When I saw that California passed a statewide ban on trans-fats I was exuberant. Validated. Perhaps for a moment even conceited.
“I knew it!” I thought to myself, “Everyone thought I was some health zealot, refusing to eat at the greasy spoon. Now the Big City AND the whole state of California agrees, trans-fats are poison!”
As someone who at least attempts to honor my body I have often times found myself at a restaurant, maybe a cute little mom-and-pops, maybe a grease pit chosen by friends, when a particular anxiety creeps over me. Others of you who are picky eaters might be able to relate: I sit with the menu clutched in hand, scanning the bold typeface for clues as to what exactly the stuffed French toast is stuffed with and if I could just get the fruit “sauce” on the side.
So, this whole idea of banning trans-fats appeals to me as I will be released from the unpleasant chore of cross-examining my poor wait staff every time I eat out.
For a brief moment I traveled to California in my mind, walking along some strip imagining the plethora of eateries throwing their doors open to me and my health-minded diet. Why, I could even patron the KFC in California… SNAP.
OK, back to reality. Maybe a ban on trans-fat won’t really solve my food toxophobia. Already I have read reports that trans-fats are simply being replaced by interesterified oils which may pose even greater health risks. (For more info see this wiseGEEK article http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-interesterified-fat.htm)
This leads me into what I think is the most interesting facet of the whole trans-fat-ban debate: What is the state’s role in regulating what its citizens eat? And who will this ban have the greatest effect on? The ban affects primarily baked goods that are not packaged- AKA small artisans. It seems to me that if the state is going to ban something it should ban it across the board- in packaged and unpackaged foods alike. Please post a comment with your thoughts!
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
