Just today, President Obama, through the FDA, has ordered an end to most trans fats in processed foods. This is to be accomplished within just three years.
Although the use of trans fats was down by an astonishing 78 percent between 2003 and 2012--and presumably, it is down even more by now--it is not entirely nonexistent.
And what is the case, exactly, for trans fats?
Well, they are less expensive than animal fats (such as butter, or even lard). And they make processed foods last longer, on the shelf.
Oh, yes. And I am told that they usually taste better, also.
The downside, of course, is that they are high in LDL (a.k.a. "bad cholesterol"), which tends to clog the arteries.
It is basically a trade-off, then: a longer shelf life, a lower price, and better taste, in exchange for a certain degree of unhealthiness.
In a free market, different people will (inevitably) make different choices here.
In the nanny state, however, this choice is made for us.
My question is really very simple: Regardless of whether one considers this to be a reasonable trade-off or not, do we really want the nanny state to make this determination for us?
