We can't be accused of using the "N"-word...

… because the L.A. Times did for us.

Thank g#d, we’ve got not just one but two legislative bodies in this country looking out for us. The California Assembly passed AB 97 which, if signed by the Governor, would ban trans fats. California would become the first state to do so as the cities of Philadelphia and New York have similar bans in effect.

But the L.A. Times, in a fit of rationality and common sense has come out against the ban and have used rather strong and controversial language in doing so.

“Laws that protect consumers from their own unhealthful habits have more than a whiff of the nanny state about them,….”

Dude. Really, now.

But the Times is exactly right because similar to the cell phone-while-driving ban, a ban on trans fats may actually be counterproductive as the substitutes for trans fats, palm and coconut oils, are only moderately better and which also gives the consumer a false sense of confidence while loading up his plate with even more muffins thinking he’s in the cholesterol clear.

Also, one of the reasons trans fats are popular with restaurants is because it maintains its shelf-life for longer periods without refrigeration. So eliminating trans fats will require more refrigeration which, of course, requires more energy and….. how is that good for the economy or the environment?

The U.S. Congress and the California Assembly: two very unhealthy, hazardous and counterproductive entities from which the general public would certainly benefit from a ban of its own.