The Montgomery County Council has gone too far:
The Montgomery County Council unanimously approved a ban on partially hydrogenated oils in restaurants, supermarket bakeries and delis yesterday, becoming the first county in the nation to restrict artery-clogging trans fats.
The move comes as health officials across the country decry a rise in bad eating habits, growing waistlines and an increase in heart disease and other ailments. The anti-trans fat bill puts Mongomery in the vanguard of a growing national movement to make it easier to obtain healthy foods in restaurants and grocery stores.
The goal of keeping Montgomery County citizens healthy is noble, but to do so by banning certain food ingredients is just not the best way to go about it. If trans fats were an immediate health threat that gave rise to irreversible health risks, I would have no problem with the ban. If the health risks of trans fats were sudden and severe, food vendors would immediately quit using trans fats to prevent lawsuits, which would make the ban superfluous. Those of us that don’t live under rocks know that certain foods are bad for our health. That is part of the reason I am a vegetarian. The choices of what each of eats should rest with the citizen- not the Montgomery County Council, despite its infinite wisdom.
3 comments:
Good morning Free Market.
I disagree, I think there should be a ban on partially hydrogenated oils. The average person does not have the time, the knowledge, and or the personal discipline to eat correctly.
I see your points, but I still don’t like this ban. To the extent that the average person does not have the knowledge to eat properly, I think that is something that should be cured with education or a public awareness program. Simply banning certain ingredients is somewhat of a lazy way of improving public health. I also question how effectively this ban can be enforced.
I don’t think that government legislation should take the place of personal discipline. If someone is too lazy to exercise or eat properly, they will have to reap what they sew.
According to the article, at least one annual church dinner qualifies as a “food establishment” that is required to comply. That is going too far.
If the ban resulted in direct benefit to the Goverment, I would be up in arms. But that is not the case. The direct benefit goes to the citizen. People always fight new things like seat belts and the smoking ban, even when it is to their benefit.
I agree with you, they should use education and public awareness programs, but I think this should be in addition to the ban.
Very often politicians will not address the bans before, during and as importantly after they become law. This would help the transition.
Something else that comes to my attention with this thought of using education.
If we look at what is being taught in High schools now, we can predict 20 to 30 years into the future. When I was in high school, many decades ago, they did not teach about the enviroment, and there were no vending machines. The last 10 or 15 years they have taught enviroment, which has highten attention on the Green House effect and Polar bears. There is also concern about children being over weight, which many are. I think this relates to the in school vending machines. We could not even chew gum in class,
I am sure students,now, are eating in class.
Hopefully the ban will be enforced by peer pressure and public awaeness.
For grins and giggles, what would you think of allowing citizens the opportunity to take advantage of tax breaks, but only if they were active voters ( such as having voted in the last 1 out of 2 elections).
Post a Comment