AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > July > 19 > Entry
Should trans fats be banned?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) exists to protect the American public from harm. This function serves the American public and it isn’t a violation of individual rights.
Just recently the FDA banned the import of some types of farm-raised fish and shrimp from China, because they found a link to cancer-causing drugs. In the past, the FDA has banned the non-water-soluble form of a red food dye because it produced tumors in male rats.
Last year, the FDA began mandating that food labeling in this country include information about the amount of trans fats in processed food. That began a chain of events in which several cities, led by New York, have either banned the use of trans fats in restaurants, or they are talking about it.
The backlash has a lot of folks suddenly anxious about their Happy Meals.
Trans fat is made when hydrogen is added to vegetable oil. It contributes to increasing the production of “Frankenfat” or LDL, the bad kind of cholesterol.
The Harvard Law and Policy Review says the “oils (are) attractive to food manufacturers because they have a longer shelf life and longer fry life than other oils. That makes them useful for fried foods like French fries, donuts, and taco shells. And they give baked goods like cookies, crackers, and pies the texture that previously came from lard.”
Now, food distributors are basically more concerned with profits than public health. They are in business to make money, not play fitness coach.
Chefs resent the FDA tinkering with their recipes and affecting the unique taste that attracts customers. And customers resent the idea of government food police. I mean, it isn’t like anyone thinks that french fries are really good for them. They just taste good.
But to state the obvious, the public doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. The FDA’s objective is not out to make meals taste like hospital food, but to research and make sure what we consume every day is healthy.
Clinical Dietitian Erin C. McAllister of Atlanta’s Emory University Hospital offers this bit of trans fat-free wisdom:
“When people start claiming it is a violation of their rights to ban trans fats, says Clinical Dietician Erin C. McAllister, “the key to remember is it is a man-made fat that we have added to the food supply and then discovered is harmful and contributes to the development of heart disease.
“To me, it is like recalling a harmful food product off the market. Why would we want to contribute to all the diseases we already have with trans fats when they can be removed and replaced with something ‘natural?’”
Rebuttal
When a lawyer files a lawsuit to ban Nabisco Oreo cookies, we’ve gone off the deep end. Stephen Joseph wants the removal of Oreos from shelves across California because they contain trans fats. The California legislature is actually considering a state-wide ban on all trans-fats cooking in restaurants — and a similar ban went into effect against New York City eateries a few weeks ago.
I’m not arguing that trans fats are a beneficial part of the American diet, but there’s a reason the FDA hasn’t banned them thus far: they’re merely…unhealthy. Not unsafe. And the problem is, there simply isn’t a trans-fat alternative out there that tastes the same. At least not yet.
A whole lot of foodstuffs aren’t good for you. But should the government ban them for everyone just because a sizeable chunk of the population (pun intended) refuses to consume them in moderation? After all, a few Oreos won’t make kids fat. But lots of junk food, sedentary lifestyles, sugary drinks, and lack of parental oversight might. A 2004 Gallup poll included two separate studies isolating sugary sodas as a huge contributor to teen obesity problems.
A ban on trans fats sounds great on paper, but so did Prohibition a century ago — and look how that turned out. Unlike with tobacco, which appears unsafe even in small amounts, people rebel against someone controlling their guilty pleasures when they are just fine in moderation. Someone can drink a glass of wine with dinner a few times a week — or indulge in a luscious desert at a restaurant — and still stay healthy. It’s got to be up to the individual to have enough sense not to inhale a package of cookies at one sitting.
The real break-through on trans-fats actually came a few years ago, when the FDA began requiring trans fat amounts to be disclosed on food labels. And almost instantly, customers began pressuring restaurant chains and food manufacturers to find a healthier alternative. As long as consumers are being given the real information, the market will generate a solution to this that is less nannying, less burdensome, and still allows us to enjoy — from time to time — an Oreo dunked in a glass of milk.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By suzanr
July 19, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this
yes
By Anne
July 19, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this
I feel the FDA is easily bought by the big food and drug corporations and, together with them, have fooled a lot of Americans into thinking certain things (such as fat-free/low-fat foods, diet sodas) are actually good for them. I agree with Shaunti - the public needs to know the truth. The problem is, the FDA isn’t giving it to them in most instances. It’s up to each of us to do the necessary research and figure out what is the right thing to eat. We’ve relied on the FDA as a source of information long enough; it’s time to think independently. And as a free-market country, when we begin to act on the knowledge that certain foods are unsafe (yes, as unsafe as tobacco) for us, we will convince the food-makers to make the healthy food that we will buy. This has already been proven by the recent surge in the availability of organic products (which is another issue for another day!)
