Trans Fat Ban Controversy: A Debate of Gov't Policy and Science
Background
Trans fat (or partially hydrogenated fats, to which they are often referred) are not prevalent naturally in large quantities per se. Mammals themselves do not naturally produce the type of trans fats that is the crux of this debate; in fact, the trace amounts of "natural" trans fats consumed in the diet from the meat & dairy products of ruminant animals is produced via anaerobic fermentation by bacteria within the ruminant animal.
Why the Beef?
The health consequences of trans fats have been known for some time. The American Heart Association issued a warning about the negative consequences to health professionals back in 1997 in their journal, Circulation.
These effects are caused by the physical properties of the trans fats. Trans fats have much higher melting points than their cis fats (unsaturated fats) counterparts due to their structure and the surface area that is available for intermolecular bonding.
The same reason why these trans fats are physiologically "bad" for humans is why they are used in food preparation. They prolong the shelf-life of the foods they are used in by remaining in "solid" form rather than their "liquid" or "oil" form of their cis counterparts. They have been accredited to giving foods "moisture" or allowing pastries to be "flaky" (although it should be noted that I personally have no idea how someone numerically, objectionably quantifies "flakiness").
Debate of the Role of Government
As with virtually all legal and scientific issues, multiple sides can be debated. What is/are the role(s) of government in dictating what an American can consume? Should the marketplace be tampered with (i.e. is this anti-capitalistic)? Is there a "greater good" to the society at large in outlawing personal freedom (yes, I use this term in light of the fact that it is bandied about heavily during this Presidential Primary cycle!)? The following link does an outstanding job in listing the pros and cons in outlawing or restricting the use of trans fats in public restaurants.
I would like to see an open dialogue...preferably one where both sides are discussed...concerning this topic since this is an on-going debate in the public arena and in our Organic and Biochemistry classrooms.
On the one hand, I stand for health and implementation of dietary restriction for the good of mankind. However, on the other hand, I stand for freedom of business owners and personal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI once tried lighting a twinky on fire because I had heard it could not be done. It actually can not be done for the exact reasons why trans fats are unhealthy for us. They melt, not burn, at such high temperatures that our bodies can not break them down. They stay in a solid state. It is very concerning that things of this unnatural nature are served as food items every day. Also, I heard recently that Coca-Cola de-greases the engines of their trucks with the product they produce, Coke!
I also stand for freedom of business. I was very upset when the smoking ban went through in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania where I live. Yes, we all know smoking is bad, but a business owner or restaurant owner should have the right to serve trans fats and allow smoking. They own the business and if the consumer does not like what the business stands for then the consumer can feel free not to consume. You vote with your $$$$dollar$$$$
I would like to see Americans standing up for personal responsibility instead of relying on the government to implement things like smoking and trans fat bans. The truth is, the consumer lies. I once sat next to a food chemist for Nestle on a flight who specifically worked with breads and how to have the perfect balance of fats and sugars in dough, puff pastries, etc... She said that the customer lies. They say they want a healthy product, but what they really want is a healthy product that tastes good. The truth is, if it tastes good, it usually is not healthy. Food companies work really hard to make things "slightly" more healthy and still taste good to keep business on both ends of the spectrum.
I would have to disagree with Flodine on this debate comparing the ban of smoking at restaurants compared to banning trans fat. Simply in the matter that people who consume the trans fat are not affecting those around them, expect themselves. However, those who smoke do affect those around them be second hand smoke. I personally know people who having breathing problems due to the fact that they have been exposed to second hand smoke. Yet, concerning the topic of banning trans fat at restaurants is pretty hot debate and one needs to look at both sides, there is always a clear line that often is crossed when it comes to banning certain things for public areas and limiting 'freedom'. Yet is freedom really free? Maybe in that fact that if trans fat are banned from restaurants you are giving freedom to the individual(s) a way of preventing possible obesity etc (like a snowball example, one thing leads to another and eventually snowballs in a huge problem). Yet, on the other hand what will prevent you from allowing the consumer to go and buy trans fat at grocery stores? I wonder how far we need to go with this? Yet, I do feel that banning trans fat at restaurants is not hurting anyone so go for it!
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I think that comparing the banning of trans fats to smoking is irrelevant because the way they cause harm is different. Smoking effects the health of the smoker and all those around them while those who consume trans fats only harm themselves. I guess that would mean that I agree with Okhota on that topic.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that allowing a ban on trans fats from the government is a little too much. On the pros and cons that were listed in one of the links provided, one of the cons mentioned that the substitutes for trans fats could be more harmful than using the trans fats themselves and the transition would be costly. We're already up to our ears in debt, so I don't think it is smart to add more onto it. I say that the banning of trans fats should be up to the restaurants and food manufacturers. Also, it is up to the consumer whether or not they buy and eat the foods with trans fats. Instead of putting the blame on companies for the health status of Americans and running to the government to fix everything, maybe the people themselves should be more responsible with what they eat.
I agree, I do not think we need anymore money being spent on things that people need to decide on their own! lol. I also don't want a communism to exist in our country. The government should not have a say in what I eat or do not eat. I like a good french fry every once in a while. It's not going to kill me in the small amount I actually eat and the government shouldn't control that especially if it is going to cost our country more money.
DeleteWhile all of these are valid points, one thing you have to realize is that the choices made by individuals, even in regards to food choices, affect more than just themselves. I work as a server in a restaurant, and almost every table that has obese parents also has obese children. In a society where we are pressured to quickly run here and there and to make choices that are the most expedient for us, nutrition and quality are often sacrificed for whatever is fastest and cheapest. Unfortunately, this often causes parents to feed themselves and their children large quantities of fast food, fried food, hydrogenated or otherwise “corrupted” food that have huge implications upon health that manifest themselves both in present problems and in chronic long-term complications down the road. The majority of Americans are overweight, with a staggering percentage being morbidly obese. Childhood diabetes and other conditions are on the rise, and we must realize that these children are not informed, capable, or mature enough to make these decisions for themselves. Although the information is out there, ready to be accessed, it is easier for most adults to just turn a blind eye to the problem and proceed with whatever is available. I really don’t like this state of affairs, with most of the public being happily and willingly ignorant, but that is the state of much of the country. I also do not like the government stepping beyond its boundaries and interfering in the personal freedoms of American citizens. I also promote free business and enterprise, wanting organizations to conduct business as they see fit. However, there still needs to be an atmosphere that restricts particularly harmful things and protects people from certain influences. We already have established laws against illegal drug use and suicide, although it could be argued that these things affect only the individual. Without a proper restriction of “evil” at least in some capacity, society quickly degrades to anarchy. If powerful pain-killers didn’t require prescriptions, a large portion of the American public would be addicts. Although this isn’t exactly the same, the principle still remains that people are prone to overindulgence and expedience, forgoing and ignoring the cost to themselves or their families. Since trans fats have been so obviously shown to be detrimental as a food source, placing a ban would cause companies to turn to healthier alternatives. This would benefit the general public, children, and even our wallets. With heart disease still the number one cause of death in the United States, a large portion of our health insurance premiums and taxed income goes to pay for people who made poor choices for their health. You cannot force people to be healthy, but you can at least restrict in a small way the most grievous of detriments to their health and well-being.
ReplyDeleteWhile all of these are valid points, one thing you have to realize is that the choices made by individuals, even in regards to food choices, affect more than just themselves. I work as a server in a restaurant, and almost every table that has obese parents also has obese children. In a society where we are pressured to quickly run here and there and to make choices that are the most expedient for us, nutrition and quality are often sacrificed for whatever is fastest and cheapest. Unfortunately, this often causes parents to feed themselves and their children large quantities of fast food, fried food, hydrogenated or otherwise “corrupted” food that have huge implications upon health that manifest themselves both in present problems and in chronic long-term complications down the road. The majority of Americans are overweight, with a staggering percentage being morbidly obese. Childhood diabetes and other conditions are on the rise, and we must realize that these children are not informed, capable, or mature enough to make these decisions for themselves. Although the information is out there, ready to be accessed, it is easier for most adults to just turn a blind eye to the problem and proceed with whatever is available. I really don’t like this state of affairs, with most of the public being happily and willingly ignorant, but that is the state of much of the country. I also do not like the government stepping beyond its boundaries and interfering in the personal freedoms of American citizens. I also promote free business and enterprise, wanting organizations to conduct business as they see fit. However, there still needs to be an atmosphere that restricts particularly harmful things and protects people from certain influences. We already have established laws against illegal drug use and suicide, although it could be argued that these things affect only the individual. Without a proper restriction of “evil” at least in some capacity, society quickly degrades to anarchy. If powerful pain-killers didn’t require prescriptions, a large portion of the American public would be addicts. Although this isn’t exactly the same, the principle still remains that people are prone to overindulgence and expedience, forgoing and ignoring the cost to themselves or their families. Since trans fats have been so obviously shown to be detrimental as a food source, placing a ban would cause companies to turn to healthier alternatives. This would benefit the general public, children, and even our wallets. With heart disease still the number one cause of death in the United States, a large portion of our health insurance premiums and taxed income goes to pay for people who made poor choices for their health. You cannot force people to be healthy, but you can at least restrict in a small way the most grievous of detriments to their health and well-being.
ReplyDeleteWhile all of these are valid points, one thing you have to realize is that the choices made by individuals, even in regards to food choices, affect more than just themselves. I work as a server in a restaurant, and almost every table that has obese parents also has obese children. In a society where we are pressured to quickly run here and there and to make choices that are the most expedient for us, nutrition and quality are often sacrificed for whatever is fastest and cheapest. Unfortunately, this often causes parents to feed themselves and their children large quantities of fast food, fried food, hydrogenated or otherwise “corrupted” food that have huge implications upon health that manifest themselves both in present problems and in chronic long-term complications down the road. The majority of Americans are overweight, with a staggering percentage being morbidly obese. Childhood diabetes and other conditions are on the rise, and we must realize that these children are not informed, capable, or mature enough to make these decisions for themselves. Although the information is out there, ready to be accessed, it is easier for most adults to just turn a blind eye to the problem and proceed with whatever is available. I really don’t like this state of affairs, with most of the public being happily and willingly ignorant, but that is the state of much of the country. I also do not like the government stepping beyond its boundaries and interfering in the personal freedoms of American citizens. I also promote free business and enterprise, wanting organizations to conduct business as they see fit. However, there still needs to be an atmosphere that restricts particularly harmful things and protects people from certain influences. We already have established laws against illegal drug use and suicide, although it could be argued that these things affect only the individual. Without a proper restriction of “evil” at least in some capacity, society quickly degrades to anarchy. If powerful pain-killers didn’t require prescriptions, a large portion of the American public would be addicts. Although this isn’t exactly the same, the principle still remains that people are prone to overindulgence and expedience, forgoing and ignoring the cost to themselves or their families. Since trans fats have been so obviously shown to be detrimental as a food source, placing a ban would cause companies to turn to healthier alternatives. This would benefit the general public, children, and even our wallets. With heart disease still the number one cause of death in the United States, a large portion of our health insurance premiums and taxed income goes to pay for people who made poor choices for their health. You cannot force people to be healthy, but you can at least restrict in a small way the most grievous of detriments to their health and well-being.
ReplyDeleteWhile all of these are valid points, one thing you have to realize is that the choices made by individuals, even in regards to food choices, affect more than just themselves. I work as a server in a restaurant, and almost every table that has obese parents also has obese children. In a society where we are pressured to quickly run here and there and to make choices that are the most expedient for us, nutrition and quality are often sacrificed for whatever is fastest and cheapest. Unfortunately, this often causes parents to feed themselves and their children large quantities of fast food, fried food, hydrogenated or otherwise “corrupted” food that have huge implications upon health that manifest themselves both in present problems and in chronic long-term complications down the road. The majority of Americans are overweight, with a staggering percentage being morbidly obese. Childhood diabetes and other conditions are on the rise, and we must realize that these children are not informed, capable, or mature enough to make these decisions for themselves. Although the information is out there, ready to be accessed, it is easier for most adults to just turn a blind eye to the problem and proceed with whatever is available. I really don’t like this state of affairs, with most of the public being happily and willingly ignorant, but that is the state of much of the country. I also do not like the government stepping beyond its boundaries and interfering in the personal freedoms of American citizens. I also promote free business and enterprise, wanting organizations to conduct business as they see fit. However, there still needs to be an atmosphere that restricts particularly harmful things and protects people from certain influences. We already have established laws against illegal drug use and suicide, although it could be argued that these things affect only the individual. Without a proper restriction of “evil” at least in some capacity, society quickly degrades to anarchy. If powerful pain-killers didn’t require prescriptions, a large portion of the American public would be addicts. Although this isn’t exactly the same, the principle still remains that people are prone to overindulgence and expedience, forgoing and ignoring the cost to themselves or their families. Since trans fats have been so obviously shown to be detrimental as a food source, placing a ban would cause companies to turn to healthier alternatives. This would benefit the general public, children, and even our wallets. With heart disease still the number one cause of death in the United States, a large portion of our health insurance premiums and taxed income goes to pay for people who made poor choices for their health. You cannot force people to be healthy, but you can at least restrict in a small way the most grievous of detriments to their health and well-being.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if anyone was having problems posting a reply. So far, the discussion has been great.
ReplyDeletePersonally speaking, requiring public public arenas to inform the public about the trans-fat content is a pretty ticklish topic. If this becomes mandatory then restaurants should also be required to inform the public of saturated fat content, sugar levels and cholesterol. High levels of one or all of these could potentially have detrimental affects on an individual's health. As of now, restaurants are not required to disclose this information and thus, why should transfat be any different?
