One of the purposes of government is to protect its citizens from harm. But, what level of harm? As the nanny-state mentality continues to make headway in the United States, what the government classifies as “harmful” has changed.

Hoards of Huns? That’s harmful; it’s still harmful — although the nomadic tribe has morphed over time. What about smoking? Smoking has a high correlation with lung cancer. I guess that makes it harmful. But, there’s a big difference between protecting the homeland from a group of killers and protecting it from a product that may kill.

The big difference is choice. If the nation is under attack, we have no choice but to defend ourselves. To not do such would mean death. In the example of smoking, individuals have the choice to use the product or not. In the face of an abundance of information decrying the product, the responsibility is even more beholden upon the individual. Even when the harmful affects of cigarettes were withheld from consumers, the government was also left in the dark. A tighter regulation of this industry may or may not have helped supply the consumer with more information about the product — we just don’t know. But, in trying to get all the information about the harmful possibilities of any product is an added cost that consumers shouldn’t have to bear, whether it’s sum comes from government- or industry-funded testing.

The latest “harmful” product following smoking is trans fat. Denmark outlawed it two years ago. The benefits haven’t registered, though the costs have. Not only are producers forced to find alternative ingredients that do not have trans fats, but the consumer is becoming more ignorant of the supposed harm of the fatty acid.

“It’s good that the Danish government got rid of trans fats so that I don’t have to worry about it,” said a local consumer.

“We wanted to protect people so that they would not even have to know what trans fat was,” said Dr. Steen Stender, one of the leading Danish experts who lobbied for the anti-trans fat law.

Ignorance of harm is the best protection from it.

Here in America, despite the FDA’s move to require trans fats be listed on food labels, its effect on trans fat consumption isn’t known. So, the states are taking the issue on. NY is considering a ban on trans fats. I wonder if government is really keeping our best interest in mind, here. Are we better off being sheltered from information? Perhaps there’s a better way.

Frito Lay, a year before the FDA required trans-fat labeling, removed trans fats from their products. They felt that consumers would enjoy a less-fatty snack. And they advertised this change, thinking that those health-conscious consumers, who wanted to know what products would suit their needs, might buy a better brand. And those consumers that weren’t health conscious would continue buying the product and might actually be educated about why their choice is also health friendly.