MOM 2006 journal for pdf.pmd - University of Michigan-Flint

With this economical approach, one must always be cognizant of the costs (both direct and
indirect) and benefits of any public policy decision – namely, the externalities, or harm imposed
on non-consenting third parties. When a consumer purchases a fast food item, she is
incrementally increasing her risk of certain diseases. This might be realized as a negative
externality to her employer, who must now pay higher health care costs in addition to absorbing
that worker’s lost productivity. If we were to imagine this worker being employed by one of
these same fast food establishments that she herself patronizes, is the company really better off?
The company would like to think so; otherwise, they would not use these cheap, unhealthy oils in
the first place. An analysis of the costs even further however could bring about an economic
trade issue, as in the case of Denmark. Jacobson writes that the Danish Veterinary and Food
Administration made an official ban of trans fats on January 1 st , 2004 (10). However, special
interest groups have since claimed the move is causing unforeseen trade barriers with nations that
do not ban the artificial oil. The same problem is brewing between Canada and the United States.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) prohibits Canada from banning the use of
trans fat unless the U.S. does the same (US-Canada Consultat).
It is clear that the FDA has contradicted its own nutritional labeling requirements. Thus the
organization has put in jeopardy many thousands of American lives with artificial fats that “. . .
will not be touched by molds, insects, or rodents” (Roubos). Americans should avoid them at all
costs through a boycott on these products containing partially hydrogenated oils. As Pat Martin
suggests, “We have doctors telling us that they have 10 year old and 12 year old children coming
to their offices with high cholesterol and clogged arteries. Surely, a child’s circulatory system at
that age should be completely clean and functioning perfectly.” It is time for the FDA to finally
recognize that trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils should not be “generally recognized as
safe” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and ban this most harmful toxin
(Jacobson 25).
Works Cited
Armstrong, Eric. “What’s Wrong with Trans Fat Labels?” Food Labels. 2004. 15 Oct. 2005
.
Ascherio, Alberto, Meir J. Stampfer, and Walter C. Willett. “Background and Scientific Review.”
Trans Fatty Acids and Coronary Heart Disease. 1999. Harvard School of Public Health. 24
Oct. 2005 .
American Heart Association. “Cardiovascular Disease Statistics.” 2005. 14 Oct. 2005 .
Corcoran, Leila. “Government Adds Trans Fat to Nutrition Labels.” Food in the News. 2005. 15
Nov. 2005 .
Cronin, Jeff. “McDonalds’s Panned for ‘Broken McPromise’ on Trans Fat; CSPI Mounts Ad
Campaign Against Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil.” Center for Science in the Public
Interest. 24 Sept. 2004. Common Dreams NewsCenter. 2 Nov. 2005 .
Meeting of Minds 2006 26