ReplyDeleteThough making such information available to the public could potentially save someone's life I cannot help to think of the negative affects this could have on restaurants and other food industries. If the public begins to really grasp how bad some foods are for them they may stop attending certain restaurants. Obviously, this decrease in service would negatively affect the businesses.
I also agree with Cherleise, if the government did decide to completely eliminate the use of trans-fat that would put our nation in an even great economical hole. Reorganizing the ways in which most foods are produced isn't just something that can be done over night. We have to think about the amount of money, time, energy and other resources that are going to be needed to shift food production to a healthier one. All in all, the elimination of transfat, hypothetically speaking, sounds like a great idea. However in reality I feel that our current government is in no place to be making outrageous economic decisions. Maybe sometime in the future... but definitely not now.
This is exactly what I mean by personal responsibility. Restaurants already have all of their menu items and calorie counts online. I often check how many calories I am consuming in my favorite dishes. For instance, a piece of cheesecake and The Cheesecake Factory is usually around 1,000 calories! That is an entire days worth of calories!!! People should be interested in what they are eating, not needing the government to ban foods for them.
DeleteI agree with you Jess that the government has more important things to worry about. The moral or personal issues of society, especially issues that affect the health of the individual should be out of the governments hands. If it is not hurting anyone else, then the government should have no say if they think what you are doing is best for you.
However, a con is this. If the government takes over healthcare, and they are paying the bill, then they will have the power to tell you what you can eat and what treatment you can get. A dangerous place to be.
That's true tierney, and I feel thats exactly why this issue will continue to be brought up. If the government is going to be responsible for the distribution of healthcare then they will most likely continue to do anything to keep people's needs for healthcare as low as possible.
ReplyDeleteSo far with where this discussion has gone I completely agree with it/ya'll. People should own up to their decisions and not blame everyone else for their choice - that's biblical.If it's my choice to eat 4 doughnuts in a stting - I don't, I can barely handle one but that's besides the point - then that is my choice and no one else is to blame. I can jokingly say to my friend "why did you let me eat that many???" but it's not their fault it's mine.
ReplyDeleteHowever as far as government involvement, I can understand both sides - healthier people versus government control.But personally I don't want more goverment control; in my mind that can be the precursor for a dictatorship or totalitarian government and I don't want that at all. I know that may sound a little extreme but as soon as you compromise on one thing "for the greater good" what is to stop you from doing something or allowing something further until you no longer have any freedom you once thought you had.
But if it is the business owners choice then I have no problem with that whatsoever. There are many successful businesses out there that only serve one type of food (vegan, vegetarian, gluten free, etc.) and people love it because it is better in their mind to eat that way and that is what they like to eat. So as long as the government doesn't get involved then go for it and do whatever you want if you plan on owning a restuarant. I'm just not a fan or supporter of big, involved government - let me make my own terrible food choices if I want and healthy choices when I feel like it but don't make restuarants change their recipes to make health nuts feel better. You're just going to have people go out and buy twinkes and deep fry them all the more - like prohibition that worked right? (that was sarcasim)
I personally believe that creating transfats is wrong. God gave us things naturally and I generally do not agree with messing with nature. A lot of people say that the old testament rules and guidelines are all oldschool and do not really matter to us anymore. However, a lot of them are still applicable to us today because God has his reasons for them, not just because He likes to make rules. For instance, the no pork debate is beginning to be seen as a good thing because pork has begun to be known as quite horrible for our bodies.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if there is any such regulation on transfats... doubtful, lol, but I'm sure that creating and processing our own food besides the food from creation itself is not what God has intended and is not best for us. We should preserve our bodies and treat them well.
With that being said, I do not believe however that the government should be involved. In my opinion people can make their own decisions about what to eat and make their own decisions about if they want unnatural food. God doesn't strike one dead if they eat pork lol. I would not be opposed if the government did make a law against it, but I am not an advocate for implementing the law.
After eating a delicious meal from our very own, Tuscani Ristorante, I feel it’s time to chime.
ReplyDeleteI think we all can agree that the decision and the outcome is based on the consumer, not the producer. However, the producer has to make accommodations so that they can tend to multiple parties of different tastes. Yes it’s great to see restaurants have a plethora of options for costumers and such, but from a business stand point, that also in itself costs money. A fast food joint will have different standards and ingredients to use when preparing their food in comparison to a fancy sit down restaurant.
