AFTER HEARING THE news from New York, I’ve decided something. The time has come for the United States to ban football.
I know, it’ll be a difficult adjustment for all of us. But consider all the health hazards involved. There’s the obvious shattered kneecaps, broken ankles and all the other on-the-field injuries. Fans have a tendency to suffer elevated blood pressure and risk of heart attack or stroke, while those nearby suffer second-hand exposure to the high noise levels and anxiety-laden atmosphere. Add in the junk food consumption, the alcohol levels and the increase in the suicide rate among Chiefs fans after a close game, and the case becomes all too clear.
Ridiculous? I don’t see why. After all, if New York City can talk about banning a cooking oil from its restaurants on health grounds, anything is possible.
You see, the government of the Big Apple has decided it’s not all that fond of artificial trans fatty acids. For those of you who don’t spend your spare time reading FDA brochures, this is the stuff used in some types of frying oil and shortening, the stuff that a lot of restaurants use to make french fries, cookies or doughnuts. It’s also a leading suspect in high cholesterol rates and heart disease problems.
So NYC wants the trans fats gone.
I’m not going to pretend this is the end of the world. It’s likely to be expensive for some places, true, but there are a lot of substitutes out there: Corn oil, Canola and more.
Still, doesn’t it at least seem a little ... what’s the word? Oh, that’s right. Ridiculous.
I’m not going to deny that we Americans have a terrible track record when it comes to what we put in our bodies and how much. Moderation is a word that’s never had much currency here. We like big portions in our restaurants, big glasses for our soda and big hamburgers at the drive-through window.
The trouble is, we also tend to think big when it comes to regulating what goes in our bodies. And like our unbalanced eating habits, that’s really not all that healthy.
I don’t mind having some rules. Pure food and drug laws are good things to have if you don’t want an Upton Sinclair-style meat packer putting all sorts of unmentionables in the sausage. I don’t have many problems with reasonable smoking restrictions, for that matter, although I’m partially biased by the fact that I wheeze like a broken-down Oldsmobile when I’m downwind of a cigarette. I’m even OK with banning pop machines in the public schools — the schools do have a duty to produce healthy, well-prepared students and families can still pack whatever they want in their lunches if they disagree.
But with every new well-intentioned proposal, we get farther and farther into the gray area. Like it or not, in a free society, some people will make unhealthy choices. To what extent are we obliged to protect grown adults from themselves?
Nobody absorbs second-hand trans fats from the muffin on the next table. They aren’t inherently toxic the way lead paint is. If we ban them because they’re dangerous in large quantities — well, so is water to a drowning man.
Perhaps what we really need is a sense of balance, rather than an all-or-nothing approach.
You might give it some healthy consideration.