Trib To "Food Police": Back Off (Sorta)

By JoshMogerman in Food on Apr 17, 2011 7:30PM

The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board is back at it again, fighting off the food fascists desperate to make the nanny state do all the cooking in Chicago. Today's oddly conflicted editorial about an Illinois General Assembly bill that would ban trans fats reads like a stream of consciousness debate. The bulk of the piece makes a case for legislation, noting the dangers of the insidious ingredient, bemoaning the fact that they cannot seem to find much food that does not contain trans fats and even noting that bans elsewhere have been effective in improving the American diet. Then, the other shoe drops with a mid-editorial epiphany — or, given the use of the term "food police" maybe columnist Steve Chapman just wrestled the keyboard away and started typing:

But then we remembered: We don't like the government deciding what we can or can't eat. We're capable of making good decisions, and we have every right to make bad ones.

The Trib, it seems, thinks aggressive labeling is enough. We need not trample on our liberties by eliminating the use of an ingredient that the Trib itself reports our best scientists say, "cannot be safely consumed in any amount." Nevermind the fact that there are plenty of ingredients banned by the FDA and other government entities. We don't think our democracy was hurt when the common practice of spraying fruit with toxic borax was eliminated or carcinogenic food ingredients were outlawed. These days our cars run just as dandy on lead-free gasoline as the Trib's ed board will on trans fat-free donuts, cookies and French fries. When last we checked, those menu choices were all still available in cities with trans fat bans, they are just slightly less likely to send you to the hospital.