On Human Intransigence and Agents of Change

Perhaps I’m jumping the gun. Or maybe I’m too jaded. But history has often shown that legislation is not an effective coercion device. And before the whole nation gets swept up in a lawmaking frenzy to banish trans fats into the fiery pit, we should consider a handful of related factors and perhaps (gasp!) some elevated thinking on the matter.

Right off the bat, trans fats are on the way out. No doubt about that. Not only do they up bad cholesterol, they drive good cholesterol down to deliver the double whammy. FDA already sealed their fate with last year’s labeling directive.

Such labeling measures—and dramatically increased (sometime hysterical and profoundly unscientific) national media coverage—have helped make trans fats a veritable household word. But to along the lines of Alexander Pope’s wise suggestion, a little bit of knowledge can prove quite a dangerous weapon. (His actual quote, from 1709’s “An Essay on Criticism,” is, “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”) More people have been exposed to the downside of trans fats, but that doesn’t mean that they completely understand them. On one level, some folks are skewing this situation toward the pejorative. On quite another, the information on trans fats isn’t enough to change their eating habits—and some (largely in the immortal age bracket of 18 to 34) simply do not care one slivery whit about it (which, at first blush, you might think would provide a foil to my case against the need for legislation, and in the realm of logic, that may be so—but I’m content with my hypocrisies and logical contradictions; I’ll fight the use of legislation as a tool of behavioral coercion until they pry the keyboard from my cold, dead hands).

To wit, a bit this week in Nation’s Restaurant News discusses how awareness of trans fat has not made much of an impact on society’s eating habits (see http://www.nrn.com/landingPage.aspx?coll_id=582&menu_id=1418&globalMenuTab=-1; might require registration). The author, Fern Glazer (great name for a botanist…), writes:

“While consumers say that they are more aware and concerned about trans fat, so far that concern has not motivated them to eliminate it from their diets—especially when dining out, according to a recent survey by The NPD Group, a Port Washington, NY–based global market research firm.”

Glazer goes on to note, “The survey data also revealed that the majority of consumers who are aware of trans fat believe that the foods they consume at restaurants contain more trans fat than those they consume at home.”

Right. It’s the restaurants who are making us fat… (So Joe Sixpack sues Megabucks Chain Restaurant Corporation because eating fried foods five times a week put him in the zipper club… An interesting development along these lines is that people are now beginning to think that fried foods are OK to eat now that we’ve removed the trans fat… Seriously. I said that this would be coming, but that prediction was half in jest… I heard a bit on National Public Radio on this recently, but have been unable to find the story online yet. I’ll post the link when I find it…)

Later in the article, Bonnie Riggs, an NPD analyst, says, “People’s perception and the reality is a disconnect.” She also notes that, “What people say and what they do are different.”

This increased attention might even be causing a countertrend (increased indulgence) as opposed to the perceived knee-jerk result (increased health). As Glazer later notes, “Despite increased press attention about the dangers of trans fat and a desire by many lawmakers to curtail consumption of trans fat, the number of servings of restaurant foods containing trans fat is on the rise.”

In an unrelated story that we can likewise file in the “do as I say, not as I do” bin, fewer people are dieting while still stating the desire to lose weight (see http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/01/10/diets.survey.reut/index.html). The study at the core of this story was also from NPD Group.

The article notes: “According to the survey, in the 12 months ended in February 2006, 26% of women and 19% of men in the United States said they were on a diet. That’s down from 35%of women and 26% of men in 1990.” Later, the same article notes that 60% of U.S. adults say “they would like to lose 20 lbs.,” according to the NPD Group study.

So, what’s my point?

Many of society’s problems have developed in a very complicated manner, usually with a number of different factors resulting in a collectively perceived result (think poverty, persistent drug problems, environmental degradation, etc.). Along those lines, those problems will require equally—if not more—complicated solutions.

But banning trans fats in every city in the United States via the courts is not the answer to our health problems, and might even cause more harm than good. The root of our physiological status quo lies in the heart of every consumer. Change can only come from within, and many people will be extremely reluctant to make dietary changes—ever. Our focus should center on fostering an uplifting climate that spurs development of increasingly healthful product options that are promoted with educational marketing campaigns that clearly show, with sound science, how they can improve our quality and length of life.

Period.