Comments about ‘In our opinion: Trans fat ban not a sign the 'nanny state' is taking over’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Nov. 18 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bountiful, UT

Decades ago the government adopted enforced standards that foods need to be suplemented with certain vitamins and minerals. Since that time people have begun living longer and longer. Coincidence? I think not.

Yes Virgina, inspite what you may have heard from RR and the TP, government does have a letigimate role to play.

South Jordan, UT

How can one take this editorial board seriously when it applauds this effort, but wrote vicious editorials against the efforts to limit soda consumption? The principle is the same in both cases.

I'm for banning trans fats, but this editorial board has no credibility.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

This ban on trans fats is the sure sign of the apocalypse - the end of days - the final triumph of communism in America - fascism in food. What next?

Tooele, UT

Re: "Trans fat ban not a sign the 'nanny state' is taking over"

Actually, it's the BEST evidence yet that the nanny state IS taking over. If the federal government is permitted to ban food, what is it not permitted to ban?

The fact that physicians, and even real people, are being led merrily into tyranny by the soothing pied piper's music this opinion piece spouts -- a lilting, if disingenuous suggestion that bureaucratic control over this particular food is somehow different than others, a to-be-applauded exception to Constitutionally limited government -- demonstrates how low-information America has been lulled into believing government is the good guys.

It's just sad.

West Jordan, UT

I've noticed throughout the years, especially after reading articles like this, that the Desnews has moved away from being a conservative paper to being a moderate one. It is refreshing to see common sense prevail.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Of course it's not evidence of the "Nanny State" mentality. It's just evidence of how little those in government trust the PEOPLE to make their own decisions.

And maybe they are right to not trust us to make wise decisions. I mean... look at all the obese people, and all the people killed in traffic accidents that weren't wearing a seat belt, or all the people killed by drunk drivers each year.

Maybe we don't deserve that trust, or that freedom to choose and suffer the consequences of our choices (good or bad).

But here's the kicker... People like Bloomburg don't trust us with Trans fats or sodas and want to outlaw them... but many of the same states are pushing to legalize marijuana!

So... we can't be trusted to make wise choices when it comes to diet (and they need to be banned)... but we CAN make wise choices on marijuana, alchohol, etc (and it needs to be legalized)?

I don't get that logic. Are they saying Trans Fats are more dangerous than Marijuana? Or that Marijuana WON'T be abused... but Trans Fats will?

If you legalize Marijuana... legalize Transfats.

Springville, UT

Good editorial. This is a ban of a harmful product that has no value to the consumer. Frankly, some regulation is good. You wouldn't like a world where there is little or no regulation.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Maybe we should just make Trans Fats a "controlled substance"... and restore Marijuana to it's rightful place as just a harmless herb that would NEVER be abused...

While you're at it... make sodas a controlled substance.

If you think our prisons are overflowing and the black market thriving just because marijuana is illegal... what do you think will happen if you outlaw trans fats, sodas, fried foods, etc.

I wonder what the penalty for Trans Fat trafficking will be...

Are we going to be frisking people on the Mexican border and ripping apart cars looking for candy or french fries?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

You are about the most consistent satirist in these comments daily, only Steve Colbert does it better.

The government testing foods, how dare they? In the case of trans fats, foods that don't exist in nature, how horrible of them.

Of course when it comes to foods like beer (which is far more nutritional than trans-fats) I'm sure your for draconian regulation.

Obesity and heart disease account for more deaths in this country than all drugs combined including evil tobacco and alcohol.

Just because you can eat paint chips, doesn't mean you can market them as a crunchy salad topping.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Most eat trans fats without knowing it, You don't buy it in a bottle and drink it?

2bits, you picked the wrong plant to compare, as hemp seed oil is not only healthy but also has cured cancer and helps with seizures. It can also be used in your vehicle as lubricant, or as bio fuel.

Trans-fat just make your twinkie taste better and is completely man made, I'll take natural over "mans" creations any day.

J in AZ
San Tan Valley, AZ

Buried in this editorial is a blurb that give substance to the idea that the FDA and NIH are really in league with the pharma companies. The move to broaden the use of statin drugs is purely to boost the profits of the firms that make those drugs. The ugly little truth is that statins should never have been approved in the first place. The "change" that they make in the heart attack rate is so small, it is within the statistical variance of the untreated rate. What that means is that statistically they make no difference. The approval if this drug class was purely political. Did money change hands? No one knows.

Cedar Hills, UT

The role the federal government is NOT to regulate what food we eat. We tried prohibition back in the 1930s banning alcohol and this was a disaster. America was founded on a the core principle of freedom and with freedom comes good and bad ...just like the internet. Does the federal government censor and regulate internet content?? Which content? The internet is wide open with incredible capabilities and information for individuals AND the internet also has tons of bad stuff freely available. You have to take the good with the bad in any free society. Transfat is really bad for you health wise but so is alcohol and so is sugar and and so is Marijuana and on and on .... This all boils down to allowing individuals to regulate themselves and make judgements OR letting the federal government do that for the individual which is AGAINST everything our founders foresaw as they formed our small-government republic.

Salt Lake City, UT

The government has a legitimate stake in improving public health, since they are the ones who will provide health care for those affected, i.e. helmet laws, car seats and seat belts, lead paint, ad infinitum. Our government can legitimately "promote the general welfare" even though it does not guarantee the public welfare. Criticizing an effort to better health just because it does not also ban tobacco or other harmful substances is disingenuous. Banning large sugary drinks, though conceptually good, is not technically feasible and could not be enforced. Leave that out of the conversation.

Salt Lake City, UT

I suggest that if a government wants to ban or regulate a substance, it should be the individual state governments. They are closer to the citizens.

Trans fats may be harmful, but smoking is harmful, we ban one and keep the other legal. Doesn't make sense to me. The tobacco is legal and addictive, trans fat is probably harmful but has no claim as to addiction properties. I will admit to craving Twinkies - but I digress. Oh, I think the reason FDA has not attempted to ban tobacco may be because it is exempted from the FDA law.

What we do not consider is the revolving door of food industry leaders and the FDA, and the pharmaceutical industry and FDA/Institutes of Health. It is hard to not believe that these once and future leaders of mega-corporations divorce themselves of all interests and associations to take a job in the Federal Government for a few years that pays the equivalent of their expense accounts.

I feel the DesNews Ed Board is off target on this one.

Tooele, UT

Re: "Obesity and heart disease account for more deaths in this country than all drugs combined including evil tobacco and alcohol."

Yeah, and that's the mantra liberals will be chanting when they outlaw and begin to punish intake of more than 2000 calories a day. And, of course, to prevent this horrible overeating crime, they'll build large barracks, with barbed wire around them, to make sure people don't cheat the new liberal nanny-state system. And then, to make sure people inside these compounds are not too idle, they'll enforce a daily regimen of rigorous, unpaid exercise. Just to protect inmates' health, of course.

They'll need a camp motto to encourage those evil, overeating internees, as well -- something like "arbeit macht frei" would do nicely, in large letters above the camp gate.

It's amazing that otherwise intelligent liberals don't have the sense to acknowledge the direction in which nanny-state laws are inevitably pushing us.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Yes, allow trans fat, marijuana, liquor from stores, unlimited speed on freeways.

Springville, UT

@! patriot, are you serious when youi say "The role the federal government is NOT to regulate what food we eat?" So, no more food purity laws? Let anyone sell anything they want? Buyer beware? Yikes! Your "principles" have gotten in the way of rational thinking. The whole conservative thing has gotten you in a world that defies reason. So, I suppose you will fight to get the government out of the regulation of alcohol? Come on, go there.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...The role the federal government is NOT to regulate what food we eat...".

Ever watch sausage being made?

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Esquire" you have to ask yourself, "Where does it stop?" Right now it is trans fats. Yes trans fats are bad for you, but so is Bacon, if you eat it all the time.

Now the government bans trans fats, is it that difficult to imagine a world where they ban or limit your intake of fatty meats? What about salt, coffee, alcohol, tobacco, sugar, red meat, or flour? There are many natural foods that are fine in moderation, but when consumed in excess are bad. If the government can limit your intake of trans fats now, how many steps away are they from taking away Ben and Jerry's ice cream?

2 bit
Cottonwood Heights, UT

OK. My Democrat friends promised this would never happen... but it just did.

Owl @ 11:04 a.m. said...
"The government has a legitimate stake in improving public health, since they are the ones who provide health care for those affected"...

This exact attitude is what my most paranoid anti-ObamaCare, anti-HillaryCare, anti-Nationalized Healthcare, friends claimed would happen next IF we make the Government the payer for healthcare. They said if the government pays for your healthcare they then have a stake in controlling what they spend on your healthcare (and that makes sense). So they have standing and a financial interest in what you eat, require you to take vitamins, regulate what you feed your children, etc, etc, etc, and therefore they have the right to control it.... (because if YOU make bad decisions, they pay for it)... Again, that makes sense.

I don't see why my liberal friends were so sure this would NEVER happen if we turned healthcare over to the Government. OBVIOUSLY it would happen! It's already happening!

No... this obviously NOT a sign of the Nanny-State mentality...

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments