Melissa Giaimo
Assistant Perspectives Editor
L.A. County health officials seek to replace the Food and Drug Administration by banning trans fats in restaurants and food products. Not only does state law make such a ban impossible, but it also would undermine consumer choice.
In 1906, Upton Sinclair exposed the deplorable conditions of Chicago’s meatpacking industry in the socialist novel “The Jungle,” prompting the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act and creating the modern FDA. Over the past 100 years, the FDA has promoted public health by enforcing regulations to ensure safe products.
Trans fat, or partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, is manufactured by adding hydrogen to vegetable oil. The process improves shelf-life, taste, shape and texture of many products including cakes, cookies, crackers, pies, bread, margarine, french fries, potato chips and popcorn.
In the fever to mimic New York City, where the unpopular fat has already been banned, people are exaggerating the risk of trans fats in proportion to other unhealthy fats.
Although recent media attention labels trans fat as the worst type of fat, according to the FDA, trans fats are not necessarily worse than other types of harmful fats. Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol — neither of which anyone is proposing banning — are also hazardous. All three fats increase risk of Coronary Heart Disease and raise bad cholesterol levels, according to the FDA. In fact, the FDA says that saturated fat is the main cause of bad cholesterol and that rans fat is only a subsidiary contributor. Beginning in January, 2006, the FDA required trans fat be added to the Nutrition Facts food label, which already includes saturated fats and cholesterol.
It is a misconception that outlawing trans fats will decrease obesity. Public health officials have affirmed that a trans fats ban on its own will not affect obesity, unless it is tied to an effort to cut total fat content. Manufacturers are not prohibited from replacing trans fat with another kind of fat, which may be just as harmful. Dunkin’ Donut might eliminate trans fats from their Boston Cremes, but consuming the doughnuts might not be healthier.
Banning trans fats leads to a slippery slope of the government as “Health Police.”
“What’s next? Butter, cheese or anything that has saturated fat, which accounts for 15 percent of the American diet, and also is not healthy, but that also needs to be taken in moderation?” Jot Condie, president of the California Restaurant Association, said the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 11, 2006.
What other unhealthy food products will the government ban? Surely, not America’s favorite treat: the Twinkie or Hostess cupcakes. Frosted Flakes might be next.
Although some might note that states restrict smoking in the interest of public health, the government does so without restricting consumer choice. After warning citizens about the lethal risks of cigarettes, people are free to smoke, provided they do not expose others to second-hand smoke.
It is inappropriate for the L.A. County to ban an ingredient that the FDA approves. Trans fats’ inclusion on the Nutrition Facts food label proves that it is not a ban-worthy item.
Encouraging restaurants to phase out trans fats is an appropriate way to raise public health, but banning trans fats contradicts the United States’ tradition of minimal government intervention. Since the Pure Food and Drug Act, the government’s policy has been to inform citizens of the harmful ingredients in their food.
One political cartoon after the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act describes this tradition. The cartoon depicts a bird pulling a worm from a can. The sparrow reads the label and says:
“By George! That’s the best thing Roosevelt’s done yet. Now a fellow has the satisfaction of knowing what kind of worms he is eating.”
Although labeling foods might not be the most efficient way to raise public health, the United States prefers to allow informed consumer choice. Through citizen education about hazardous food ingredients, the government may strive to improve public health while maintaining civil liberties.
In response to media attention about the dangers of trans fats, the private sector is already seeking alternatives. Wendy’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, Chili’s, Royal Caribbean International, Johnny Rockets and Starbucks are among many food chains and businesses that are eliminating trans fats.
The county’s incentive of awarding trans fat free restaurants with an official decal to display on their window will increase the number of restaurants boycotting the troublesome substance. Informing consumers about trans fat content on menus is another non-intrusive method of promoting good health.
Health fads denouncing the horrors of a particular food substance is a recurring phenomenon in the United States. Today, trans fats. But only yesterday, carbs. No one is denying the dangers of trans fats; however, like many unhealthy food substances, they do not pose the necessary threat to public health to justify a ban. Market and consumer pressure are already decreasing the use of trans fats. It is far better to allow the private sector to push the marketplace to phase-out undesirable trans fats than for the government to leap in and mandate.
Although the government has a right to inform citizens how to eat, it must do so through the FDA. Without a significant threat to public health, banning trans fats constitutes an unwarranted overstepping of the government’s role, establishing a negative precedent for restricting consumer choice, a legacy of the robust American marketplace. As L.A. County attempts to gain authority to ban trans fats, locals need to demand the right to eat what they like.
02-08-2007
