NYC Plans Limits on Restaurants’ Use of Trans Fats

[hshiau]

BTW, a comparison with the smoking ban isn't really appropriate. One person smoking affects other people in the vicinity. Someone eating food with trans fats affects himself/herself and no one else.

Chicago became a laughingstock with their foie gras ban. Guess we want to join the party.

[Daniel]

BTW, a comparison with the smoking ban isn't really appropriate.  One person smoking affects other people in the vicinity.  Someone eating food with trans fats affects himself/herself and no one else. 

Chicago became a laughingstock with their foie gras ban.  Guess we want to join the party.

←

Actually, it is appropriate but, we dont need to get into it.. If an owner wants to have smoking in there place, you can choose not to come in.. No one is forcing you to work or patronize that place.. But this has been done to death And we are on to the next Government intrusion now. Its just another step in the slippery slope the title asks about..

Edited September 27, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[Busboy]

Well if busboy says my argument is glib, it must be without him even having to explain it.

I feel this law is a direct attack on the Fast Food Industry.. Although, there are many restaurants that will get caught up in it, its roots are in Fast Food.. Once you proove that the food is dangerous, now all you need to do is proove that someone might have known it was.. Next thing you know Chester Cheetoh was this dubious ploy to brainwash and kill our children.. They already did that to Ronald..

Chicago is trying to do the same thing, but they are more specific.. They actually state that this law would only apply to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million..  Just like Chicago's attempt to raise minimum wage solely on big box stores.. What was the point of that? To protect the public from discount stores?

Its just a way for government to interfere in business. Plain and simple.

←

Falling back on the "there's a vendetta" argument is damn near always glib. And the domino theory from trans-fat ban to smoker-style lawsuit is a stretch, to say the least. Not that there aren't, I'm sure, vultures circling, but that doesn't mean that everyone who share's their views shares their motives.

Given that you are the one with the detailed allegations, I'd suggest that the burden of proof lies with you.

By the way, one can be pro-business and still acknowledge that the record of sins is quite long enough to justify a suspicion and occasional government action. Corporations are profit-making operations with little conscience or judgment beyond that specialty -- and you can argue that that's not really their job. But someone needs to regulate them, or their instinct to make money will lead to them fix prices, sell tainted meat, engage in factory farming that pollutes grounwater and displaces third world peasants, poison the air and water and all the other actions that brought big government into being. It's tough to draw the line -- hence the importance of debates like this -- but blind trust of either side is unwise.

Unfortunately, there's big money in regulation.

and big corporations have big money.

But in this case (and most cases) the big money is opposing the regulation. Unless you can convince me that the olive oil cartel (EVOOPEC) is behind the trans-fat ban.

I think that, barring further evidence, we have to go with the "overzealous regulator" explanation for this and the salt bans.

[dan.]

Still not getting the whole "big business" angle. It's just screaming straw man. When it was fois gras (wrongly of course), the complaint was about hurting the small producers and letting the Perdue's of the world off scott free. Now it's the Fast Food companies getting hit and we're up in arms over that. Of course the regulation is stupid but to pin this as the city of New York against McDonald's is absurd. The folks who are going to get hurt are the Kennedy's Fried Chickens and smaller producers. Unless someone can illustrate the dollar bills the board of heath has their eyes on I’m going to file this one away with all the other regulations government enacts in what they perceive to be the public benefit. There are plenty of arguments to be made against the idea on its own merits, as many have made already.

[sammy]

I'll ask again, how can this be enforced?

Are inspectors going to be running around checking the contents of deep fryers?

Are they going to be testing cookies, pies and cakes?

[akwa]

it would be easier to equip all small restaurants with a fat detector

that way if anybody walks in, an alarm goes off, and you serve at your own risk

or perhaps we could ban the sale of trans fats

i envision a cocaine like blackmarket emerging,

but who has time to go all the way uptown for a case of fat?

maybe if you prepared transfats sous vide you could get a go directly to jail card

[tommy]

or perhaps we could ban the sale of trans fats

i envision a cocaine like blackmarket emerging,

but who has time to go all the way uptown for a case of fat?

that might happen if anyone actually *liked* trans fats and were willing to pay top-dollar for them. but in my experience you can get better (and yes, more healthful) results with other options. as that article mentioned upthread said, if they went away, no one would miss them.

[donbert]

but who has time to go all the way uptown for a case of fat?

I'm sure there would be a delivery service for the really good stuff.

