The recently proposed ban on trans fat has been heralded by healthcare providers and media outlets alike as another landmark victory for public health. This measure is uncontroversial and sustains a troublesome trend in our public discourse on public health that refuses to engage issues rooted in our social structure.
Banning trans fat is low hanging fruit because of public perception and the potential threat posed by any level of consumption. You don’t have a bottle of trans fat next to the salt and pepper shakers on the kitchen table, or when you go out to a restaurant. So it doesn’t offer the kind of tangible indulgence as say, a candy bar, a cigarette, or even a drink. And while none of these items are good for you, experts would agree that they are particularly harmful when they are not done in moderation. And while trans fat isn't toxic, consuming any amount of trans fat can increase your risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), and even diabetes. Once implemented, the CDC estimates up to 20,000 fewer heart attacks and 7,000 fewer deaths annually. And economic benefits up to $242 billion. By any measure, it’s a non-controversial area with the only outstanding issue being the direct cost on small businesses; and the FDA has requested that figure before issuing its final rule.
But context matters, especially when we cite the number of incidents averted and lives saved. And tough choices are not based on these numbers alone, but implicate a host of political, economic, legal, and ethical issues. Increased gun violence and dips in vaccination rates are excellent examples, amplifying why media coverage of these issues in the context of public health problems has been woefully inadequate.
Let’s assume the 7,000 lives saved by the trans fat ban is equally distributed across the states, then we would have 7000/50 or 140 fewer deaths in Illinois. That’s less than one-third of the 506 deaths attributable to gun violence in Chicago during 2012. Yet we haven’t seen the political will or courage to make real progress on these fronts. And although injury prevention and control has been a public health prerogative for decades, our media has shamelessly preferred to cover these issues reflexively in the aftermath of tragedy instead of engaging policymakers and experts to contextualize these problems in the social determinants that allow negative outcomes to sustain.
So while the ban is a welcome measure to promote health generally, I am troubled by coverage that continues to limit reporting on public health issues to these non-controversial areas, allowing pressing issues—with comparable or greater severity and magnitude—to remain inadequately covered.
Banning trans fat is low hanging fruit because of public perception and the potential threat posed by any level of consumption. You don’t have a bottle of trans fat next to the salt and pepper shakers on the kitchen table, or when you go out to a restaurant. So it doesn’t offer the kind of tangible indulgence as say, a candy bar, a cigarette, or even a drink. And while none of these items are good for you, experts would agree that they are particularly harmful when they are not done in moderation. And while trans fat isn't toxic, consuming any amount of trans fat can increase your risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), and even diabetes. Once implemented, the CDC estimates up to 20,000 fewer heart attacks and 7,000 fewer deaths annually. And economic benefits up to $242 billion. By any measure, it’s a non-controversial area with the only outstanding issue being the direct cost on small businesses; and the FDA has requested that figure before issuing its final rule.
But context matters, especially when we cite the number of incidents averted and lives saved. And tough choices are not based on these numbers alone, but implicate a host of political, economic, legal, and ethical issues. Increased gun violence and dips in vaccination rates are excellent examples, amplifying why media coverage of these issues in the context of public health problems has been woefully inadequate.
Let’s assume the 7,000 lives saved by the trans fat ban is equally distributed across the states, then we would have 7000/50 or 140 fewer deaths in Illinois. That’s less than one-third of the 506 deaths attributable to gun violence in Chicago during 2012. Yet we haven’t seen the political will or courage to make real progress on these fronts. And although injury prevention and control has been a public health prerogative for decades, our media has shamelessly preferred to cover these issues reflexively in the aftermath of tragedy instead of engaging policymakers and experts to contextualize these problems in the social determinants that allow negative outcomes to sustain.
So while the ban is a welcome measure to promote health generally, I am troubled by coverage that continues to limit reporting on public health issues to these non-controversial areas, allowing pressing issues—with comparable or greater severity and magnitude—to remain inadequately covered.
