As my Engage the Spectrum colleague Kenneth Chandler recently explained to me, the prevailing concept of the best-seller, “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” is that given the option, an entity (be it an individual, a company, a government, etc.) should default to the best available choice. The idea being that it is more effective to “nudge” people in the direction of superior choices rather than to prohibit poorer ones.

This notion crept into my thought process as I read about California becoming the first state to pass a statewide trans fat ban. I think I should preface this piece by noting that I’m a bit of a health-food enthusiast. I’m no authority on the subject; however, I do tend to favor the omega-3s and the whole grains to the saturated and deep-fried. With that in mind, trans fats scare the hell out of me. And that’s not a dramatic exaggeration.

For any readers who are unaware, in a very brief summation trans fats are saturated fats to which hydrogen atoms have been added artificially. This process, called partial hydrogenation, increases the shelf life of foods produced with trans fats and decreases the shelf life of the people who consume them. Unlike other fats, even the often-maligned saturated fats, trans fats serve no dietary purposes and are singularly detrimental to a person’s health. By raising LDL or “bad” cholesterol and lowering HDL or “good” cholesterol, trans fat consumption significantly elevates the risk of developing coronary heart disease.

Ever since I first read about the substantial negative consequences of their consumption, I developed a severe case of trans fat-phobia. I have since avoided them at all costs and, in borderline militant fashion, encouraged friends and family to do the same. In my utopia, trans fats simply would not exist. However, as I keep getting delayed, I haven’t had the chance to set that up yet (it’s really quite frustrating). Therefore, I have to grudgingly co-exist on this planet with the partially hydrogenated creatures of doom.

By now you have gathered that I utterly detest trans fats. However, and this will probably come as a surprise following such a zealous diatribe, I do not support a ban on their usage. Rather, I believe that the best way to confront the serious health implications of trans fat consumption is through strict regulation. All producers of packaged foods containing trans fats should be required to clearly indicate that fact – no matter the amount. Current regulations do not require that trans fat content be listed if the amount is less than 0.5 grams per serving. However, seeing as most Americans (myself included) rarely constrain themselves to a single serving of anything, this is a loophole that should be closed. Due to the uniquely deleterious nature of trans fats, producers should also be required to include a health advisory notification on each package, à la the Surgeon General’s Warning found on alcohol and tobacco products, explaining the serious health implications of consuming trans fats.

Additionally, all establishments serving items that include trans fats should be required to blatantly disclose that fact throughout their restaurants and on their menus. If at that point a consumer still wishes to risk their existence by devouring such perilous provisions, they should have the right to do so.

Many commentators lament that with the increasing scrutiny aimed at trans fats, unhealthy food is becoming the “new tobacco.” At first glance the two products appear to be facing similar challenges: health advocates pushing for greater government regulation on what is seen as a personal choice of consumption. However, I do not believe that trans fats and tobacco are on a perfectly parallel path, and neither should they be. In fact, I am an ardent supporter of public smoking bans and have supported and worked on legislative proposals to institute such a ban in my former home state of Virginia (so far to no avail, unfortunately).

The reason for my divergence on the two bans is really quite simple. Smoking in public has well documented negative consequences on the health of not only the willing smoker, but others in the vicinity as well. Whether they choose to or not, they are subjected to the extremely harmful effects of second-hand smoke. In comparison, as detrimental as trans fats are to the health of the willing consumer, they bear no direct consequence on the health of those nearby.

Significant and continuous efforts should be made to educate the public on the severe health risks associated with the consumption of trans fats and strict regulations must be established requiring that both restaurants and food producers make any existence of trans fats in their products undeniably conspicuous. Beyond the reach of these measures, as it should be, is the personal choice that each of us must make when making our dietary decisions. As I previously mentioned, in my utopia, trans fats would never have been developed. I really need to get on that.

From the treacherous trans fats, let us make the jump to the clearly related issue of voter registration reform. A recent editorial in The New York Times outlined the myriad problems associated with the current voting process and the entailing disenfranchisement of so many potential voters.

The civic books say that any eligible voter who registers in time can cast a ballot on Election Day. The reality is not so simple. People file registration forms that are not properly processed, or their names are wrongly purged from the voter rolls. They are required to present photo ID even when the law does not require it. They arrive at polling places and find machines that do not work properly or lines that take hours to get through. The New York Times, August 8, 2008

The “Nudge” inspired concept of defaulting to the best choice would clearly be useful in reforming the faulty voter registration process. If the improper filing of registration forms is one of the most prohibitive barriers to greater voter participation, why not institute policies that work to reduce, with a goal of eventually eliminating, that barrier? 

One of those policies is automatic registration. Instead of requiring eligible voters to register, upon becoming eligible (either by age, by attaining citizenship, etc.), a person should be automatically registered to vote. After being automatically registered, the individual should receive a new voter information packet that includes essential information such as their specific voting location and any necessary form(s) of identification they will be required to present in order to vote (based on their state’s particular requirements). If for some reason an individual wishes to un-register, they should have the right to do so; however, the process should be opt-out by default, as opposed to the current policy requiring eligible individuals to opt-in.

Removing this hurdle could have a significant impact on the current political landscape by enabling increased participation among all Americans, but especially among minorities and young people (ages 18-24) of all races. According to figures released by the United States Census Bureau, the percentage of eligible voters who are not registered to vote in these two groups is considerably higher than the percentage of eligible, non-registered whites. Specifically, the percentage of non-registered eligible voters by group is:

All Americans: 32 percent

Whites: 29 percent

African-Americans: 39 percent

Hispanics: 46 percent

18-24 year olds (of all races): 54 percent

Of course, these figures are the primary reason why many conservative politicians argue vehemently against policies that would expand the electorate. For their own political futures, they see no reason to support (and every reason to fight) increasing the ranks of registered voters, seeing as many of these new voters would come from segments of the population that very rarely support conservatives.

As Michael Slater, Director of Project Vote, a non-partisan voter-assistance and participation organization told In These Times, “For many years, candidates…tended to compete for people who are already in the electorate, rather than expanding the electorate. They thought of a slice of the pie rather than trying to grow the pie.”

As is the case in every election cycle, a host of problems will occur during this year’s elections. Ideally, removing a major impediment to participation would minimize such ramifications. By no means does automatic registration serve as a solution to the entirety of these problems; however, it is one proactive mechanism to encourage expanded voter participation in this country.

So, this is (finally) the conclusion of my “Nudge”-inspired thoughts on gratuitous trans fats bans and the necessity of automatic voter registration. Thanks to those of you who stuck with me for the entire 1,500 or so words. I guess I really should get around to reading this book that so many people are talking about. It’s on my list, I promise. Maybe I just need a little nudge.