In December, New York City passed a ban on the use of artificial trans fats in its restaurants. This has brought trans fats up to the level of other unhealthy products, such as cigarettes and alcohol, which cities around the country have banned or limited to improve the health of its citizens.

This may seem like an extreme move that infringes on personal freedoms and creates an anti-business environment.

Recent medical research has shown, however, that trans fats are much more unhealthy then previously thought. So much so that Columbus should seriously consider a ban of its own.

Trans fats are created when hydrogen is added to fatty molecules through a process called hydrogenation. An example is partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which is used in many fried products.

These fats reduce spoilage, therefore requiring less refrigeration and increasing the shelf life of food products. They have proven a popular alternative to saturated fats for many companies.

Studies conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have shown, however, that trans fats increase the risk of coronary heart disease by increasing the levels of bad cholesterol and decreasing the levels of good cholesterol. With no known nutritional value, the NAS concluded that there is no safe level of consumption of trans fats. But does this mean a ban is the best course of action?

Many companies in the food industry have argued that new labeling requirements by the Food and Drug Administration and proper education is all that is needed to inform consumers about the risks associated with trans fats. The consumers, not the government, should be able to decide what they can eat. However, the prevalence of trans fats in our foods makes it hard to find healthy alternatives, especially for those on limited budgets.

Even the labeling and education efforts already in use have proven ineffectual. The FDA’s trans fat regulation has only provided a way for companies to advertise their dedication to healthy diets. Loopholes in the law allow companies to claim that their products are “trans fat free,” even if they contain these fats. This is based on the decision of the FDA to allow companies to claim zero grams of trans fats if the amount is less than 0.5 grams per serving. Therefore, all a company has to do is reduce the serving size to declare its food free of trans fats.

Is this practice widely used? After a brief search through my kitchen, I found a variety of foods that claimed zero trans fats but contained partially hydrogenated oils and fats, a sign of trans fats. These included products such as Jif Creamy Peanut Butter, Old El Paso Refried Beans, and Quaker Strawberry Breakfast Bars. The worst offender was a tub of Country Crock Margarine Spread, which prominently advertised ‘No Trans Fat Per Serving’ while containing partially hydrogenated soybean oil. Although it would be nice to believe voluntary measures, such as education and information, would help reduce our trans fat consumption, the food industry has consistently undermined these efforts.

That brings us back to a ban. As a nation, we should scrutinize any attempt to ban a substance to ensure that as much individual choice and freedom is being protected as possible. However, certain products, due to their ill effects, prevalence, or unhealthiness deserve to be banned. With no known health benefits and a list of harmful side effects, trans fats deserve to be one of them.

Mike Noon is a senior in chemical engineering. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].