Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Should the FDA Ban Trans Fat?
Should the FDA Ban Trans Fat?
Dec 25, 2025 7:25 AM

As a child, one of the more difficult decisions I had to make was what to have for lunch. Thankfully, my parents always helped out with that decision, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has begun to move towards taking that decision away from my parents and determining it on its own. Recently the FDA determined that it would begin to phase out artificial trans fats after it determined that artificial trans fat would no longer be listed as Generally Recognized as Safe. The proposal follows others made by Michelle Obama and the FDA to change the nutritional labels on food as part of the First Lady’s war on obesity. The problem with this is that the FDA does not have sufficient evidence or the legal authority to make this determination.

There is a fine line between what is considered to be safe and what is healthy. Typically if an item is not safe then it would not be healthy to consume; however, the inverse is not always the case. It may not be healthy for individuals to eat fried chicken, but that does not mean it is unsafe. Webster’s medical dictionary defines safe as,

Having a low incidence of adverse reactions and significant side effects when adequate instructions for use are given and having a low potential for harm under conditions of widespread availability.

While artificial trans fat may not be healthy for an individual to consume it would be difficult to say that they have a high potential for harm. The response to this policy is simple – don’t create it. If the FDA would look at its own statistics about the consumption of trans fat then it would quickly realize that consumption decreased drastically after making it known to individuals that it is unhealthy. In the FDA’s publication of its consumer update it stated that trans fat consumption has decreased since 2003 from 4.6 grams per day to 1 gram per day in 2012.

While this would seem like adequate progress by most it does not seem to be enough for the FDA. The publication further justifies the action of the FDA by citing a recent study that shows artificial trans fat consumption on any level should be avoided. However, with just one study concluding this, should the FDA really be pushing for total eradication of artificial trans fat? According to a 2008 study in the Harvard Health Publications there is no definitive difference between artificial and natural trans fats. This creates a problem for the FDA. If there is no difference between the health effects of one versus the other why not ban all trans fat? The problem that e from such action is that a total eradication of trans fat could have unintended consequences. According to reports from the Institute of Medicine, a diet of zero trans fat could have adverse effects upon health.

Until the FDA can provide more information, definitively stating that artificial and natural trans fats have different effects on diets and plete elimination from diets would not have adverse effects, it should not implement any policy.

While more research would need to be done about the health effects of trans fats the research is clear on the legal power that the FDA holds according to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. According to this act the FDA can ban a substance if it is “deemed to be used for the purposes of deception or is being packaged in unsafe or deleterious conditions.” Neither of these occurs panies are using trans fat in their food, due to the fact that the FDA requires that all trans fat levels be written on the nutritional label of all foods.

The problem runs deeper than simply should people consume artificial trans fat, instead, the FDA is producing an Orwellian system that empowers a mentality of “big brother.” At this point in America it is the job of every individual to determine what they would like to eat, not the government’s. Instead of abusing the precautionary principle, by banning artificial trans fat at the first chance it has, the FDA should allow for greater research to be done. God allowed for all humans to have control over their own actions. By that same notion why should the government take that away from its citizens in a folly attempt to further the First Lady’s agenda? As soon as the government begins to treat adults as children the citizenry will begin to lose any sense of personal responsibility. They begin to e dependent upon the government to instruct them in how to live their own lives. Where exactly does this end? It is time for the FDA to follow its own guidelines instead of creating more for the American people to follow.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Immigration confusion
There’s been a lot of talk in recent days about the question of immigration, both legal and illegal. A number of issues are involved, including questions about national security, economic concerns, and cultural values. Most recently the Minutemen have begun border patrols and are looking to extend their efforts to the northern U.S. border. You may also remember a scuffle when President Bush put forth the proposal for a guest worker program. The Acton Institute has published two pieces that...
NAS releases guidelines
The National Academies of Science has issued a set of guidelines for human embryonic stem (ES) cell research. The guidelines also address the chimera phenomenon. The guidelines open a path for experiments that create animals that contain some introduced human embyronic stem cells. These hybrid part human, part animal creatures, called chimeras, would be “valuable in understanding the etiology and progression of human disease and in testing new drugs, and will be necessary in preclinical testing of human embryonic stem...
Instruction in faith
On this date in 1537 Geneva’s first Protestant catechism was published, based on John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. ...
Grading America’s giving: global action week for education
This week is Global Action Week for Education, and the Global Campaign for Education has given the United States an “F” grade. Anthony Bradley writes that this judgment is short-sighted, and that “support for education…should not be isolated from the promotion of peace and stability.” Read the full text here. ...
Laura Ingraham
All of us here at Acton were saddened to hear the news that Laura Ingraham, radio talk show host and a friend of the Institute, has been diagnosed with breast cancer. From her website: On Friday afternoon, I learned that I have joined the ever-growing group of American women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. As so many breast cancer patients will tell you, it all came as a total shock. I am blessed to be surrounded by people...
Survey: Nominal giving rises but actual giving stagnates
Via The Christian Post: Annual giving to churches rose by 11 percent, but after factoring in inflation, churches are getting about two percent more than contributed in 1999. Another trend was the practice of donating 10 percent of the annual e to church. Tithing is practiced by very few Americans at only four percent, according to Barna, though good stewardship remains an important priority for Christians. Ultimately, Barna explained, “Americans are willing to give more generously than they typically do,...
Canon within the canon
Having trouble understanding the Bible? Can’t seem to reconcile what you just “know” to be true with the plain meaning of Scripture? Why not take Episcopalian Bishop Spong’s hermeneutical approach? According to a column in the Detroit News, Bishop Spong, author of The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible’s Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love, says you can feel free to downplay or ignore difficult passages. “Much as I wanted to think otherwise,” he says, “…sometimes (the...
Free and fair trade
S.T. Karnick at Signs of the Times passes along the words of Dr. Sean Gabb, an English Libertarian author, on the debate about fair trade, which is driven in large part by Christian groups (see Acton Commentaries here and here). Dr. Gabb contends, contrary to the claims of the ecumenical movement, that “To call the actually existing order liberal—or ‘neo-liberal’—is as taxonomically accurate as calling the old Soviet Communist Party syndicalist. That order is based on tariffs, subsidies and a...
Remembering the first genocide
Yesterday, people all over the world marked the 90th anniversary of the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks, memoration that has taken on added political frieght with Turkey’s candidacy for accession to the European Union. Given the refusal of Turkey to even acknowledge the genocide — which also targeted hundreds of thousands of Pontic Greeks and Syrians — the EU question should be put permanently on hold until the Turks face their past with honesty. But the prospects...
Power Ball
Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs in 1998.An article in The New York Times magazine over the weekend provides an up-close look at the stories of two men impacted by the burgeoning problem of steroid use in baseball. In “Absolutely, Power Corrupts,” Michael Lewis writes, Unable to parse the statistics and separate natural power from steroid power, the people who evaluate baseball players for a living have no choice but to ignore the distinction. e to view the increase in...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved