Fast food chains are temporally, physically, and economically efficient, and each meal tends to be very calorically dense. Compared with humanity’s messy and often starvation-plagued past, this superabundance of readily available calorie packed food is a miracle. Now trailing behind diarrhea, starvation no longer cracks the top 10 as a leading global cause of death. Yet, as we vanquish one of our most stubborn historical rivals, another naturally takes its place. According to the World Health Organization, cardiovascular diseases have risen to take the number one spot on the things-that-kill-lots-of-human-beings-every-year chart. Taken by itself, this fact is not immediately troubling, until you realize that the number one cause of heart disease is obesity, and the number one cause of obesity is an unhealthy diet – and then you have to come to terms with the fact that a bag of fast food doesn’t exactly contain the highest quality nutrition known to man. Equipped with this knowledge, you promptly realize that fast food is not all the rave the food industry made it out to be, but that it is, in fact, directly feeding the snowball of death that is cardiovascular disease. It becomes abruptly apparent that the international rise of fast food is not one of the world’s greatest achievements, but one of the most tragic events in recent history. At the very least, modern governments seem quite convinced that the evil contained within a pouch of McDonald’s fries is worse than that of global epidemics, malnutrition, and poverty. In the summer of 2008, New York City became the first city to ban trans fats from restaurants. Pumping everything from the McRib to McNuggets and beyond with grams upon grams of trans-fat, fast food joints like McDonald’s were specifically targeted by NYC’s health reform. The city later unsuccessfully attempted a ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces, which was shot down by a state appellate court. Inspired by the efforts of health activists south of the border, Canada enacted a ban of all trans fats (even imported goods containing trans-fat) as of September 17, 2018. Moreover, the World Health Organization has released a plan to help countries eliminate the artery clogging substance in the next five years. Acknowledging this new killer, it seems that countries around the globe are addressing the obesity epidemic just as they would an outbreak of disease; they are specifically looking for behaviors that correlate to the development of obesity and taking policy action to eliminate these behaviors. In a metaphorical kind of way, this behavior is analogous to that of a loving older brother who shows you the ropes around a new school and makes sure that you stay away from the “dislikeables,” as they will ruin your schooling experience for sure. Still, there are some who resist these newly enacted dietary restrictions. When you break down the facts and the studies and read the lab reports and listen to the esteemed scientists who know everything about anything everywhere, the need to rid our society of this satanic substance might appear quite obvious. “How could someone possibly argue that trans-fats are beneficial to anyone in any scenario ever?” you might ask. However, you may find yourself asking the wrong question. You see, in the minds of many Americans, the real debate is not over whether trans-fats and other extremely unhealthy foods are scientifically proven to be bad for you; it is whether or not the government gets the power to control what you put in your mouth. Daren Bakst, a research fellow in agricultural policy at the Heritage Foundation, summarizes this viewpoint rather succinctly: “They may not make smart choices, but that’s up to each individual to choose. It’s not up to the government to choose consumer behavior and lead people to eat a certain way – even if the government is right.” Many people have come to the realization that, in order to accept the government making our dietary decisions, we must also accept the underlying premise of a government with “absolute knowledge” – an idea akin to many old European monarchies, where power was passed down due to the belief that the royal family was chosen by god, and thus had been conferred the ability to rule absolutely. Less radically, many Americans recoil at the thought of a “mother government” that “knows what’s best” because, philosophically, diet regulation is a slippery slope. What gives the government the authority to act as our brains and make decisions about what is good for our bodies? Who determines where the line is drawn? Will our precious apple pie be replaced with helpings of vitamin tablets and kale simply because those things are ‘good’ for us? Who even gets to determine what ‘good’ is? It is questions like these that troubled the minds of many Americans in the wake of the NYC trans-fat bans and the push towards smaller soda sizes. Foreigners might observe (with measured amounts of disdain) that Americans cling to their Krispy Kreme and Coca-Cola; however, there is a library of reasons why US citizens guard their sweets as vigilantly as they guard their speech. I acknowledge that the NYC sugar-elimination push was the wrong move, while simultaneously appreciating the importance of removing toxins from regularly consumed foods. The government did, however, make a valuable contribution to its citizens by mandating that food companies supply nutritional labels on all consumable products. I am of the mind that one of the government’s most critical roles is found in supplying the American people with information, which citizens can interpret how they please. Just as people are presented information and are left up to their own wit to take stances on certain subjects (like politics, religion, etc.), regulating eating habits should not be in the government’s wheelhouse. Just as the government does not tell people what to think, they should not be told what to eat or what is necessarily healthy for their unique body or how much enjoyment someone should derive from food. People should be provided the information they need to be able to make informed nutritional decisions – decisions that should be made independently of the state. Sources: https://www.everydayhealth.com/heart-health/experts-top-contributors-to-heart-disease.aspx https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/05/the-great-government-takeover-of-food https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/federal-income-tax-brackets https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2015/15_0065.htm https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death#malnutrition https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/nutrition/2018/05/15/who-wants-trans-fats-gone-from-the-global-food-supply.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/09/17/canada-bans-use-of-artificial-trans-fats-in-food-products.html?rf

Is it not better for governments to take action and ban trans fats in order to generate better public health? I certainly agree in democratic values which give people the freedom to choose what they can and can’t consume. However, statistically, banning trans fats can be justified. In America alone, it is estimated that banning artificial trans fats would prevent 50,000 annual deaths. [1] There are many other substances that are also banned by food safety and quality laws that cannot enter food chains in the US. Many additives are banned by the FDA due to a range of negative health consequences they are linked to. [2] American citizens have no freedom to consume these products much in the same way that they wouldn’t be able to consume trans fats products if they were banned. There are also very similar laws that apply worldwide in relation to food safety. In these instances, public health comes before democratic freedom. Shouldn't the trans fats problem be resolved in a similar way to this? Surely it is better for governments to prevent citizens from consuming goods with trans fats instead of giving them to freedom to greatly increase the likelihood of having cardiovascular illness. [1] Trans Fat Bans and Human Freedom, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3941190/#:~:text=Trans%20fat%20bans%20can%20promote,and%20severity%20of%20cardiovascular%20disease.) [2] Banned Additives, (https://cspinet.org/banned-additives)