By no, I can avoid it if that's my choice
July 19, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
The Oreo example: Although not an Oreo consumer, I sort of think if Oreo fans want to eat Oreos, which are made with trans fat for texture as well as taste, they ought to be left alone to enjoy their Oreos, trans fat and all. For those who wish to “have their cake and eat it too,” there are similar items in the health food store without trans fat. Since trans fat was removed from Oreos the texture is very different and not in a good way. If a person eats a small amount of trans fat now and then it’s not the end of the world; problem is, Americans will typically consume way too much. It’s up to me as an individual to avoid or consume things in moderation if I feel they’re bad for me. I don’t expect the entire country to roll over just to make me happy.
By Mutt
July 19, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
Pat, I do hope you’re right. But you better care about the fundies and their attempts to control all of us based on their religious beliefs. I just don’t see any atheists trying to ban medical procedures for every woman, or infiltrate school and library boards, and the government to force their beliefs on everyone else!
lozen—Once again I’m glad that you, along with most of the others here on W2W, recognize the dangers of religious fanaticism. At the same time, I believe that you have turned a blind eye toward the dangers of not having belief in and deep respect for the Divine. The “Scientists” who tell us that olestra is perfectly good for you, that margarine is better than butter, that Frankenfoods are equivalent to God’s foods, that shooting cows up with growth hormones and unnecessary antibiotics is acceptable, etc. aren’t very Godly people, IMO. Yet, they most certainly have infiltrated the highest levels of government to force their beliefs on others. In the case of food policy, I do say force, because they have been successful in squelching fair labeling practices so that the consumer has no idea what is actually in the foods we eat. Their reasoning in squelching fair labeling? They claim that such labeling might unnecessarily “scare” people into not buying the tainted products.
By Temp
July 19, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
The FDA should be turned into an advisory body only and should not have the power to make anything illegal. They certainly can and should tell everyone that trans fats are bad for you, but if people want to make the individual choice to eat something that is up to them. The same thing should apply to drugs, alcohol, food, whatever. If you want to go ahead and smoke that crack, hey, that’s your problem.
By Mutt
July 19, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
And we better not get started on animal “research” which is nothing more than the sanctioned torture of defenseless animals. Seems like the atheists have had their way in making governmental policy in this very sensitive area as well.
Now it is possible that many of these “Scientists” profess faith in some God or even go to church, but actions speak louder than words. I mean, it’s possible Michael Vick goes to church, right?
By can't regulate everything
July 19, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
I think if a person wishes to avoid trans fat, it’s a free country. In this wonderful country, to which people from all over the world aspire to immigrate, we care about how healthy and sanitary our food is. We have nutrition labeling on products but many don’t bother reading it, seat belts for our and our children’s safety but many don’t bother using them, easily available birth control but many don’t bother with it, health information everywhere for how we should eat and exercise but many could care less. You can’t force people to make healthy choices by removing from our lives anything that could possibly hurt us, unless you come into our homes and watch everything we do 24/7. You can make restaurant food healthier but how can you legislate how we eat at home? Imagine the backlash from opponents. Some people get downright angry when you mess with their freedom to do whatever the heck they want even if it’s bad for them (or you). You just can’t possibly plug up every hole in the dike, there will always be others. Let’s hear it for individual responsibility and self-esteem.
By majority rules
July 19, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
Let Stephen Joseph eat another brand of cookie. I like my Oreos the way they are, thank you very much. Last time I checked, in this country the majority rules, not the minority.
By Mutt
July 19, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
majority rules/can’t regulate everything—I’m with you regarding free choice, but free choice depends on accurate information. What say you about the fact that the FDA doesn’t require labeling of genetically modified foods? Or require disclosure of whether cows were injected with antibiotics and growth hormones? Sounds like Big Brother at its worst to me.
By Golly
July 19, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
I’m soooo tired of hearing about folks wanting to ban trans fat. Yes, it’s terrible and shouldn’t be in our food at all. But some people actually think this suddenly makes fast food healthy. NO! There is still enough saturated fat, sodium and sugar to make fast food the worst food in the world. Go eat a salad! Have some veggies. But don’t put two pounds of fatback in the pot!
By Just Put The Truth
July 19, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this
I just want the labels to tell the truth about the foods, and let me make my decision to eat or not. To me, fast food and desserts are typically bad for you everyone should know that, but how bad would be nice to know.
By Ana X
July 19, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Thin feels better than trans fats taste.
By DogsAreOutThere
July 19, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
On the Internet, people may know you are a dog:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p17s01-stct.html
By Penguinmom
July 19, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this
NOOO!! Leave my McDonald’s fries alone!!!
Yes, eating at McDonald’s isn’t really healthy. Duh! Anyone who eats at MickeyD’s thinking they are eating healthy is a fool. But, it’s not the government’s job to make me eat healthy.
The government’s job is to make sure the food is safe for consumption. That means that it won’t cause me to end up in the hospital Tomorrow, not 30 years from now. Also, the government should have the job of making sure consumer’s are truthfully informed of food content. After that, let the consumer’s decide.
I, for one, do not trust today’s food science community to always get their information right. It seems that they often say that something is horrible for you one year and two years later we find out that it’s an essential part of our diet or at the very least that it is not nearly as bad for you as they claimed originally.
Inform the consumer then let them make their own choices based on their life decisions. If I want to have transfats at McDonald’s a couple of times a week, that’s not your problem or the government’s concern. If a restaurant or food company is purposefully misleading the public or harming consumers, that is our problem and it is the government’s concern.
By wecant
July 19, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
We can not force everything on everyone. If people want to eat and be fat let them have at it.
Cars are man made and they also kill when used improperly. Shall we ban them?
By Ana X
July 19, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this
An ordinary girl, and ordinary waist. But ordinary is just not good enough today.
Have you noticed that most of the people you see eating are fat? If you eat, you’ll be fat like them.
If plants can subsist on air, water, and sunshine, so can we!
By Archie
July 19, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
Diane seems to be saying yes in a way to the topic and I will side with her by saying yes trans fats should be banned but can someone,anyone get the scientific answer as to what is healthy for human beings can eat? I side with Diane based on the argument she put forth especially the last two paragraphs but it bothers me that some experts are saying milk is bad for you and some experts speak against fruit because of the carbs and some experts speak against all meat and some experts say sugar of any kind is bad for you. I have been to funerals of people that lived to be 89,90, and 94 years-old and I think that’s above the average lifespan and they didn’t have the information about diet we have now so is the science of nutrition good science? Do scientists know empirically that trans fat is unhealthy?
By Unknown
July 19, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this
I think these people are horribly misinformed. Oreos have been trans fat free for over a year.
If you truly believe trans fat tastes “better” then you really haven’t had the same foods when they’re trans fat free. I’ve found that the trans fat free foods taste the same, if not better. And if you read McDonalds, Burger King, and KFC’s comments when they began testing trans fat free oils, they found consumers were impressed by the flavor and that they had no negative comments. As long as the consumer didn’t know, they have no reason to complain.
Bottom line, when people are told something has changed, they think it has a different taste. Sometimes people say that about the packaging changes, even though the product has been untouched.
I do agree that people are responsible for their choices, but I also believe there is a point where companies need to cut out and if they don’t, then the government has every right to be involved. Artificial trans fats have no purpose in our food, and if companies cannot remove it for that reason, then government needs to set forth standards.
No one complains when the FDA puts a ban on a drug because it has negative side effects, so why complain when the government tries to help out?
By BlahHumbug
July 19, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this
yyaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnn
By lozen
July 19, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this
Magnetism is one of the Six Fundamental Forces of the Universe, with the other five being Gravity, Duct Tape, Whining, Remote Control, and The Force That Pulls Dogs Toward The Groins Of Strangers.
By Mara
July 19, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
if the Bible had been written my a marketer - (excerpt)
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2007/7/13mcnally.html
God was pleased: the heavens and the earth were launched, with placement of all things according to the Paradise Plan-O-Gram.
God planted a garden, and in its midst, FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES ONLY, God placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil!®. Any knowledge to be gained from it was strictly proprietary.
God said to man, “Of every tree of the garden, and of all the artisanal cheeses therein, you may freely eat, whether it be dine-in or takeout. But the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil!® you shall not eat. It is definitely not ready-to-eat.”
God said, “I will make man someone to shop with,” and made a woman. God brought the woman to the man, who said, “She is bone of my bone. She will be called ‘wo-man,’ for she is a tie-in.” God said, “Man and woman shall be as one flesh, a Buy One Get One Free. Be fruitful, multiply, and enjoy the Everyday Low Pricing.”
Now, the serpent was not a team player. He gave the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil!® to the woman and said, “Just look at it. I’m telling you, the fiber content alone is through the roof. Die? Please, don’t make me laugh. God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened to real value. Here, taste the difference.
By Chilao
July 19, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this
Unsaleable?(fig-leaf covering in marketing link) Don’t tell that to Deborah Palfrey.
I have eaten Oreos for years, and never noticed a change in taste if they really removed the trans fat. But then I did not KNOW it had been removed. Yes, I have cut down on them. I did read that a good year of dieting can be completely erased by only ONE packet of Oreos. LOL I did not read if that was Double-Stuff or not.
Living in urban areas takes about 10 years off of your life. Or so “they”(whoever studies that kind of stuff) say. Where is the voluntary mass-exodus, or even better, the government-enforced mass exodus?
I rarely ever do fast food, Subway sometimes, but after they went after the smokers, I only knew it was a matter of time before they went after the, well, let’s call it excessive eaters or unhealthy-diets types. And it stands to reason, 400,000 die annually from tobacco, 300,000 from “obesity” related, I just wondered where the outrage was over obesity when they went after smoking. Appears it was just on the back burner.
By lozen
July 20, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
Just a few days after the Ark set sail Noah was heard telling one of his sons, “Come on, the woodpecker has to go!”
By Chilao
July 20, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this
for the women: a personal observation on the TV.
Three local female newscasters, lead, weather, and traffic person, discussing the recent news item related to discovering men “gab” just as much as women.
(Married) Weather woman remarks: “What I want is a study about you LISTENS best”.
By Chilao
July 20, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
s/b “WHO listens best”
By lozen
July 20, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this
Chilao, no study needed!
By Chilao
July 20, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
What?
That is what I did when she said that on the newscast: “What did she say again?”
LMAO
By Ana X
July 20, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this
Quod me nutruit me destruit. (What nourishes me also destroys me.)
I am just perfecting my emptiness. Are the tops of your thighs wide and fleshy? Like a plant, surely the body can be trained to exist on nothing, to take its nourishment from the air.
Starving is the feminine thing to do these days.
By Ana X
July 20, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
How many pounds until I’m happy? How many pounds until I’m thin? Ten more pounds ‘till I am skinny. Tem more pounds, and then I WIN!
By lozen
July 20, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this
Ana X, Stay young and beautiful. It’s your duty to be beautiful. Stay young and beautiful… if you want to be loved.
By Ana X
July 20, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this
Lozen, thanks! I am only ten pounds from being worthy (size 0-1). Soon, after all these years of wishing and hoping, someone is FINALY going to actually love me for ME! Wow… Just ten more pounds till love comes to town!
By morgan-lynn griggs lamberth
July 20, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this
I am with Diane.Cars are not absolutley necessary but they have their benefits while transfat have none. We can thank that paranorid criminal Pres. Nixon for the FDA, the EPA and the professional miliatry.He ranks above the Bushes! And LBJ was a great president,except for that war.Pres.Clinton was a good president while Hillary should make a great one. Not only would she have the FDA and the EPA do even better jobs she would attend to healthcare and workers’ rights.Our regulated free market is to ensure competitiveness, health and safety and fraud; that is no oxymoron!That is the known ideal. Our willing adherence to our constitution of liberty has kept us off the road to serfdom.Our social contract ensures our general welfare.
By Mara
July 20, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this
tumbleweeds
By morgan-lynn griggs lamberth
July 20, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this
No one should be too thin or too heavy.It is good that efforts are underway to keep models from being too thin.I keep my wight in check with moderate eating and exercising three hours a day.As a diabetic, I have to.
By 2D
July 23, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this
Morgan… Huh?
How is Nixon responsible for the professional military? He didn’t institute the draft. He didn’t start the Vietnam war. He didn’t initiate the deployment of troops to Korea, Europe and various other places throughout the world.
What is wrong with the FDA? Do you have a problem with a government oversight committee to ensure that the foods and drugs manufactured and distributed to our citizens is safe?
What is wrong with the EPA? Do you have a problem with a government oversight committe to ensure that corporations, government entities and private citizens do not pollute, destroy and gobble up the natural resources and wildlife envrionemtn this country has been so greatly blessed with?
Oh, and if they are such nasty entities, why would the all-knowing, all-wonderful Hillary not simply get rid of them?! Oh that’s right, she wants government run health care.
If the goevernment can’t be trusted to regulate our environment or ensure that foods/drugs are safe, what makes you think that the government could be responsible enought to provide health care to its people?
Hmmm…. Sounds like a straw woman spouting off for Hillary.
Here’s a thought for you… Maybe you should turn your anger toward televised Presidential debates. I know I’m sure sick of them all ready. And just think, had they not been available back in 1960, Kennedy probably would have lost and there might not have ever been a Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, or expansion of the welfare state in America. Not to mention, we wouldn’t have had to deal with Teddy K. for the past quarter of a century.
By lozen
July 23, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
Oh, my god! Did anyone else hear the big breaking news in the Washington Post? Hillary wore a low cut blouse and showed a little cleavage. It wasn’t too much according to the author! Then the article went on with psychobabble about what this means about Hillary! Jeez.
By Mara
July 23, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this
lozen - I saw that! The first thing I thought of was the discussion WE had a few weeks ago about why more women didn’t run for political office. I have to admit that I was gratified to see that the article was roundly condemned in their comments section. Some of the comments were hilarious!
By NetBanker
July 23, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Hope everyone had a good weekend. I’m siding with Shaunti on this one. There is nothing inherently bad about transfats when ingested in moderation just like with other foods or substances. What would people have transfats replaced with….lard, since that is what they replaced? The problem with lard is shelf life so if we switched back the taste, texture, and LDL are still present, but then you add the additional food safety problem of spoilage. People’s reaction would likely be to eat the package of cookies even faster so they don’t go bad. LOL!
“Last time I checked, in this country the majority rules, not the minority” You need a civics lesson. That might be true of a democracy rather than a democratic republic…which is our form of government. Besides, the minority in Congress are the ones who make the rules so technically speaking it IS minority rules rather than majority rules even though you need a majority of the minority to make a rule.
Hillary wore a low cut blouse and showed a little cleavage. So if George wore an open collar and showed a little chest hair (assuming he has some) would that cause a ruckus in the media too? Sheesh! Seems like our electorate is populated enirely by Beevis and Butthead. “We could see part of her boo bs!” “Heh, heh…he said boo bs”
By LeaveUsAlone
July 23, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this
A ban on trans fats sounds great on paper, but so did Prohibition a century ago — and look how that turned out. Unlike with tobacco, which appears unsafe even in small amounts, people rebel against someone controlling their guilty pleasures when they are just fine in moderation. Someone can drink a glass of wine with dinner a few times a week — or indulge in a luscious desert at a restaurant — and still stay healthy.
How right you are, Shanti. I just wish you would apply the same sound reasoning when it comes to the other great prohibtion—the war on marijuana. People can enjoy an after dinner joint after a hard day’s work and hurt no one, not even themselves. I’m always amazed at the way the right wing bible thumpers howl about the “nanny state” whenever anyone tries to curtail the use of their drugs—Republican drugs, the “Godly” drugs tobacco and alcohol. Oh yes, I remember the sob story you always tell about your uncle who killed himself with drugs. You always tell that one when you try to justify the continued imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people who did nothing other than get high on something other than alcohol or Jesus. You’re not the only one to lose an uncle. I lost two uncles, both to cigarettes. My mother died from an asthma attack precipitated by second-hand cigarette smoke. But unlike you, I have no desire to place others in prison just because they doing something that offends my religion.
By Jamie
July 23, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
You fat folks apologists make me sick. There is only ONE way to keep your weight down. Burn more calories than you take in. When you get a Big Mac for lunch and go home for a nap what the hell do you think is going to happen? I work hard, train in karate and have a great body, and I am 40. I eat what I want when I want, though a lot of salads, I must admit to be fair. But if I want a calzone bursting with cheese and sausage, I get it. Get off the couch and quit blaming Taco Bell.
By Lily Toad
July 23, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this
I’ll have to side with Shaunti on this topic. Diane’s examples — cancer causing fish/shrimp and tumor producing red dye are not the same as transfat. Yes, excessive trans fat can cause bad health, but so do lots of other things. Even all the health risks of tobacco haven’t resulted in the FDA banning cigarettes and other tobacco products. I think full disclosure is what is needed, not prohibition.
By lozen
July 23, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this
What did I miss? I don’t remember anyone making apologies for fat folks… where was I? Holier-than-thou people amaze me. When did someone blame Taco Bell? Am I reading the right blog? Each and every one of us has our Achilles Heel. We may eat too much, drink too much, watch too much t.v., or be addicted to some sorry man (or woman) as the case may be. Some of us are just addicted to mean spirited pointing the finger at other’s faults! Transfats are not good for us and can be replaced by various oils. You’ll see many products without transfats already in the health food stores. And Jamie dear can’t wait to see what a great body you have when you’re 65! Check back in 20 years, okay?
By lozen
July 23, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
Oh, but BTW, I’m not for a government ban on transfats.
By NetBanker
July 23, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this
While I might not be as straightforward as Jamie, I’m right there on the sentiment. Turning 40 this year I’m finding that keeping the same shape (which is pretty darn good) means I need to work harder to do so, but I do work out and watch what I eat. I’m somewhat tired of hearing comments like “You don’t have to worry about it because you’re thin.” HELLO!! I’m thin because I do worry about it. OK, maybe not worry, but I’m paying attention to what and how much I’m consuming. While looking at a menu or walking around a buffet table what you don’t know is that in my head I’m repeating the mantras “Make healthy choices? and “Everything in moderation”
By kimberly
July 23, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this
HELLO!! I’m thin because I do worry about it.
Hey, NetB! Well said. I am also offended when someone (woman usually) says something to the effect of, “Look how skinny you are, you make me sick!” as if I just woke up with a toned, slim body one day and she didn’t. I worked for it and sacrifice to maintain it. Fruit cup instead of fries, carrot sticks instead of cookies, stairmaster instead of sofa, etc. Junk food lovers can squawk all they want about the “hardships” of giving up their non-food garbage, but I don’t want to hear it. It’s their choice to eat cr-apola, it’s my choice to decline. Still, I do have a problem with big corporations manufacturing garbage and marketing it as food. Just because something is edible doesn’t mean it’s food. (I’ll spare you the example of my dog’s favorite snack…)
By Mara
July 24, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
lozen - between you-know-who and the spam it’s almost not worth scrolling through to read the rest of the posts.
By Shannon, M.Div.
July 25, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this
As long as hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who comes in with an emergency, then the law has a vested interest in banning trans fats.
I’m not a libertarian; I think socialized medicine is definitely superior to our system (in terms of more services delivered to more people). I also believe that the law requiring emergency treatment for anyone is humane and appropriate. This, however, is a proper basis for the banning of substances which contribute to heart disease. It’s also an excellent basis for banning tobacco products (but not alcohol; taken in moderation, alcohol enhances health, while trans fats and tobacco have no redeeming value). For the record, marijuana also has redeeming value that can be weighed against the dangers and should be treated like any other prescription drug.