Government Power Grab: FDA To Ban Trans Fats

By: Kristin Tate
65

695320912_1381547432

OPINION:


The United States is over 17 trillion dollars in debt, the national unemployment rate is over seven percent, and one-sixth of the American population is on food stamps. But fixing those problems is just so hard! So, some courageous politicians have decided to spend time and money dictating what we should be allowed to eat. They do this in the name of “keeping us healthy.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a plan to ban trans fats because they are a “threat to people’s health.”

The FDA is moving forward with this power-grab despite the fact that the amount of trans fats in the average American’s diet has declined rapidly in the last decade.

The food industry will be required to gradually phase out trans fats. Once they have been completely phased out, anyone who wants to use trans fats will be forced to get special permission from the FDA.

The FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods, Michael Taylor, said, “We want to do it in a way that doesn’t unduly disrupt markets.”

As of right now, the exact timeline for the phase-out has not been decided on.

Michael Jacobson, the director of the advocacy group Center for Science, said, “Six months or a year should be more than enough time, especially considering that companies have had a decade to figure out what to do… [The ban is] one of the most important lifesaving actions the FDA could take.”

The FDA claims that trans fats are horrible for your heart — worse than saturated fat — and can contribute to heart diseases.

This is true… But when did it become the government’s job to control what we eat? Have we become a complete nanny state?

Smoking can cause lung cancer — so why don’t we ban cigarettes? Too much sugar often leads to diabetes — let’s go ahead and ban sugar, too! Alcohol can contribute to liver failure — ban it!

You get my point. The government simply cannot ban everything that is a “threat to people’s health.”

America is supposed to be the Land of the Free. If people want to make poor food choices, they should be allowed to. Of course, it is unfair to make the rest of us pay for their heart disease and diabetes. This is why ObamaCare (the biggest government power-grab in a generation) must be overturned immediately. In a free country, government cannot dictate lifestyle choices, nor can it become the overprotective mommy and daddy of its citizens.

Freedom means having the right to make bad choices and then deal with the consequences ourselves.

The following two tabs change content below.
Kristin Tate is a multi-media reporter for Breitbart News and BenSwann.com. Dedicated to fearless journalism, she regularly works on undercover stings with James O'Keefe to reveal government waste, abuse, and fraud. Tate was a Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) Chapter President and Founder. She will continue to fight tirelessly for individual liberty and free markets through new media. Visit Kristin's website at www.TheLibertarianChick.com.
Support the Truth In Media Project


"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • akatom3565

    They have to keep you around to pay taxes. The dead still in Chicago vote but they don’t pay taxes. Maybe they will bring back the inheritance tax.

  • huy

    “state of nature” human life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” – Thomas Hobbes

    Your opinion at the end of the article only reiterate the quote I mentioned above. Do not let those who are ignorant continue that path if you truly hope for a better world.

  • rainbowdash

    I’ll admit, I don’t eat donuts, but maybe once or
    twice a year however I don’t really think anyone has the right to tell
    me I can’t have it.

  • HypeandFail

    F. Paul Wilson predicted this in a short story back in the 70′s. Here’s a link to the short film ‘Lipidleggin’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xUfocxS-T8

  • fieman01

    The problem is people want to consume what they want to regardless of the negative effects it has on health and then expect someone besides themselves to pay for the medical care that is a result of their bad lifestyle choices. Public schools need to do more teach children the Science of Nutrition.

    • Guest Poster

      Perhaps this is the VERY BEST argument against socialized medicine. Because once we start collectivizing medicine, then your health becomes everybody else’s (and the state’s) business.

  • Gregg Braddoch

    Donut picture is a little misleading: Donuts (when made properly) will contain Saturated fats, not trans fats (unless they are made with margarine to lower the cost of production).

    The major difference between Trans Fats and Saturated fats is that Trans Fats are man made, and are intended only for extending product life, not for any necessary healthy diet. They UP bad cholesterol, LOWER good cholesterol (as opposed to saturated fats, which increase both types of cholesterol).

    This regulation will not stop donuts from being made, in fact, it may make them slightly healthier than they are now.

    I am against government regulation, however in this case, it actually looks like the FDA is making a decision for HEALTH reasons, which is a rare find – I’m willing to bet that the FDA will change it’s mind very soon because of business interests.

    • science rocks

      Also if you actually get deeper into the biochemistry there are two main kinds of LDL (Bad Cholesterol), dense and buoyant. Dense is the one that actually causes problems in the body, and interestingly enough may have some kind of correlation with fructose consumption. Animals fats and saturated fats are almost entirely comprised of buoyant LDL which does not harm your body.

  • Concerned Consumer

    But won’t this raise the cost of food? They will have to change the label details. We can’t label GMO foods because it will increase prices and raise the cost of foods to the consumer. We can’t ask Kraft foods to take GMO’s out of their processed foods as they do for other countries because that will cost the consumer too much. I’m confused. How can this be?

  • hsmom2004

    Transfats are bad for us, but 30+ years ago, they were telling people that transfats such as margarine were so much better for people than butter and people bought into that.
    As for teaching people about nutrition, the nation has gotten grossly more unhealthy as the food pyramid and lately, My Plate, were promoted. They were taught that fat makes us fat rather than recognizing that no, it is the interaction of carbohydrates affecting our insulin levels that affects the rest of our bodies making us fat. Furthermore, since we have been consuming so much more high fructose corn syrup over the past few decades, we’ve also become heavier as that is a pervasive sweetener.
    Having the government tell us what is and is not healthy has really not worked well for the last 90 years. I think we just need to start looking for ourselves at what we can grow in our own gardens, or obtain from local farmer’s markets, and getting healthy sources of protein in our diets. Government intervention in food health, even at the school level, has done us more harm in the last 20 years than ever before.

  • js290

    Michael Jacobson & CSPI were once pro trans fats… http://youtu.be/5dpFFqN94JE?t=2m22s

  • anonymous

    What about GMO’s. They’re perfectly fine right? PPFFTT

  • TheWholeTruth

    This is a jaw dropping moment. The FDA doing something for our health? Most of the things they deem ‘okay’ will KILL you. How about dropping aspartame for the public’s health? How about banning BPA? How about all the drugs that kill hundreds of thousands a year? Really? I just don’t know how to respond to this. Hurrah for the getting rid of trans fats. People are much better off with butter than margerine which is only one molecule off from plastic. People bought into the ‘low fat is the only way to health’ BS. So. hmm.. don’t know which way to lean on this one. Do you think they’ll finally okay raw milk? I guess I shouldn’t push it, huh?

    • Willy

      THIS. SO THIS!

  • Target4Tyrants

    Silly little slave Ben.. Liberty is for the .0000001%
    Now shut up and eat your 5 breasted GMO chicken nuggets:p

    • NotTalkingOutOfMyAss

      The more breasts the better, I always say.

  • edwardhoward

    Kristin,
    Thanks for not ending with a question.

  • RighWingDude

    This reminds me of when the government banned asbestos. It’s my right to breathe in toxic, cancerous fibers into my lungs. This is just another example of Hitler Communist Buddhist Obama.

    • http://BanthaSkull.com/ Duke

      Yes, because there’s no difference between involuntarily breathing toxic, cancerous fibers and voluntarily shoving as many McNuggets into my mouth as I possibly can. Good argument.

      • jameswaterdield

        BURN haha RinhWingDude didn’t think too hard about his post

  • Misterdamage

    There was a time when obesity was a sign of wealth. It is a marker of how monumentally successful America is that obesity is now a sign of poverty. Even the poor among us can afford enough food to eat too much of it and they do work that is relatively sedentary instead of the dangerous, physically demanding work that was once the mark of being at the bottom of the heap.

    And the US government wants to _undo_ this accomplishment.

    • Ria

      No. It isn’t how much people are eating that is causing obesity, it is what. And the sub-par quality of what passes for food these days.

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    Really awkward way to land the plane with another “Obama did it, Obama did it, Obama did it.” But… that’s the only way REPUBLICANS (who pose as liberty folks) can “report.”

    I wonder why Bushcare (Medicare Part D) wasn’t mentioned. Reagancare (FORCING hospitals to treat). Bushcare (Disability). I wonder why the report DOESN’T mention that ALL OF THE ABOVE, INCLUDING the FDA, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL (authorized NOWHERE in the Constitution).

  • ChefD

    One reason why people who think this is a good thing are wrong is that this will extremely eliminate a lot of food that people with dairy allergies can eat.

    • common sense

      Normal fat moelcules have a bend to them called the cis-formation. The straightening out of a fat molecule by hydrogenation creates something called the trans formation. This tran-formation (oh the pun) lipid rarely occurs in nature due to its toxic properties.Our livers also fails to recognize this toxin and instead it incorporates a straightened out fat into the position where a kinked fat should be put. When you consume these fats you are in essence hydrogenating your cell walls.

      I think a few less non-diary foods is not much of a price to pay to keep your cell-walls functioning.

      • Ed Yoder

        You completely miss the point.

  • Willy

    Trans Fats don’t cause NEAR the health issues that GMOs do. But then, our government is owned by Monsanto, so THAT’S not going to happen. Corrupt pigs, the lot of ‘em!!

    • Rusty

      Got any proof of this?

      • Michael Blake

        rusty gmo is the reason why people are getting cancer,getting fat, changing the way we digest food is also changing. google it.

      • KingAdrock

        The Obama-appointed head of the FDA Michael Taylor, is a former Monsanto Vice-President.

  • common sense

    Article kinda sucks. First off you said sat fats are bad for you which is total BS. Second you ignored health impacts of trans fats and the economic incentives for you to have a food with trans fats vs other fats, and thirdly ignored other possible solutions for taking this dangerous substance out of circulation and simply labelled it as somethign the government should butt out of instead of providing alternatives that could leave the average population healthier. It’s like banning lead in paints, it works out better for almost everybody.

    • Gregg Braddoch

      While I do agree with the article that the government should butt out of this, I do understand that Trans Fats are not meant to be put into our bodies – The issue is that the government banning lead paint or trans fats does not stop companies from selling harmful products – they will find what ways they can to get around the regulation, replacing trans fats and lead paint with other, less tested substances that may be worse or better than what they are replacing – we have no idea of knowing.

  • James

    Obamacare is potentially a disaster, BUT, the leap Tate makes in this articles is a DEFINITE disaster.. I love liberty but both Tate and the Editor of this site need to be put on watch for this failure of an article..

  • Pat RIOT

    No TransFatties!!! lol At first I thought it’s bad, but if the FDA can make food manufacturers stop using shite ingredients, that will not affect organic farmers or any of the foods I eat, and may bring about a new level of general health. It goes against the libertarian in me, but face it if there were zero health standards at all, then they’d be putting even more crap in the food supply.

  • M. Skye

    Like there aren’t other, more important things to be banned. This article is shitty, just like this FDA move. The author is just trying to find ANYTHING to complain about. Really? Our food NEEDS some regulation. Instead of dedicating time writing this article she should have just rolled her eyes at the FDA and moved on. Now she’s just wining.

  • stwindfall

    I wouldn’t trust anything the FDA does at this point, given the fact that it’s appointee- Michael R Taylor- was the Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Corp. from 1998 to 2001. I really have a hard time with a company that would try to kill legislation requiring them to label their GMO products. Monsanto was basically saying that they don’t want the public to know what they’re eating, and now their former Vice President is the FDA Deputy Commissioner for the FDA. How can there possibly be a conflict of interest here?

  • tick tack

    And no one believed us that Obama wants to be a dictator. Looks like he’s well on his way. And, clamming this has nothing to do with him. May I remind you this is happening under his watch.

  • Shorty Stuff

    Big brother and the nanny state is here. Next thing you know they will be banning sugary drinks. Say goodbye to your Coca-Cola and Pepsi drinks. They will have to do this in order for Obamacare to have a chance at success.

  • Mark

    Have you ever read the back of packages at your grocery store? Trans fats are still all over the place. If you think this constitutes a power grab, you must be a pretty big moron.

  • Health Coach Zach

    I am sorry but the ignorance and blatant hypocrisy here is unbelievable. Trans fat should have never been allowed in the food supply in the first place…EVER. It is straight up poison and always deadly over the long term…even in small amounts. I am a Health Coach. I have studied the ins and outs of this for the last 7 years. I am a HUGE Ben Swann supporter but this article is one that I could not disagree more with. A POWER GRAB to actually protect the health of its citizens for once? What a joke. We should actually be praising this move rather than bemoaning it as “BIG GOVERNMENT” overreaching. This is what government (if we must have it) should do..actually promote the general welfare of its citizens. Trans fat is deadly. PERIOD. The only reason it was ever allowed in the food supply was because it was cheap and extended shelf life…unfortunately it has been DESTROYING the shelf life of millions of Americans for a long long time and killing people. Your mother. Your Grandfather. Your neighbors. Usually I am all for personal liberty but in this case, I APPLAUD the FDA for actually being pressured into removing THE most dangerous ingredient STILL in our food supply today.

    • RLee

      Guess they should also ban meat and dairy. Why? They also contain trans fat. Granted, they are naturally occurring, but trans nonetheless. And lest we forget who pushed for replacement of natural fats for processed trans fat in restaurants back in the day.

      • Health Coach Zach

        Totally true RLee. Truth be told, most people could stand to eat a lot less of meat and dairy actually. They are both very acidic to humans which leads to disease and they have disastrous effects on the earth and our environment. Do I think the government needs to step in and ban meat and dairy, no…but what is completely missing is education. If people knew how our meat & dairy was raised in this country and what the true effects are on our global community were, it would bring about sweeping changes and public outcry from the people overnight. But alas, we are where we are…

        • KingAdrock

          You’re a “health coach”. So basically you know nothing beyond what could be learned from reading Wikipedia.

          Get a medical degree and we might bother listening to your opinion.

        • ForTehNguyen

          social engineer alert

      • FoodScientist

        What are you talking about RLee, trans fats are almost never naturally occuring, nor present in animal products. They are primarily a product of hydrogenation which straightens out a bend in a lipid. Our body doesn’t have a mechanism to pull this toxin out of our body because it never had to adapt one it so rarely occured naturally. So instead these trans fats are incorporated into our cell walls and the extra hydrogen and change in molecular shape essentially RUINS cell metabolism at that site.

    • satnone

      So what you’re saying then is you’re a hypocrite?

      • Health Coach Zach

        I am sure I am. Most people are. Just curious though, are you saying I am a hypocrite because I am applauding an action of the government in this case?

        • KingAdrock

          No, because you applaud the government claiming they have the right to decide what kind of food a free person may choose to eat. Do you really believe the only way to get rid of trans fats is government intervention? If so, how is it that KFC voluntarily stopped using all trans fats?

          If people are concerned about trans fats, there’s nothing stopping companies from simply not using them. Then they can slap a huge label on the front of their product “No Trans Fat!”, allowing those who want to avoid trans fat to buy it in droves.

    • Geir_35

      Yes, thank you! Many of the people here are turning complaining about what the government does into knee-jerk reaction, without first critically thinking about the real implications of the topic. Congratulations, you people are acting just like the so-called Obamanoids, just in reverse.

  • CaptainUSA

    Ban Chemtrails and False flags first

  • satnone

    I didn’t realize so many of Ben’s fans are complete Statists. If you guys want to ban something from yourself go right ahead, but you have absolutely NO right to ban something from anyone else. Period. You guys need to go back over to the The Blaze or Salon where you came from.

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      They’re not fans. They’re cloaked REPUBLICANS. CO-OPTERS trying to wrestle control of the alt-media narrative, PROMOTE the LEFTIST republican party (by incessantly bashing the LEFTIST democrat party). They did the SAME THING with the Constitutional Libertarian Tea Party and they’re trying the same thing with Ron Paul’s Liberty Movement.

      • KingAdrock

        I’m pretty sure they aren’t all Republicans, statists come on the left AND right. It isn’t Republicans who’re pushing laws that dictate what kind of car you may drive, what types of light bulbs you may buy or how large your soda may be.

  • http://www.anarchocapitalism.us/ Ethan Glover

    There may be bugs in fruit, meat may hold diseases, vegetables come from the dirty ground and get rained on with dirty water… I think we should ban food.

  • Geir_35

    Are you people seriously complaining about FDA banning trans fats? Trans fats are some of the worst things you can put into your body. I’m in general very sceptical about the unhealthy foods and medicines allowed in the US market (the standard here seems to be worse than anywhere else in the western world), but for once we get some great news. You should be applauding this. Get a grip, people!

    • ForTehNguyen

      you can already ban it yourself, by not eating it. Leave the rest of us alone. FDA is one of my most hated agencies because it distorts our food supply so much

      • Geir_35

        Your argument doesn’t make any sense. I guess we should allow foods with quicksilver and lead too. So that we could choose to eat poisonous heavy metals for those who would like that. Considering you live in a country that won’t even label genetically modified foods, you think allowing harmful substances (that has perfectly good substitutes) in foods is really a smart idea?

        • ForTehNguyen

          govt has to tell is that mercury and lead are bad and we cant decide for ourselves? We would have a lot better testing and certification if the FDA didnt have a monopoly on it.

          Let this sink in a second, so the entity that cant deliver a piece of mail profitably, for $650M cant even get a website working, and youll depend on this entity to tell us what we can or cannot eat?

          • Geir_35

            I agree that there are many conflicts of interests concerning the FDA (Monsanto especially!), but this is a separate issue. Every country needs an agency to control the standard of food production and ingredients. Then we can argue on how that agency should function. I think we all agree on that there are a lot of issues with FDA, but to complain about FDA banning ingredients that should never have been allowed in the first place is completely missing the point.

  • Geir_35

    Reading some of these comments proves the American IQ is dropping. For once the FDA is doing something right, and you are complaining because you want to continue eating harmful foods. Considering there are plenty of alternatives that gives the food the same taste, makes your comments even more ludicrous. Now, if we got a higher approval standard for vaccines and drugs in the US market, as well as labelling of foods with genetically modified ingredients, then we’re starting to get somewhere. (Although GMOs should never have been allowed in the first place.)

    • ax123man

      The point is you have no right to tell me what I can and cannot eat. Yet here you are. You may also be interested in knowing the group primarily responsible for this ban (not the FDA) is the same group that lobbied for increased use of trans fats in 1988. Personally I’d prefer to rely on those with actual skin in the game rather than those who are politically motivated and are never punished for the harm they cause.

      What you have to consider is that, by supporting the FDA, you are, ipso facto, supporting the FDA, those groups who lobby the FDA, crony capitalism, and the ability, at a federal level, to tell all people what they can eat.

      I believe in the idea of subsidiarity, which simply states that matters should be handled at the smallest capable level. It’s easy, and intellectually lazy, to think its best to handle all these things federally. Historically, governments with this kind of power have not treated their citizens well. Not in the long run.

  • Surendra Madray

    I love how everyone is fighting both sides, how we need bans on what we eat for healthier purposes, and how we should just leave people to make their own bad decisions. I agree with both sides, but only if they decide to start banning all the other crap that is allowed in our foods that no one seems to care about. So much of our processed food has carcinogens and other toxins that are proven to cause diseases, and they worry and make a big plan to cut out trans-fat. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t we cut down on trans-fat use a really long time ago. If you want to ban something start looking at all the processed meats and foods that are spreading carcinogens all throughout the country, how they are contributing to the poor health of most of the country. It’s all so damn cheap and appealing to those who don’t have much, that we fail to realize that it’s all killing us slowly. Find a way to make Big Macs look not so good for your health rather than making it $4 while real burgers and healthier food is $10+

    • Surendra Madray

      If you want to eat food that will kill you go ahead, I just don’t want bans on stupid things, the really harmful unknowns in our food.

  • http://PeterPalms.com/banking Peter Palms

    While the top leaders and theoreticians at the IMF and World Bank dream of world socialism, the middle managers and political rulers have more immediate goals in mind. The bureaucracy enjoys a plush life administering the process, and the politicians on the receiving end obtain wealth and power. Ideology is not their concern. Socialism, capitalism, fascism, it makes no difference to them as long as the money flows.

    Graham Hancock has been an astute observer of the interna­tional-aid
    “industry” and has attended their plush conferences. He knows many of the leading players personally. In his book, Lords of Poverty, he speaks of the IMF’sStructural-Adjustment loans:

    Corrupt Ministers of Finance and dictatorial Presidents from Asia, Africa, and Latin America are tripping over their own expensive footwear in their unseemly haste to “get adjusted.” For such people, money has probably never been easier to obtain than it is today; with no complicated projects to administer
    and no messy accounts to keep, the venal, the cruel and the ugly are laughing literally all the way to the bank. For them structural
    adjustment is like a dream come true. No sacrifices are demanded of them personally. All they have to do—amazing but true—is screw the poor, and they’ve already had plenty of practice at that.1

    In India, the World Bank funded the construction of a dam that displaced two million people, flooded 360 square miles, and wiped out 81,000 acres of forest cover. In Brazil, it spent a billion dollars to “develop” a part of the Amazon basin and to fund a series of hydroelectric projects. It resulted in the deforestation of an area half the size of Great Britain and has caused great human suffering because of resettlement. In Kenya, the Bura irrigation scheme caused such desolation that a fifth of the native population abandoned the land. The cost was $50,000 per family served. In Indonesia, the transmigration program mentioned previously has devastated
    tropical forests—at the same time that the World Bank is funding reforestation projects. The cost of resettling one family is $7,000, which is about ten-times the Indonesian per-capita income.

    Livestock projects in Botswana led to the destruction of grazing land and the death of thousands of migratory animals. This resulted in the inability of the
    natives to obtain food by hunting, forcing them into dependence on the government for survival. While Nigeria and Argentina are drowning in debt, billions from the World Bank have gone into building lavish new capital cities to house government agencies and the ruling elite. In Zaire, Mexico, and the
    Philippines, political leaders became billionaires while receiving World Bank loans on behalfof their nations. In the Central African Republic, IMF and World Bank loans were used to stage a coronation for its emperor.

    The record of corruption and waste is endless. But the real eye-opener is in
    the failure of socialist ventures, those magnificent projects which were to bring
    prosperity to the underdeveloped countries. Here are just a few examples.

    CONVERTING MONEY INTO FAILURE

    Before receiving loans from the World Bank, Tanzania was not wealthy, but it
    fed its own people, and it had economic growth. After receiving more than 3 billion dollars in loans, it nationalized the nation’s farms and industries and converted every business into a government agency. It built a truck assembly plant, a tire factory, electronic factories, highways, ports, railways, and dams. Tanza nia’s industrial production and agricultural output fell by almost one-third. Food was the main export in 1966. Under socialism, food had to be
    imported—paid for by foreign aid and more loans from the World Bank. The country ishopelessly in debt with no way to repay.

    Argentina once had one of thehighest standards of living in Latin America. But then it became the recipient of massive loans from the World Bank as well as
    commercial banks in the United States. Since the money was given to politicians, it was used to build the only system politicians know how to build: socialism. By 1982, the Gross National Product was in a nose dive, manufactur­ing had fallen to less than half of capacity, thousands of privately owned companies had been forced into bankruptcy, unemploy­ment was
    soaring, and so was welfare. By 1989, inflation was running at an average of 5,000% and, in the summer of that year, topped at 1,000,000%! Banks were offering interest rates of 600% per month in hopes of keeping deposits from being moved out of the country. People were rioting in the streets for food, and the government was blaming greedy shop owners for raising prices. The nation was hopelessly in debt with no way to repay.

    Brazil is run by the military, andthe state controls the economy. Government-owned companies consume 65% of all industrial
    investment, which means that the private sector is limited to 35% and is shrinking. The government used loans from U.S. banks to create an oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A., which became Latin America’s largest corporation. Despite huge oil deposits and record-high oil prices, the company operated at a loss and was not even able to produce enough gasoline
    for its own citizens. By 1990, inflation was running at 5,000%. Since 1960, its prices had risen to 164,000 times their original level. A new crime was invented called “hedging against inflation,” and people were
    arrested for charging the free-market price for their goods and for using dollars or gold as money. Led by Communist organizers, mobs roamed the streets shouting “We’re hungry. Steal what you will!” The nation was hopelessly in debt with no way to repay.