Should Governments Ban Trans Fats, Or Just Educate Citizens About Them ?

Question

According to this article, the State of California and the City of New York have banned trans fats from restaurant menus.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/health/July-August-08/The-State-of-California-Says-No-to-Trans-Fats.html

Do you support this "nanny state" type of regulation, or should the government's role be limited to educating us abou the danger of trans fats, and requiring restaurants to notify us that they use them, and then leave the decision whether to consume them up to us ?

Answer 1

It's too much. What the government should do is sponsor more education on nutrition and help people make their own decisions about what to eat and take care of themselves.

Answer 2

They can educate, but leave me the h**l alone.  They have no d**n right telling anyone what they can and cannot eat.

Answer 3

Educate. But that is not what will happen under an Obama administration. You will be made to comply or be taxed in to compliance.

Answer 4

I found out my work was using trans fats on the grilled items in the cafe, which were marketed as healthy options.  I'd rather us be rid of transfats and I'm fine with the legislation.

Answer 5

I'm waiting for the tax on being overweight.

For every pound you're overweight, you pay $50.

Or the "fashion faux pas" fines.

You know, the government has to slap us rednecks into some resemblance of shape!

Answer 6

It should be limited to educating us, as a matter of fact, regulation should be minimal.

Answer 7

Eventually, the higher costs of medical treatment will ultimately be paid by the government, the government is right in banning this substance.

Answer 8

I suppose you want the government to tell when you can water your lawns and take a c**p as well!

Answer 9

No, The tansfat fad will end before the year is out and there will be a new fad that will kill you faster.  It's all about keeping the populace distracted and stupid.  Liberals eat it up.

Answer 10

On the whole I'm against nanny state legislation, but trans fats are used only to increase profit.

Nobody is addicted to them, or enjoys them in themselves, and maybe banning is cheaper than educating.

However, I come down on the side of clear labelling, and education.

There's just too much of this "banning" going on.

Answer 11

educate....

laws regarding stupidity are stupid...

Answer 12

the ban is unconstitutional if people really wanted to know businesses would post it because thats the way it works you do what the consumer wants or you lose money

Answer 13

While I believe that trans fats should be banned because they can be easily substituted, we need to proceed with caution.  

It's a slippery slope from banning trans fats to banning caffeine, alcohol and other legal substances that when consumed in large quantities have negative consequences on your health.

Answer 14

Overstepping their authority! Education would be sufficient.

Answer 15

Good question, very good article weighing the pros and cons.  Personally, I don't need the government to think for me.  Unless something is instantly poisonous, give me all the information I need and let me make up my own mind.

Answer 16

Neither. I don't see any reason the government should be educating people about the danger of trans fats or requiring restaurants to notify people. If people want to avoid trans fats, they can simply ask. If enough people care, restaurants will advertise that they are trans fat free.

The fact is, this nanny state regulation is designed to make people care. The decision of whether to consume them should be left up to us, but the decision of whether to go to restaurants that notify us about them should be left up to us too.

If people really cared, restaurants would be falling all over each other to advertise that they're trans fat free. But the nanny state believes that people *should* care.

Answer 17

It's kinda like suing McDonald's b/c you drop HOT coffee on you and get burned.  It's rediculous to have legislation dictating what you can and cannot eat or what can and cannot be put into your food-short of poison of course.  If one chooses to eat foods that are not good for them then they will be fat.  

We should just educate folks and then let them make their own decisions.  I like the term "nanny state" that you used to describe goofy moves like this.  It's not the gvts place to dictate what we eat any more than it is the gvts place to dictate what we wear or the music we listen to.