Fat tax is thin end of the wedge

LIVING in this nanny state, I was very interested to hear of the ban on so-called trans fats in New York.

Given our Government’s talk of a fat tax, I wonder how long it will be before a similar ban will be introduced here. New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the ban was “not going to take away anybody’s ability to go out and have the kind of food they want, in the quantities they want ... We are just trying to make food safer”.

That, in my opinion, is double-talk.

Science agrees that trans fats in our diet can raise LDL blood levels — the ‘bad cholesterol’.

However trans fats make up about 2% of our daily caloric intake, while saturated fats, which also raise LDL blood levels, make up between 10% and 15%.

Here is my gripe: if banning a fat that’s only 2% of our daily caloric intake is wonderful, why not ban saturated fats, the intake of which is much higher?

In my opinion, this is the start of a long series of restrictions on our food. The worrying thing is how far will it go?

We already have the smoking ban in the workplace.

It won’t be long before smoking in public is outlawed altogether, as it is in California. And our Government’s policy usually follows in the direction of the US and UK.

As someone who works in the fitness industry, you may think I would agree these restrictions are a good thing. However, I find it a restriction on personal choice. People should have the right to consume whatever they wish.

What about healthy people who exercise regularly, eat well most of the time, but want the odd junk treat?

Should they not be allowed to have a chocolate bar or hamburger, or a cigarette once in a blue moon — or must they suffer with those who abuse their bodies regularly?

Ironically, I could never imagine such a ban on alcohol. Paddy can have his ten pints of stout, but God forbid he consume a hamburger on the way home.

Robert Morrison

Manor Lane Court

Midleton

Co Cork