The Nanny State grows, as New York City has become the first major city to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants. There’s no doubt that other cites will follow suit.
Plain and simple, this is a bad move. Are trans fats bad? There’s some reason to believe that too much trans fat might be bad for you. However, there’s no reason for government to step in — at any level — and flat out ban trans fat. Or any other food. Or drink.
Whatever happened to individual choice? What about a person’s right to choose what they do with their body?
I’m probably going to get a lot of heat for making this comparison, but I think it’s valid: How come women have the right to choose what they want to do with an unborn baby/fetus but don’t have the right to choose what they eat? If a fit mom-to-be wants a Dunkin’ Donuts trans fat muffin why can’t she eat one? If a mMom-to-be is legally free to smoke, why can’t she down a Krispy Kreme glazed donut?
If we have given women the supreme right to determine whether or not to terminate the life of their unborn fetus, shouldn’t they be allowed to eat and drink and smoke anything that they want? After all, the logic and wisdom is that abortion is a situation that is about their body, right?
A woman can make the life or death decision regarding abortion, but isn’t allowed to eat the muffin of her choice?
And what about a man’s right to choose? If a fat guy wants to be a fat guy, who are we to stop him? Donuts, fried foods, and potato chips are the foods of their choice so why can’t they eat them?
Don’t give me the nonsense that we’re serving the public’s good or public health by banning such foods. Politicians truly don’t give a real damn about public health.
Don’t tell me that politicians are smarter that we are. Have you seen the messes that these people — from all parties and ends of the political spectrum — have gotten us into lately? We’re supposed to let these folks in our kitchen? They know what’s best for us?
Please. Have you seen what some of these people look like?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - lilsurfergirl
I agree with your position about having food police, but the government has some obligation to protect its people. Afterall, we are all paying for the poor health of our nation. There is a fine line between protecting and strong-arming. I believe more harm is done with the legal sales of alcohol and tobacco, than the type of grease my McNuggets are cooked in. However, I hate to see the day when they go after those as well...It didn't work too well before.
2 - David Goldbeck
The comparison between eggs and trans fats is incorrect as is the position of the writer. The real question to be asked is: What is food? Eggs exist in nature and have been a human food for centuries. Trans fats are manufactured and are not known in nature. The government has a valid purpose in banning nonfood items from the food supply just as it does pesticides, additives and the like.
3 - chrisTop
This article has it all wrong. This type of "scare tactic" diverts attention away from the real issue. Sure, we don't want government interfering with our free choice. The real issue is that trans fats are very a toxic "food additive". There is no question about the dangers of trans fats. This is one place where the government does the right thing by trying to ban this hazardous substance. This is simply a matter of the FDA trying to tell us that trans fat is a poison, and should not be forced on us by the food industry. Do you want your children exposed to hazardous chemicals? Of course not. This is why we have a protection agency like the FDA. No they don't always get it right, but I commend them for trying to do the right thing.
4 - sal m
these kinds of comments are to be expected.
the "scare tactics" are being used by the food police due to the absense of scientific evidence.
the food police and their minions are convinced that they indeed know better than the rest of us, and are so convinced of their "betterness" (a made up word), that they don't let a little inconvenience like a lack of real scientific evidence stop them.
over the years these people have repeated the line that trans fats kill between 30,000 and 100,000 people a year. the problem is that there is no evidence that this is the case and these are just numbers that have been thrown out to the public without a shread of proof as support.
as a matter of fact dr walter willet of the harvard school of public health, one of the leaders of the anti-trans fat movement, has recognized the mistakes made by "his side" in the efforts to improve people's health. back in the 80s he and his ilk were trying to get people to stop using butter and coconut oil, and encouraged people to use margarine and other oils that contained trans fat. now dr willet admits that he and his collegues were wrong.
the desire of the food police to tell people what to eat overrode the fact that there was no evidence to support their case, and they were wrong...and they are wrong again.
the food police use the old stalinist tactic that if you tell a lie often enough people start to believe it. trans fat kills 100,000 people, trans fat is a poison...this kind of nonsense will continue.
as i touched on above, the evidence that trans fat is bad is sketchy at best, but there is no doubt that exercise is essential in order for people to live a healthy life. let's see if all of you busy-bodies pick up the cause for manditory exercise...at least there's evidence to support that move.
the position that trans fat is a "very toxic food additive" is laughable. tylenol and advil if taken in quantities above the recommended levels will cause a person more trouble than will dunkin' donut muffin a day.
a drink or two a day is good, but 10 a day is bad. so we should do away with booze because some people can't control themselves? give us a break.
and just wait until they come after YOUR habit.
5 - Joe
You're simply wrong. Trans fat is a poison, the research shows it.
6 - sal m
okay..thanks joe, since you obviously are the expert...we don't need to see any info, just your word is enough.
joe, can you also just tell everyone to exercise too, so we can solve that problem as well?
7 - Mohjho
yer missing the point Sal, think of the career opportunities from banning trans fat. Trans fat smuggling would require more police, judges, and prison space that equate to more tax paying jobs. Trans fat addicted people would need rehab and counseling which would be filled by ex trans fat junkies. Trans fat sniffing dogs would have to be trained as well. The book publishing possibilities are staggering.
The down side are the black hooded special police forces kicking down the wrong door and killing 80 year old innocent bystanders. But lets face it, there are no innocent bystanders in the war against trans fat.