Remember that some restaurants actually THRIVE on costumers that choose to eat outrageously unhealthy. There are some that are, depending on whom you talk to, awesome or unhealthy depending on the proportions they give out (i.e. cheeburger cheeburger, which is delicious and makes you feel great when you’ve overcome their food challenge.) Then there are some that majority would say that it’s going just a tad over board. Look at the Heart Attack Grill in Las Vegas. Yes it’s in the news for being unhealthy and having a hospital theme and having a young spokesperson who died before he hit thirty from chest problems (didn’t help that he was nearly 575 pounds) , but they’re still in business and have begun franchising. People know that if they’re ordering a Quadruple Bypass burger with Flatliner Fries, it’s not exactly healthy. At least the waitresses wheel them out the door once they’re finished so their stomachs can rest a bit.
Here’s something to chew on Tierney: one Quadruple Bypass burger contains 8000 calories, so that burger alone can feed a person for a week.
Two words: Dig in!
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/300465/20120217/heart-attack-grill-triple-bypass-burger-worse.htm
I do like the fact that Jessica brought about the topic of the money side and so forth. Yes, they do post the calorie count on certain foods yet most people do not look at it, I mean I go to a restaurant to enjoy a meal that tastes good and not look at calories. However, I do feel it is the responsibility of the restaurant to inform the individual(s) eating the food the ingredients and amount of calorie to intake if the people want to. Yet, there is only so much that can be done, it is often left up to the individual to make that choice of what to consume. We can scream and yell people will still eat trans fat and food that is bad for them. Its like telling a child they cannot have candy because its bad for them, all they see is that it tastes good and do not comprehend how that can be bad. That is how I feel, most people view such food groups, it tastes so good and while they are part taking of that meal their brain is usually not thinking wow this is bad for me! So in that note, we should inform the consumer what they are consuming and the side effects but making it more clear and available, but we cannot stop it altogether.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Robyn extreme or not my first thought was the same. I believe that minor decisions like these could be the start of dictatorship or totalitarian. First our food is being selected for us then how we dress and what we choose wear. However, I understand the government point of view on trans fat but to take it to the next level to try and ban them is a different story. As a free nation we can make our own decisions. If the government begins to take out trans fat this is just the first of many decisions that they will begin to make for us. Everyone knows the damage that hamburgers, fries, milkshakes, junk food, etc does to your body. Does that mean that we should ban all food that harms our bodies. Trans fats are harmful because of their solid form and lasting time however how this is different from beef or gum that isn’t easily digested. Does the government take time to ban this as well. I honestly believe that this controversy would leave the U.S. with a very slim selection of food to eat. Additionally, I don’t believe that the marketplace should be tampered with due to the fact that trans fats aren’t the only thing harming us.
ReplyDeleteRecently in one of my classes we talked a little about trans fat. It contributes more to atherosclerosis than saturated fat. Denmark has also banned the use of trans fat in restaurants. I agree with Cherleise Hayes in this debate. it is irrelevant to compare trans fat and smoking because both of them kill. If the government wants to distribute health care services then they need to make sure peoples need for it is as low as possible.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the government should ban us from trans fat. If that was the case you could ban cigarettes and alcohol if where going of things that can be harmful to people. There has to be a point were that person has a choice in what they do. McDonalds is not good for our health so should we ban that? Its just more on the people to discipline themselves and have self control over what they choose to eat. This is one of those things that really only harms the person doing I would say alcohol and cigarettes are more dangerous because it can lead to you harming others. So this might be something the government might want to stay out of.
ReplyDeleteI think that in this topic, as in most things in life, the key is balance. I do not think that the government should completely ban trans-fats from being used in food entirely, due to the potential negative ramifications, as well as the potential for this to become a slippery slope circumstance where things are banned left and right. However, I also do not believe that the government should do nothing at all. The layman may not have a thorough knowledge of the dangers of consuming trans fats. Therefore, it is the government's duty to inform its citizens about the dangers of certain foods, of which the dangers may not be easily seen. One way that this could be accomplished is in various advertisements about the dangers of trans fats as well as encouraging companies, resultants, supermarket and other places where people commonly get food to make the amount of trans fat in their food easily seen.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea that Americans were so adamant about banning trans fat. I can understand why people might disagree with the government interfering and why other people might agree with the banning of trans fats. The argument against govt. interference could be due to the fact that people might see it as the first step of people banning other foods that are bad for us. People might also feel like they have the right to eat what they want. I however, agree with the government banning trans fat. Other countries ban dyes and artificial food additives all the time. In a way it's like a parent telling a child they can't eat something, not to be mean but because they know if the child eats the food, it will harm them. In the same way, if the government bans certain foods, it's for our best interest. I understand America is free but honestly people have taken it way too far. So far in fact that it allows people to get away with the most outrageous things, all because "we can do what we want".
ReplyDelete