[menon1971]

I am certainly sympathetic to choice, and people knowingly harming themselves should perhaps not be a subject of legislation. However, this does not change the fact that many of our nation’s children are morbidly obese. It is one thing to speak of the choice an adult makes to frequent a restaurant that serves huge portions of nutritionally questionable food, it is another to suggest that children (or their parents) will always make the choice that is best. Also, let us not deny that fast food corporations spend millions to help us make the choice that is best for them. So I guess the real question is how do we assist people in making the best dietary decisions concerning their health. Additionally, it should be stated that these decisions also affect our economy in terms of workforce output and the overall cost of heath care.

[SheenaGreena]

Admin: Threads merged.

I'm surprised no one made a post about this yet, but here's a link to the story if you haven't heard/read anything about it

NYC eyes ban on restaurant trans fats

if that means they are going to replace margarine with butter, I'm all for it! I told my grandmother, margarine was bad for her health and she didn't want to believe me.

[ludja]

...

if that means they are going to replace margarine with butter, I'm all for it!  I told my grandmother, margarine was bad for her health and she didn't want to believe me.

←

I've wondered about this. In a story on the news tonight they were discussing this and some restaurants/bakeries said they had already eliminated transfats without changing the flavor or cost...

I don't think they're subbing butter for the transfats but I don't know how they do it...

[kristin_71]

As I said in the other thread, another case of too much government interference. Not everyone has obesity issues, but this is, potentially going to be shoved down everyone's throat because of one particular segment of the population. Obviously there are those who think that because a few cannot control their eatting habits, well all of us must not be able too.

[Kayakado]

You can ban transfats in NYC but whose going to hunt up all the new sources for transfat free foods that reataurants order from their suppliers? Sounds like a nightmare to me. Are they going to test all the food stuffs and ingredients coming in from other cities, states, and countries???

This is a prime example of legisltors instituting a new law that they have no idea how it would be enforced or if it could be enforced. It is just a huge waste of tax payers dollars = feel good laws!

[Mimi Sheraton]

You can ban transfats in NYC but whose going to hunt up all the new sources for transfat free foods that reataurants order from their suppliers?  Sounds like a nightmare to me.  Are they going to test all the food stuffs and ingredients coming in from other cities, states, and countries???

This is a prime example of legisltors instituting a new law that they have no idea how it would be enforced or if it could be enforced.  It is just a huge waste of tax payers dollars = feel good laws!

←

Today transfats and tomorrow what? Butter? Chicken, duck or goose fat? Lard?Heavy cream? Marrow? Sugar?

Adult public should be educated and allowed to make choices. Children need the protection until they too are educated.

[JohnL]

You can ban transfats in NYC but whose going to hunt up all the new sources for transfat free foods that reataurants order from their suppliers?  Sounds like a nightmare to me.  Are they going to test all the food stuffs and ingredients coming in from other cities, states, and countries???

This is a prime example of legisltors instituting a new law that they have no idea how it would be enforced or if it could be enforced.  It is just a huge waste of tax payers dollars = feel good laws!

←

Today transfats and tomorrow what? Butter? Chicken, duck or goose fat? Lard?Heavy cream? Marrow? Sugar?

Adult public should be educated and allowed to make choices. Children need the protection until they too are educated.

←

How about alcohol?

Beer, Wine, Spirits?

Everyone who believed it was ok to go after tobacco should look at the argument (successful) against it carefully.

The same argument (with a bit of modification) can be made against alcohol.

The slippery slope is greased with lard!!!

[docsconz]

I am also concerned about the slippery slope, however, I think this case is somewhat different than some others like the foie gras issue, in which people can clearly choose whether or not to have foie gras. Not necessarily so with trans fats as they are typically an anonymous ingredient, especially in restaurants. This is potentially more of a public health issue than some others. I am not saying that I agree with it, just that the issue is not so clear cut.

[srhcb]

How a Slippery Slope works, an analogy:

First, we merge this Thread into one with the foie gras and salt threads called Proposed Food Bans in NY

Then, eGullet starts a seperate Topic titled Food Bans

Next, Food Bans get its own Forum

Pretty soon, due to band width limitations, the subject gets its own web site, BannedFoods.com

Sooner than later protesters will demand that the web site be taken down

SB (Oh, what a slipperly slope we leave ....

[JasonZ]

So, to summarize the questions here:

Scientifically, is there sufficient information to justify a ban?

Commercially:

(a) Is there a free market mechanism that could handle this, e.g., advertising "transfat free cooking" (a la Chinese restaurants going "MSG free", without the need for any governmental interference)?

(b) How would a ban be enforced and regulated -- is this yet another governmental bureaucracy in the making?

Governmentally:

(a) is it clear what is being banned (artificial trans-fats only; use in ALL products or only in restaurants directly serving the NYC public)?

