On December 5, 2006, New York City became the first major US city to implement a ban against restaurants serving food containing artificial trans fats. New York City’s Health Commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden believed that this ban necessary as a way to help combat heart disease, which he considers to be, “…the No. 1 killer in New York City.” Despite the good intentions of these bans, and the successful implementation of these bans in other cities and countries, I am still not convinced that New York City made the right decision by banning restaurants from using products that contain trans fats.

By beginning a pattern of legislating against unhealthy foods, are we not simply just passing the buck onto authorities to decide our diets rather than ourselves? While trans fats are undoubtedly a major issue for food processors, there are a number of additives that are arguably a potential threat to our health. After all, where would we go after a ban on trans fats in restaurants? Could we really see no more salts, sugars, or any other kind of preservatives in the food service sector? To some extent consumer pressure is already helping to phase out these methods and drive the use of healthier alternatives anyway.

It is surely here then, where the real dietary revolutions take place. Not in the form of legislation, but real and informed societal change. Don't get me wrong I certainly wouldn't miss the use of trans fats in food production. Who after all wants to add cookies, biscuits and eating in the gropwing list of dangerous vices in our lives.

The stronger argument surely is across the board labeling for all foodstuffs and restaurants to reveal just what ingredients they are using and when trans fat are present in their premises and products. If cigarette packets now offer clear indication that smoking is hazardous, than why should consumers not receive a similarly happy reminder with their food? Otherwise we will surely begin to adopt the rather fallible argument that "if the government says it's alright to eat, than what harm can this restaurant or this product do to me". A ban surely only continues to distance the public from making informed decisions about their own diets, and informed decision is ultimately the key to this issue. It is here where clear labeling and warnings could really make a difference to they way people think about their food.

New York City’s ban on trans fat is unsound and ultimately won’t lead to a reduction of heart disease. Consumption of trans fats only contributes to a few of the many factors that cause heart disease. Thus, the banning products with trans fats will only be the first in a series of regulations that the New York Health Commission would have to pass if it wanted to significantly deaths from heart disease.

Although I do applaud its recent campaign to end smoking in restaurants and bars, the arguments for that also illustrate why a proposed ban on trans fats isn’t necessary in New York. An individuals’ trans fat consumption isn’t the only thing that contributes to his or her risk for heart disease. In the case of cigarette smoking, not only was the smoke inhaled by the smoker probably the only cause of any lung disease he might acquire, but also a contributing factor in lung diseases acquired by the people around him. Thus, the deaths of people who don’t even engage in a certain behavior are certainly a cause for a ban; whereas a contributor of deaths of a behavior that only affects an individual shouldn’t be regulated with such force. The FDA has set the right precedent by requiring products with trans fats to be labeled. New York’s Health Commission should follow suit by using its resources to educate the public; rather than making their decisions for them.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

Well, why not rethink the ban on smoking in resturants,?
After all obeisety passed smoking as the number one killer in America.
Now I realize not all people over eat or throw up after they eat or are anerexic.
From what I gather about your post American's are individualist in other words they want to decide for themselves.
I'm down with that, and it crosses my mind every time i step out of a resturant to have a smoke remembering when I had a choice to either stay seated with my coffee and have a smoke or get up and go outside.
For the people that are against the law banning trans fat use, you may not have to step out side to get food cooked in trans fat,but good luck with the overseas exports or maybe the black market. you want cheese with that?

Well, to me the discussion on smoking in public/restaurants could be thought over again but it's a bit different than this one. With trans-fats, there is no proof that eating this is going to harm anybody than the person ingesting it. Smoking, one could argue, has second hand smoke which could harm others.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

The American medical assotiation has never produced a death certificate where the cause was second hand smoke.
there has been more than one heart attack caused by obeisity and in some cases very large people have been known to take up two seats in a crowded restuarant.
If one should ever step on you're foot well, or God forbid have a woman that weighs 350 lbs fall on you that could cause internal damage.
Of cource these are all highly speclitive, but if you're sitting on one end of a big resturant and somebody sitting on the other end might die from second hand smoke if in fact the smoke does reach said party.Isn't that a bit specclitive?
Also if second hand smoke from tobbaco is bad for you how do we know that second hand smoke from trans fat isn't just as bad.

First, I need to know what you mean by second hand smoke from trans-fat.
In any event, smoke period is not good for your lungs, and can cause significant long term damage (whether it be from a cigarette, car exhaust, or a campfire). But you're right, the mere presence of smoke and its effects does not permit the banning of something. I wasn't taking a side per se, I'm just merely speculating as to why the smoking issue is not being re-thought. I really don't have an answer to that...Just organized arguments as to why a trans-fat ban is not going to fix our obesity epidemic.

Smoke from ciagrettes contains many chemicals, many of which actually do not become ingested through the smoker and are released into the air. I think people are referring to these chemicals being picked up via second hand smoke, is all. The way I see it is if you take care of your liver and kidneys well enough, they should do a well enough job of handling and filtering any extra chemicals being inhaled passively.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

Is it possible that there are "chemicals" in our food or our water, or the exports that come to America.
I'm for trans fat that's a given, but isn't America becoming a bit too parinoid, and aren't American's becoming more worried about more things????

There's a difference in being unreasonably worried and being educated and looking out for things.

That's why I believe that banning trans-fats is not going to solve America's problem of nutritional ignorance. The only way to impede the obesity epidemic into the next generation is to raise kids with proper guidance and examples on good health and well being. That way, it is not that they are 'worried' about this chemical or that - they are avoiding it all together based on their knowledge of what contains which, in a sense. When they are not raised with that, it is much easier for them to passively 'ban' things that they believe can be pointed at for their state of being and at the same time it is giving the government that much more control over aspects of their lives. I mean, if they are not taught early on that responsible eating habits will act as prevention against much of these problems, how can we expect anything different?

Any state of excessive worrying and call for government action in such times like these of societal downfall is done on behalf of people who want the government to offer a 'solution' to a problem that person or the society made for themselves and one that the society changing for itself is the only antidote to the solution. The government alone will not solve this issue, and banning it won't solve it at all.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

That maybe true but if the government bans everything that society thinks is dangerous to Americans then the freedom of choice will be on the endangered list of becoming extinct!
After all this is the land of the FREE isn't it ???

I think you're misreading my posts. I'm not disagreeing - banning things that, in excess, could be bad is irrational and ridiculous. I'm just pointing out that the people that are usually 'worried' as you asked about are the ones asking for this kind of regulation. I don't think most people in America are 'worrying' too much about it; it just so seems that the ones who worry and push for it have the louder voices. In fact, most people are just generally uneducated on those types of things (which is what leads to the problem).

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

My question is quite simple what would you call baning things in excess?
I mean where is too much and who decides on which to ban?
If we are in fact educated we should be capable of making a choice should we not?
If we are uneducated how do we know what is being baned is in fact being banned for our benifit?
Could not the government that purposed these bans have an alternitive motive.?