Force-Feeding Health
Why the Daily Tar Heel wants trans fat out of your diet — whether you like it or not.
Brendon Anderson
November 2006
The Daily Tar Heel editorial board took a bold step on October 2 by advocating the abolition of trans fat from restaurants in Chapel Hill. Beginning their article with, “Trans fat is an unquestionable health hazard, and Carrboro and Chapel Hill should move as quickly as possible to remove it from local restaurants,” they continued by citing heath reports that explained the medical dangers of trans fat. Before we delve too deep into the topic, it should be known that the real issue here has nothing to do with trans fat. The real issue is the idea of free choice. Now back to trans fat.
Few people actually know about trans fat, since it has just recently become a big deal throughout the health-conscious community. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration devoted an article of their own to trans fat, saying “Trans fat can be found in vegetable shortenings, some margarines, crackers, cookies, snack foods and other foods made with or fried in partially hydrogenated oils. Unlike other fats, the majority of trans fat is formed when food manufacturers turn liquid oils into solid fats like shortening and hard margarine. A small amount of trans fat is found naturally, primarily in dairy products, some meat and other animal-based foods.” In addition, trans fats are most likely found in food that contains partially hydrogenated oil, such as French fries, some potato chips, cookies and other typically non-healthy foods.
Realistically, trans fat has the potential to clog arteries depending on the consumption levels. People who eat more of it are predictably more prone to suffer its consequences. It’s for that reason that people who frequently eat at fast food restaurants are the most likely to eventually show heart complications and clogging in their arteries. It’s obvious that trans fat is unhealthy to eat, and people should choose to avoid consuming it in large quantities. Notice that I said choose, implying that people are given a choice about what they can or cannot eat.
The website, www.bantransfats.com, addressed the concept of “freedom of choice.” Their answer to the question asking, “Shouldn’t customers be able to choose?” was, “Yes, they should. The more freedom of choice the better. So if Restaurant A uses trans fat-free oil and Restaurant B uses partially hydrogenated oil, how do you the customer know which one uses the trans fat-free oil?.” The answer? You don’t, and it doesn’t matter. If you suspect a restaurant of abusing the use of trans fat, here’s a tip: Don’t eat there, and stop complaining about it. Some people may like to eat there, and that’s their choice. They may or may not develop heart complications depending upon the rest of their diet and exercise routine. Restaurants that become conscious of the trans fat issue may choose to inform customers of their food’s nutritional content. There’s that word “choice” again. It really hurts liberals to hear about freedom of choice sometimes. But what about pro-choice? They’re all for that.
Let’s take a brief look at how choices affect the overall health of the nation, since that’s what the DTH and other advocate groups are obviously concerned with. The DTH article stated, “According to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, more than 12.5 million Americans have CHD, and more than 500,000 die each year.”
Half a million people die each year from heart and arterial complications that may or may not have resulted from eating too much trans fat. For argument’s sake, we’ll assume that every death is the direct result of eating too much trans fat. They made bad choices, and they died.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute and reported on www.mnstate.edu, 1,370,000 women choose to have abortions every year in the United States. That’s more than two times the deaths caused by a choice. By the way, abortion is 100% fatal every time, where eating trans fat every now and then is not. Abortion seems like an awfully unhealthy choice for people. Why doesn’t the DTH advocate for Chapel Hill to ban it?
How about the choice to drink alcohol? As reported by The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 75,000 people in the United States die each year from alcohol related deaths. There are no statistics for the number of divorces, child abuses, rapes, liver failures, brain damage, accidents and addictions caused by alcohol, but one could imagine that number would be significant. Alcohol has been the cause of countless broken homes, generational patterns of addiction and psychological disorders. Obviously the choice of many people to drink alcohol also leads to unhealthy consequences. Why doesn’t the DTH advocate for Chapel Hill to ban alcohol as well? After all, alcohol is definitely harmful to people who choose to consume it in large quantities. Using DTH logic, it should also be banned.
Finally, let’s discuss the idea of freedom of choice and consequences that result from those choices. Choosing to eat too much trans fat is a personal choice and definitely one that could result in bodily harm. However, eating too much trans fat and developing heart problems only affects the person who makes that poor choice. Of course, that person’s family and friends are affected as well, but not directly. Abortions, on the other hand, affect more than just the person making the choice to have one. Abortions take away an innocent life and create emotional damage for the person who makes the choice. Alcoholics almost always affect more than just themselves with their addictions. Along with their family, who usually suffer the most from an alcoholic family member, an alcoholic has the potential to affect other people as well. Their choices often result in motor vehicle accidents and the deaths of innocent people. In college, kids who become involved with alcohol can become depressed, get bad grades due to hangovers and get into trouble with the law.
One can’t help but see that trans fat is indeed harmful and should be avoided. However, a governmental ban would infringe on the rights of restaurant owners and consumers who should be allowed to serve unhealthy food and consume unhealthy food, respectively. It’s doesn’t take mental gymnastics to see that those choices affect only the people who make them, unlike choosing to have an abortion or too many drinks. A freedom-of-the-press loving newspaper like the DTH should understand the differences between freedoms of choice, and think before publishing another one-sided editorial.
Oh, and a word to all you concerned people. Avoid those restaurants who serve too much trans fat for you to tolerate and go eat a salad at Lenoir or Rams Head…just make sure you don’t get the Italian dressing.