Doesn't banning trans fat step on our freedoms as Americans?

Question

I've heard of some major cities actually banning restaurants from using Trans Fat in their foods. Yes, it's heathier, but if we ban everything that's healthy isn't it stepping on our freedom to eat what we want? If we let government succeed in banning Trans Fat what's next? Banning sugar? Forcing exercise? People need to take their own responsibility to eat healthy NOT let the government make our decision. What do you think?

Answer 1

All I know is this: If you outlaw doughnuts, only outlaws will have doughnuts.

And I'll be one of 'em!

And yes, it does step on the freedom toes of businesses. If people want to eat "healthier" food, then they should pick healthier places to eat. No one forces anyone to eat at a particular restaurant. It's like banning smoking from restaurants. I DON'T smoke, but, if there's a place that likes to cater to smokers, GUESS WHAT! I exercise my freedom to CHOOSE and CHOOSE not to eat there.

Bada bing! Healthy choice made. No help from the government.

WHAT A CONCEPT!

Answer 2

You make some good points, but the fact is that there are other ingredients that restaurants can use that *taste the same* as trans fats, so if they are forced to give up trans fats we won't know the difference. The reason that many companies are slow to eliminate ingredients containing trans fats is because they are cheap. So to replace these ingredients with same-tasting ingredients that are healthier, and it's a win-win situation for the consumer.

Even if someone wants to take responsibility for their own health, it's very difficult to avoid eating trans fats entirely, especially in restaurants where they are not required to provide a list of ingredients or nutrition information.

Answer 3

It's a question that we have to ask ourselves so often.

From a purely philosophical view, I am wholeheartedly against the government ban of trans fats. While we're at it it, I'll add drugs, speed limits, euthanasia, smoking, and skydiving without parachutes to the list. As Bill Maher said, "I'm pro-death." I also don't want the federal government butting into my personal business.

Economics, as it usually does, changes everything. The government (our tax dollars) has to pay for the negative effects of so-called "social-ills". Medicare is in place and is paying for the poor, been - eatin' - transfats - since - the - day - I - was - born - and - lovin' - it person's healthcare costs.

I don't really want my taxes paying for blood pressure medicine for someone that eats six cheeseburgers every day.

I do want Americans to continue to have a safety net to provide social stability.

Once again, ideals are at odds with practicalities. I don't have an answer for you.

Answer 4

It is all such a joke. The very fats that are now being used to replace trans-fats are some of the same ones that 15 - 20 years ago we were told were so bad for us. Palm oil and Palm Kernel oils were supposedly very bad, and caused heart disease, back in the 80's and early 90's, and were somewhat banned back then. Now they are the fats that are necessary to replace trans-fats in food manufacturing and cooming, where a fat is needed rather than an oil.

Every few years, it is something different. All it does is drive up the cost of food. Someone has to pay for the cost of research, testing, re-labeling, etc., and you can bet it is not the food companies!

These are food substances that have been around for YEARS, yet the most they can say is that they MAY TEND TO CONTRIBUTE to heart disease. Meanwhile, a product that has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to kill both users and non-users, is still allowed to be sold every day -- CIGARETTES! Where is the logic in that?

Answer 5

Well, those "freedoms" have been stepped on a long time. The FDA may ban a drug that has severe side effects. Or ban feeding cattle certain types of feed that may lead to "mad cow"disease. I haven't seen a good argument FOR trans fat...you can eat the same foods you did before if they use oils without trans fat.

Answer 6

Really bonky "question" my child.

Trans-fats add no flavor or anything else you will notice. What the were developed for was to increase the holding time for prepared foods, so that the burgers don't taste so funny when they get elderly, and they can hold over the fries an extra day. Sort of like embalming fluid.

If you want to consume embalming fluid, you should know that you really don't need it. There are so many preservatives in the processed foods that you eat these days, embalming corpses is just an added cost for no reason.

Answer 7

There's 2 good sites (by the same people) on this very subject:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com
http://www.trans-fatfacts.com/

Most of it's the fault of the media + activist groups using over-hyped "bad science" to get something banned that only makes up 3% of the American diet, when the real problem is "SATURATED FAT".

Answer 8

The truth is that the elimination of trans fats will go unnoticed by 99.9% of customers. And most people are too lazy to care about such a minor "freedom".

Answer 9

All of this Trans Fat stuff was created originally to replace cholesteral laden items that are now considered good for you because they have 'good' cholesteral in them. Eggs and butter were evil for years and now are the recommended item for heart patients like myself. Unprocessed red meat and pork and eggs are encouraged by my nutrition counselor with chicken and turkey off the menu. Free Range poultry is considered ok provided it hasn't been packed in juice. These people have been telling us what is good and bad for us for decades and forcing food establishments to play along for just as long. It needs to stop. I'm not even allowed by my Doctor to eat at a restraunt due to the sodium levels in the processing of the food put there by law to begin with.

Answer 10

It seems like it is going kind of far.

But look at it this way: transfats are man-made chemicals which when put into food cause people to die earlier than they would otherwise.

If I were to invent a new chemical tomorrow which saved restaurants some money but everyone knew it killed people, do you think it would or should be allowed?