Okay. As long as cigarettes are legal to produce, I don't think the FDA should ban trans-fats. There's a hypocrisy there that can't go unnoticed: there are recognized detriments to the consumption of trans-fats, but there are even more found in the use of modern cigarettes.
Instead of banning trans-fats, require that any food product produced using hydrogenation methods to incorporate trans-fats put that information on their label. "This product contains Trans-Fats."
Then leave it to the consumer to decide whether they buy it or not. Now, this post is going to get a lot longer.
The following is a quote directly from the FDA Labeling & Nutrition Regulatory Information webpage, and you can read all of it by clicking here
Labeling Nutrition, L44 - L46 and L48L44. Do trans fatty acids need to be listed when mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids are not listed?
Answer: Yes. The listing of trans fatty acids is mandatory even when mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids are not listed. 21 CFR 101.9(c), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iv).
L45. How should trans fatty acids be listed?
Answer: Trans fatty acids should be listed as “Trans fat” or “Trans” on a separate line under the listing of saturated fat in the Nutrition Facts label (see figure). The word “trans” may be italicized to indicate its Latin origin. Trans fat content must be expressed as grams per serving to the nearest 0.5-gram increment below 5 grams and to the nearest gram above 5 grams. If a serving contains less than 0.5 gram, the content, when declared, must be expressed as “0 g.” (21 CFR 101.9(c)(2)(ii)).
L46. If a serving contains less than 0.5 gram of trans fat, when would “0 g” of trans fat not have to be declared?
Answer: For conventional food products (those food products other than dietary supplements), declaration of “0 g” of trans fat is not required for such products that contain less than 0.5 g of total fat in a serving and no claims are made about fat, fatty acid or cholesterol content. If trans fat is not listed, the statement “Not a significant source of trans fat” may be placed at the bottom of the table of nutrient values in lieu of declaring “0 g” of trans fat. If these claims are present, then the statement “Not a significant source of trans fat” is not an option and the declaration of “0 g” of trans fat is required. 21 CFR 101.9(c)(2)(ii)
L48. Is it possible for a food product to list the amount of trans fat as 0 g on the Nutrition Facts label if the ingredient list indicates that it contains “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil?”
Answer: Yes. Food manufacturers are allowed to list amounts of trans fat with less than 0.5 gram (½ g) as 0 (zero) on the Nutrition Facts label. As a result, consumers may see a few products that list 0 gram trans fat on the label, while the ingredient list will have “shortening” or “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil” on it. This means the food contains very small amounts (less than 0.5 g) of trans fat per serving.
Now, the end of the answer to L48 is I think, by far, the most important point I have to make here. Even if a product contains the byproducts of hydrogenation, as long as the amounts of Trans Fats are less than 0.5 grams, they don't have to list it as containing any.
The more striking point? This is per serving
. So if you have a product with a very small serving size, but a large volume of the product itself (a box of 100 chips, in which 7 chips is a serving), and the amount of Trans Fats is say, 0.4 grams per serving, then that bag of chips contains ~5.6 grams of Trans Fats--and yet they get to put on the label, "Contains 0 grams of Trans Fats!" Usually however, if you look closely at the tiny lettering under it, you'll see they often do add the words, Per Serving*
In any case, it strikes me as rather dishonest for them to say that, regardless of the qualifying statement of "per serving" at the end. Even if it's under 0.5 Grams, I think they should still be required to list it. But banning it is a heavy handed move that directly affects the industry--private businesses who produce these foods are being forced by the government to change their ways, and that isn't cool.
Not so long as tobacco companies can continue to produce cigarettes, at least.*Note that information not quoted here may not be entirely accurate. I'm responding to this with the best of my knowledge in light of the research I've done putting this post together, but I admit I'm human and I know there is a chance I may be wrong. Bring out the skeptic in you, and make sure my information is correct before spreading it about!