(b) is it clear what the alternative to transfats are and what their health effects are -- are we really not having a significant effect on long-term health?

(b) does the government have the right to regulate the right of informed citizens to make personal decisions re their own lives (given that the prior "education and choice" program showed that people generally didn't change their eating habits) -- in this case, transfats don't affect others (unlike second hand smoke), and the "added health care burden on the rest of us" is true for almost everything (we all pay for diabetics' food choices; our national lack of exercise; our huge portions of food [whether cooked healthy or not], and we saw the disastrous effects of the government's attempt to regulate alcohol consumption, etc.)?

Personally, I think the issues isn't transfats, but our excess of all foods, whether "good" for us or not. We can certainly do without transfats, but if we replace them with excess butter, oil, etc., there will be no long term change in public health.

I don't think this is a legitimate area for governmental regulation -- other than providing a safe, quality food supply, the government should not be in the business of telling people what they may or may not eat. Education is the business of universities, and foundations with that specific interest. People need to understand that "fast food" (in the modern Western sense) should be a rare need, with the "usual" being good food, well prepared (whether at home or in a restaurant). Fast food as a regular diet -- go see "Supersize me" and realize that that is fully in accordance with the government regulations on food and nutrition (regulations, not recommdations) -- perhaps NYC should ban the consumption of more than 4 "fast food" meals per week, that would have a more noticeable and beneficial effect on public health.

[docsconz]

So, to summarize the questions here:

Scientifically, is there sufficient information to justify a ban?

Commercially:

(a) Is there a free market mechanism that could handle this, e.g., advertising "transfat free cooking" (a la Chinese restaurants going "MSG free", without the need for any governmental interference)?

(b) How would a ban be enforced and regulated -- is this yet another governmental bureaucracy in the making?

Governmentally:

(a) is it clear what is being banned (artificial trans-fats only; use in ALL products or only in restaurants directly serving the NYC public)?

(b) is it clear what the alternative to transfats are and what their health effects are -- are we really not having a significant effect on long-term health?

(b) does the government have the right to regulate the right of informed citizens to make personal decisions re their own lives (given that the prior "education and choice" program showed that people generally didn't change their eating habits) -- in this case, transfats don't affect others (unlike second hand smoke), and the "added health care burden on the rest of us" is true for almost everything (we all pay for diabetics' food choices; our national lack of exercise; our huge portions of food [whether cooked healthy or not], and we saw the disastrous effects of the government's attempt to regulate alcohol consumption, etc.)?

Personally, I think the issues isn't transfats, but our excess of all foods, whether "good" for us or not. We can certainly do without transfats, but if we replace them with excess butter, oil, etc., there will be no long term change in public health.

I don't think this is a legitimate area for governmental regulation -- other than providing a safe, quality food supply, the government should not be in the business of telling people what they may or may not eat. Education is the business of universities, and foundations with that specific interest. People need to understand that "fast food" (in the modern Western sense) should be a rare need, with the "usual" being good food, well prepared (whether at home or in a restaurant). Fast food as a regular diet -- go see "Supersize me" and realize that that is fully in accordance with the government regulations on food and nutrition (regulations, not recommdations) -- perhaps NYC should ban the consumption of more than 4 "fast food" meals per week, that would have a more noticeable and beneficial effect on public health.

←

Your points are generally well-reasoned, except I don't agree that with this example at least, the government is telling the individual what to eat. They are talking about a ban for restaurants, in which people do not generally have a clue of they are eating transfats or any other kind of fat. The product is generally invisible, leaving people without a choice. That is precisely why I think this is different. My understanding is that this does not include supermarket purchases in which transfats are clearly labeled. I suppose an alternative law would be to require menu labeling of items with trans-fats and how much.

The other irony is that there really is little if any culinary advantage to using or eating trans-fats.

[Daniel]

So, to summarize the questions here:

Scientifically, is there sufficient information to justify a ban?

Commercially:

(a) Is there a free market mechanism that could handle this, e.g., advertising "transfat free cooking" (a la Chinese restaurants going "MSG free", without the need for any governmental interference)?

(b) How would a ban be enforced and regulated -- is this yet another governmental bureaucracy in the making?

Governmentally:

(a) is it clear what is being banned (artificial trans-fats only; use in ALL products or only in restaurants directly serving the NYC public)?

(b) is it clear what the alternative to transfats are and what their health effects are -- are we really not having a significant effect on long-term health?

(b) does the government have the right to regulate the right of informed citizens to make personal decisions re their own lives (given that the prior "education and choice" program showed that people generally didn't change their eating habits) -- in this case, transfats don't affect others (unlike second hand smoke), and the "added health care burden on the rest of us" is true for almost everything (we all pay for diabetics' food choices; our national lack of exercise; our huge portions of food [whether cooked healthy or not], and we saw the disastrous effects of the government's attempt to regulate alcohol consumption, etc.)?

