Tuesday, January 16, 2007

TRANS FAT FAD DIET?

Okay so I think most of us know to stay away from anything containing transfat. We know the risk;

Science shows that consumption of trans fat raises low-density lipoprotein or bad cholesterol level which increases the risk of coronary heart disease. Right now more than 12.5 million American have CHD (AIDS tops out at merely 1 million) and more than 50,000 American's die each year from CHD. CHD is the leading cause of death in the United States.

So why so much fuss about banning trans fat? "laws like the New York cities trans fat ban illustrate policymakers' predilection for governing by trends" - Washington Post

Can and will the goverment ban bread in support of an Atkin's style diet for the masses? Will bread become contraband?

Over board on the example? At first glance, that is precisely what I thought as well. However, if you read the editorial in more detail, writer, Paul Howard of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress starts to make a lot of sense.

It is not that he is 100% against the ban. He know's that trans fat effect health and is not denying that, only stating that they (trans fats) only do it at the outside margins. The real battle with health and nutrition in a city such as NYC, is education and availability. The city is simply sending a dangerous message; one that will grab headlines, but in the long run will not change anyone's behavior. What if people start order french fries more often as a healthy alternative because now they are no longer fried in trans fat?

Some solutions he puts forth;

Increase physical activity in our schools.

To help poor urban communities gain access to healthier more affordable food.

I agree a lot with what he is saying, however, I am not totally 100% opposed to the ban of trans fat. Education is the key. The scale is SO massive, though. Maybe the ban is a form of education. How better to educate a city of millions, then through free press?

Like to if you guys have any reactions to this. Here is the link to the original article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201675.html

No comments: