.

    The Great Coffee Debate



    In the chapter on coffee, Juma discusses how Middle Eastern and European societies resisted the beverage and, in particular, worked to shut down coffeehouses. Islamic jurists debated whether the kick from coffee is the same as intoxication and therefore something to be prohibited.

    Appealing to “the principle of original permissibility — al-ibaha, al-asliya — under which products were considered acceptable until expressly outlawed,” the fifteenth-century jurist Muhamad al-Dhabani issued several fatwas in support of keeping coffee legal.

    This wasn’t the last word on coffee, which was banned and permitted and banned and permitted and banned and permitted in various places over time. Some rulers were skeptical of coffee because it was brewed and consumed in public coffeehouses — places where people could indulge in vices like gambling and tobacco use or perhaps exchange unorthodox ideas that were a threat to their power. It seems absurd in retrospect, but political control of all things coffee is no laughing matter.

    The bans extended to Europe, where coffee threatened beverages like tea, wine, and beer. Predictably, and all in the name of public safety (of course!), European governments with the counsel of experts like brewers, vintners, and the British East India Tea Company regulated coffee importation and consumption. The list of affected interest groups is long, as is the list of meddlesome governments.

    Charles II of England would issue A Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee Houses in 1675. Sweden prohibited coffee imports on five separate occasions between 1756 and 1817. In the late seventeenth century, France required that all coffee be imported through Marseilles so that it could be more easily monopolized and taxed.

    A Society of Laws, Not Men

    This brings a few things into high relief. First, there have been few things as constant as government interference with liberty, and coffee shows how governments are keen to interfere when power and treasure are at stake. Second, we can’t take the rule of law for granted.

    A nation of laws and not of men is not one in which specific products are regulated in specific ways but one in which abstract and universally applicable principles govern exchange.

    Finally, we are rich today because we live in a society that values innovation — a society in which opposition to innovation, while strenuous at times, was nonetheless overcome. The example of coffee — coffee, of all things, an innocuous daily pleasure — makes me wonder: which innovations are we fretting about today that will cause our children to look back in puzzled wonder?

    Reprinted from Forbes.


    Art Carden

    Art Carden is an Associate Professor of Economics at Samford University’s Brock School of Business. In addition, he is a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics, a Senior Fellow with the Beacon Center of Tennessee, and a Research Fellow with the Independent Institute. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network. Visit his website.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • Feds Want To Lower Limits And Criminalize Alcohol Consumption

    Sarah Longwell, the managing director of the American Beverage Institute, calls the measure “ludicrous.”

    “Moving from 0.08 to 0.05 would criminalize perfectly responsible behavior,” she said. And “further restriction of moderate consumption of alcohol by responsible adults prior to driving does nothing to stop hard-core drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel.”

    via Feds Want To Lower Limits And Criminalize Alcohol Consumption