I guess it's time to post again

I read a column by a fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress that suggested to me that he was anything but interested in medical progress. In his column, Paul Howard rants about New York City's ban on trans fats before segueing (impossibly, in my opinion) to pointing out the importance of making poor urban areas more market friendly (i.e. amenable to large supermarkets). The latter point is an excellent one and couldn't be more on-target for alleviating food choice problems facing the urban poor. However, the former point that the ban on trans fats is a horrible thing is way off the mark. He argues,

Millions of Americans are trying to keep their New Year's resolution to slim down by improving what they eat and how they exercise. Unfortunately, New York's ill-conceived trans fat ban will do little to help; in fact, it will likely undermine those resolutions.

By singling out one substance, the city is sending a dangerous message that health is about eliminating "bad" foods rather than making better lifestyle choices. This is the policy equivalent of a fad diet -- it will grab the headlines for a short while without changing anyone's actual behavior.

There are so many things wrong and so many illogical points in those two paragraphs that I don't know where to begin. However, the most important thing he gets wrong is the motivation behind NYC's ban. He seems to assume that this is supposed to make New Yorkers get thinner, yet the ban was put in place NOT for how trans fats make you gain weight but for how they affect your cardiovascular system. He goes on to criticize NYC for taking a patronizing stand in their efforts to make the poor eat healthier, as if this ban were targeted solely at the poor.

Well, for starters, while fast-food places are major users of trans fats (his implication being that only poor people eat at fast food places), ALL people encounter them, regardless of where they eat, because trans fats are used in so many different ways in so many different places, including in the nicest, poshest restaurants in NYC. They were originally used because they were believed to be healthier than saturated fats yet were able to produce similar-tasting products when used in place of saturated fats.

However, the major problem with trans fats is that they are unnatural and, it turns out, the trans nature of those fats is incompatible with how human bodies process them. These fats increase LDLs while decreasing HDLs. They are like the anti-statins. Despite the abundance of scientific evidence indicating their danger, Howard also takes the cheap shot by saying that experts disagree about their danger. Note to any non-scientist out there: Regardless of the issue (e.g. gravity), you can find "scientists" who disagree with consensus opinion; such disagreement does not invalidate the basic truth.

Howard could have had his best criticism if he had made a stronger point that perhaps we don't want the government micromanaging such aspects of our lives. However, I have thought about trans fats and come to the conclusion that it is only logical that they be banned. They are an additive and, according to our laws and the FDA (if I'm remembering correctly from a past article that I can't find), all additives must be considered generally safe. Trans fats are, in fact, unnatural and are certainly additives and the consensus is that they are not safe. If someone were to invent trans fats and, before being allowed to be used in food, they were tested and found to have these dangerous health effects, I seriously doubt that anyone would even question for a moment the FDA's decision to ban them (or at least restrict their use). I think it's great that most foods in the store now must list the trans fats on their products, but, when you eat out at restaurants, it's impossible to know how much trans fat is in their food.