08.21.2014  |   | Subscribe  | Contact us

All News & Blogs

E-mail Alerts

'Nanny State' issue misunderstood by FLS


Date published: 12/3/2013

The Free Lance-Star's editorial writer completely misunderstands the concerns of people who oppose the "Nanny State" and government efforts to tell us what to eat ["Trim the trans fat, Nov. 20].

I am one of those people, and I have no objection to banning artificial trans fats from food, and I don't know anyone else who does either. Such a rule would affect manufacturers far more than it would consumers. Consumer choices would not be affected because any item made with trans fats--cookies, biscuits, doughnuts, whatever-- can be made another way.

It's true that such a rule might increase saturated fat in products, but the current thinking, rightly or wrongly, is that trans fat is much worse for us than saturated fat. The taste of foods might even be better. For example, cookies made with butter taste better than cookies made with shortening.

The cost of some foods might go up, but not enough to cause an uproar. And it would be good to get rid of the "half a gram doesn't count" loophole. No one is going to shed any tears for trans fats.

I hope this change takes place. It is a far cry from the real "Nanny State" proposals, one of the worst of which was New York Mayor Bloomberg's proposed "soda law." The latter was (as the court which overruled it stated) "arbitrary and capricious," a stupid, senseless assault on people's liberties that would not have made a single New Yorker one bit thinner.

Sarah Marcus

Spotsylvania