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

While many state that this ruling is a victory for consumers, it contains many glaring glitches that
most Americans may not fully understand. In an attempt to make the American food supply safer,
the FDA has created a false sense of security in regards to trans fats. This open trap contains three
loopholes that, if not properly addressed, could continue to wreak financial havoc for our nation’s
healthcare system. The first is that trans fats will not have a percentage daily value associated with
their prevalence in the product itself. The Nutrition Policy Director at the Center for Science in the
Public Interest, Margo Wootan, confirms that “The new labels will let consumers compare trans fat
content from product to product and that will be a great step forward. It will be hard, though, for
people to tell if a given number of grams of trans fat is a lot or a little. Five grams may not seem like
a lot, but it is” (qtd. in Corcoran). This is an inherent problem in the United States, which does not
widely use the metric system, yet uses that same system to measure the ingredients you put into your
body. Without the percentage daily value, the number of grams given is almost as useless as the
trans fats they measure. In addition, Pat Martin, a Democrat for the Winnipeg Centre in Canada,
addressed this labeling error in his 2004 speech to Parliament. He stated that “there is the added
problem that even if a product does say it contains 3.6 grams of partially hydrogenated oil, there are
no editorial comments allowed on the label because the only really valuable label in terms of trans
fats would be, ‘This product contains trans fats. Do not eat it because it will kill you.’ We are not
likely to see that type of labeling introduced.” Martin also stated that 70% of consumers never read
labels anyway. He suggests that labeling is not the way to reach uninformed consumers.
The second error of the labeling law is that it doesn’t even apply to restaurants. This is very
serious because adults consume about 38% of their total fat intake from restaurants (Jacobson 2). In
addition, children eat 40% of their meals in fast food restaurants (Severson). With more and more
Americans not cooking what they put in their own mouths, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee (DGAC) strongly advised in 2004 that people should consume 1 percent or less, or less
than 2 grams of their calories from trans fat daily. However, this task is virtually impossible. Even
just one small bag of McDonald’s fries cooked in partially hydrogenated oils has 3.4 grams of trans
fat, about a day- and-a-half’s worth of trans fats (Cronin). The New England Journal of Medicine
also concluded that
[Labels] are not enough. Many fast foods contain high levels of trans fatty
acids, are exempt from labeling regulations, and can even be advertised as
cholesterol-free and cooked in vegetable oil. For example, the
consumption of one doughnut at breakfast (3.2 g of trans fatty acids) and a
large order of French fries at lunch (6.8 g of trans fatty acids) adds 10 g of
trans fatty acids to one’s diet and represents 5 percent of the total energy
intake on an 1800-calorie diet, and neither product needs to be labeled
(Ascherio, Stampfer, Willett).
Clearly the exemption of restaurants from the labeling law is more than just a technicality; it
undercuts the entire purpose of the labeling law on a major scale.
Perhaps the most serious lapse in the trans fat labeling issue is the deception raised by Eric
Armstrong in his online posting. The trans fats labels will only indicate the amount of trans fats
Meeting of Minds 2006 24