This morning the local newspaper headlines announced that the New York City Health Board has banned trans-fats. This doesn’t mean trans-fats will disappear immediately, but a deadline has been set so that these ingredients will be taken out of restaurant foods by 2007 or 2008 (I’ve seen different dates).
Trans-fats (see the wikipedia entry) are condemned for contributing to bad cholesterol, clogging arteries and increasing the risk of heart disease. They have been favored in the past because they add flavor (people like the taste) and aid preservation of the food. They are used in the food industry to create fried foods, snacks and baked goods.
Of course, there has been some debate about whether this is an appropriate long-overdue step or whether this signifies too much government intrusion. Supporters people point to obesity trends, heart-disease statistics, etc. Opponents rail against a local government that is too anxious to regulate consumer decisions. In an article at CNN.com, an opponent is quoted as arguing: “If I want to eat trans fats, that’s my inalienable right.”
I’m kind of curious how Mormons would weigh in on this issue. We believe in a principle that we call “free agency.” On the other hand, we adhere to the Word of Wisdom (religious prohibitions in regards to tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, coffee and tea). Is this regulation something we should support? Should we hope that this becomes a country-wide food standard? Or is this infringing on the rights of food-producers and consumers to make their own choices?
1BRoz on Dec 6, 2006 at 10:23 am:
It’s like the speed limit. Do speed limits violate your free agency or do we, as a society, “choose” to accept limits on our behavior for the benifit of the “weakest of saints” who cannot drive their car safely at 100mph, cannot drink responsibly, etc etc. Law’s do not violate our agency if they are “our laws.”
2danithew on Dec 6, 2006 at 12:27 pm:
I have read that this ban will be especially helpful to the black and Hispanic communities, who suffer more from heart disease than other groups.
It also sounds like most restaurants feel they can find other ways to achieve similar taste. The biggest concern seems to be cost - that food will cost more because using other oils or fats is more expensive.
3Last Lemming on Dec 6, 2006 at 2:52 pm:
Don’t ban it. Tax it (and earmark the revenues for Medicaid).
4endlessnegotiation on Dec 6, 2006 at 4:43 pm:
Do you know if the Board of Health performed studies to determine how much trans-fat the average New Yorker eats and whether or not that average amounts to a “dangerous” level? Without such concrete evidence then justifying such a law becomes very difficult. And unjustifiable laws are always dangerous.
5BrianJ on Dec 6, 2006 at 8:12 pm:
You can buy cigarrettes in NYC but not trans-fat fries. No, I don’t think that the law makes any sense. Or is there second-hand fat that I’m not aware of?
I do think that restaurants should have been phasing this out on their own, if only to avoid (inevitable) lawsuits.
KFC started several years ago researching an alternative to its fat and has just recently developed a replacement. It’s not as easy as some people think—if you want to keep the same flavor—to replace trans-fats.
6Guy Murray on Dec 6, 2006 at 10:10 pm:
I have a hard time w/ this type of government intervention. I think education is a much better tool to modify people’s behavior. Last Lemming has an interesting idea–I’d have to think about that.
Brian J has a good point about the ability to buy tobacco products, but not french fries?
Of course there is the question about the greater cost to society. Should the government mandate the wearing of seat belts or motorcycle helmets in order to reduce the costs to society? I don’t know. I just have a hard time with the government telling me what type of fast food I can choose to buy, if I want. It will be interesting to watch it play out.
7danithew on Dec 7, 2006 at 10:13 am:
I also thought it a bit odd that trans-fats could be banned while it is still legal to produce and sell tobacco products.
8Jeremy on Dec 8, 2006 at 10:41 am:
Just thought I’d let folks know what “trans” fats are. Trans refers to the geometry of a carbon-carbon double bond that does not occur naturally, which is why the fats cause problems.
They aren’t added to foods, but are a by-product of the production of partially-hydrogenated oils. Hydrogenation takes unsaturated fats (many carbon-carbon double bonds, but in the “cis” geometry: like vegatable oils) and converts them to saturated fats (no carbon-carbon double bonds, like animal fats). The partially saturated fats are the ones with the desirable properties like taste and shelf life. The change from the cis geometry to trans geometry in unsaturated fats is an unfortunate side reaction of the hydrogenation process. Thus, it’s partially-hydrogenated fats to worry about, since not all products state if they have trans fat or not.
There are naturally occuring partially unsaturated fats, which are what the food industry is supposed to switch to.
9Lauren on Dec 8, 2006 at 12:46 pm:
You’re not OK with the government watching out for your health (for once), but you are OK with corporations adding cheaper ingredients at your expense? Cut the pride for a second and think about what’s really happening. It’s not about being told what to do, it’s about eating natural foods (which, by the way, should probably be eaten locally anyway)…
10danithew on Dec 8, 2006 at 12:58 pm:
Jeremy, thanks for the explanation. That’s definitely helpful.
Lauren, who or which comment are you referring to? It’s not entirely clear.