8 - chrisTop
It is a fact that a majority of the scientific and health community recommend lowering or eliminating trans fats from your diet. What do these health professionals have to gain from this course. For that matter, what would the FDA gain from this. Some, such as sal, would have you believe this is some sort of conspiracy by a "food police". This is rediculous, and only diverts attention away from the fact that this substance has no value in our diet. Trans fats that are added to our food, were created to extend the shelf life of food, and enhance the flavor and texture of processed goods. This was done to benefit the food industries, and their bottom line, with out concern for its effects on humans. Would you want food or drug manufacturers to be able to add any additives and chemicals to their products, regardless of their safety. No, I didn't think so. This is the role of the FDA, and similar agencies. I for one, am not a proponent of government intrusion, but who else is there to inspect and ensure the safety of our food.
9 - chrisTop
Joe, you indeed have it right. Just read the facts about trans fats at this link: hydrogenatednews.org
Why has the WHO (world health org.) been trying to ban this substance for years? Even Dr. Willitt (thats two t's) continues to speak out "against" trans fats.
10 - RightSizingAmerica
When did McDonald's give me a choice of nuggets with or without trans fats? Restaurants -- all corporations -- could avoid all of this government intervention if, just for once, they thought about something other than maximizing profits at the expense of everything else in life (including your and my lives).
11 - SteveS
Sal - Please leave out the abortion button. It's a meaningless comparison. Let's eat plutonium too. That's what they give naughty russian spies. Not good for the endocrine system?? Move on. If you want to eat trans fats try attending a concert by the Trans Siberian Orchestra? Get over it and try to do yourself a favor. Eat right, exercise regularly and don't sweat the small stuff.
12 - ruben
i think that it was good thing banning trans fat food cause they are bad for us they are also good
13 - ruben
trans fats are good for us cause it can help us in fighting cancer and it helps us to enhance our immunity which can help us in fighting diseases.
14 - samantha
i think it was a bad move because we can choose whether we want to have an abortion but we cannot choose whether we want a donut
15 - ALICIA
If Transfat was any good then factories wouldn't have a problem putting transfat in the label the first. The government wouldn't have to tell them to do it.
16 - Miguel
Trans fats are simply additives put into our food to enhance flavor and increase shelf life. Over time this can prove to be detrimental to the human body. What if restaurants had a trans-fat free version of the food offered? Granted, this can't be done with EVERYTHING on the menu, it at least shows some incentive on the industry's part to look out for the consumer. After all, we are what drives the food industry's economy. As for the abortion comparison, I see your point, but it's rather weak.
Trans fats are proven to be lethal to the human body. The government isn't banning our caloric intake nor is it pulling food off the shelves. It's actually doing it's job for once....
17 - sal m
you are obviously unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "lethal."
1. of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.
2. made to cause death: a lethal chamber; a lethal attack.
3. causing great harm or destruction: The disclosures were lethal to his candidacy.
using your definition of the word lethal, sugar, butter, most fats and many other substances could be banned under the guise of the government "doing its job for once."
your logic is faulty and conclusion is incorrect.
18 - Victor Plenty
Mandatory exercise on stationary bicycles hooked up to power generators could solve two problems at once. (I'd say it could kill two birds with one stone, but even the hypothetical possibility of killing birds is enough to make some people oppose using wind to generate electricity...)
With everyone doing their required hour a day at the exercycle electrical generation facility, we'd have a fitter, healthier populace, and at the same time reduce our dependence on foreign trans fats... er, that is to say, foreign oil.
Plus, it's probably better for the environment if we generate power without burning stuff, but I'm sure someone will come up with some way exercise bicycles harm the environment, so we'd better not count that egg just yet.
19 - sal m
and it would make the world a better place for the children - my god the children! - we must do everything for the children...
20 - Katarina
I think that Sal made a valid point in disagreeing with the intervention of government into collective eating habits (Nany State/individual choice).
I was born in communist country and two and half decades I lived under that system, and can tell you, such laws just "look good", but does not work, only suck out one's own responsibility.
I want to give you this link:
www.montignac.com
because the dietary principles of M. Montignac helped me to gain selfcontrol, which I did not have concerning my eating habits or what I eat.
I myself came to M. Montignac through TIME magazine, July 7,2003. There was an article "Cracking the fat riddle" by J.Madeleine Nash.
Here is an excerpt, which attracted my attention:
"So-called simple carbohydrates, those found in white bread and cake, are so quickly digested by the body that they trigger a very rapid rise in the levels of glucose in the blood. The pancreas releases a massive amount of insulin to mop up the excess. Soon enough, however, blood-glucose levels plummet to the point where our brains may feel woozy, we become excesively hungry and are driven to eat again. Complex carbohydrates, on the other hand, particularly those rich in fiber, do not elicit the same kind of spike-and-crash response".
"Avoiding simple carbohydrates is part of the approach advocated by French diet guru Michel Montignac. The best-selling author of "I Eat Therefore I lose Weight" concentrates not on the calorie content of food but its glycemic index".
When I look at the cakes I once loved, it says me nothing.
21 - Katarina
And I forgot to add, that in my opinion sugar is a poison.
22 - R Duke
You need to get a clue. If you truly are a "health professional" you would support the changing of food companies and restaurants changing their recipies to healthier oils. I am can barely afford my health insurance because of all of the "fat" people you speak of who continue to make these choices for themselves. I am all for individual freedom, but enough is enough. They can still eat their fries and donuts, but they will have to have a healthier version. Its a sad state when people in their 30s have to have "scooters" to get through the grocery store because they are so obese they can't walk and have a handicap sticker.
23 - sal m
You're all for individual freedom as long as it's your freedom and you get to make the call A) when others choose to exercise their freedoms and B) you feel that they've abused them...Real consistant...
and also, ZZZZZzzzzzzzz.....
24 - maxi
i know where u coming from im against the governments out look on this situation all the way
25 - jraan
Very good point. It's about personal responsibility. If you were trying to eat healthy, you wouldn't be eating fast food in the first place. Transfat isn't the only culprit. Eating too many calories causes weight gain. Should they just ban all foods then?