Personally, I think the issues isn't transfats, but our excess of all foods, whether "good" for us or not. We can certainly do without transfats, but if we replace them with excess butter, oil, etc., there will be no long term change in public health.

I don't think this is a legitimate area for governmental regulation -- other than providing a safe, quality food supply, the government should not be in the business of telling people what they may or may not eat. Education is the business of universities, and foundations with that specific interest. People need to understand that "fast food" (in the modern Western sense) should be a rare need, with the "usual" being good food, well prepared (whether at home or in a restaurant). Fast food as a regular diet -- go see "Supersize me" and realize that that is fully in accordance with the government regulations on food and nutrition (regulations, not recommdations) -- perhaps NYC should ban the consumption of more than 4 "fast food" meals per week, that would have a more noticeable and beneficial effect on public health.

←

Your points are generally well-reasoned, except I don't agree that with this example at least, the government is telling the individual what to eat. They are talking about a ban for restaurants, in which people do not generally have a clue of they are eating transfats or any other kind of fat. The product is generally invisible, leaving people without a choice. That is precisely why I think this is different. My understanding is that this does not include supermarket purchases in which transfats are clearly labeled. I suppose an alternative law would be to require menu labeling of items with trans-fats and how much.

The other irony is that there really is little if any culinary advantage to using or eating trans-fats.

←

The major fast food chains do have the nutritional value of its products posted on websites and in the restaurants..

[docsconz]

So, to summarize the questions here:

Scientifically, is there sufficient information to justify a ban?

Commercially:

(a) Is there a free market mechanism that could handle this, e.g., advertising "transfat free cooking" (a la Chinese restaurants going "MSG free", without the need for any governmental interference)?

(b) How would a ban be enforced and regulated -- is this yet another governmental bureaucracy in the making?

Governmentally:

(a) is it clear what is being banned (artificial trans-fats only; use in ALL products or only in restaurants directly serving the NYC public)?

(b) is it clear what the alternative to transfats are and what their health effects are -- are we really not having a significant effect on long-term health?

(b) does the government have the right to regulate the right of informed citizens to make personal decisions re their own lives (given that the prior "education and choice" program showed that people generally didn't change their eating habits) -- in this case, transfats don't affect others (unlike second hand smoke), and the "added health care burden on the rest of us" is true for almost everything (we all pay for diabetics' food choices; our national lack of exercise; our huge portions of food [whether cooked healthy or not], and we saw the disastrous effects of the government's attempt to regulate alcohol consumption, etc.)?

Personally, I think the issues isn't transfats, but our excess of all foods, whether "good" for us or not. We can certainly do without transfats, but if we replace them with excess butter, oil, etc., there will be no long term change in public health.

I don't think this is a legitimate area for governmental regulation -- other than providing a safe, quality food supply, the government should not be in the business of telling people what they may or may not eat. Education is the business of universities, and foundations with that specific interest. People need to understand that "fast food" (in the modern Western sense) should be a rare need, with the "usual" being good food, well prepared (whether at home or in a restaurant). Fast food as a regular diet -- go see "Supersize me" and realize that that is fully in accordance with the government regulations on food and nutrition (regulations, not recommdations) -- perhaps NYC should ban the consumption of more than 4 "fast food" meals per week, that would have a more noticeable and beneficial effect on public health.

←

Your points are generally well-reasoned, except I don't agree that with this example at least, the government is telling the individual what to eat. They are talking about a ban for restaurants, in which people do not generally have a clue of they are eating transfats or any other kind of fat. The product is generally invisible, leaving people without a choice. That is precisely why I think this is different. My understanding is that this does not include supermarket purchases in which transfats are clearly labeled. I suppose an alternative law would be to require menu labeling of items with trans-fats and how much.

The other irony is that there really is little if any culinary advantage to using or eating trans-fats.

←

The major fast food chains do have the nutritional value of its products posted on websites and in the restaurants..

←

Their prime customer targets also happen to be kids.

[Daniel]

The majority of Fast Food customers are children? I tried to view stats and couldnt find a demographic of there customer.. As I am sure you can guess, I dont think its Fast Foods job to raise children..

[docsconz]

The majority of Fast Food customers are children?  I tried to view stats and couldnt find a demographic of there customer.. As I am sure you can guess, I dont think its Fast Foods job to raise children..

←

I didn't say that the majority of fast food's customers are children. I did say that kids are their prime targets. Kids also tend to get their parents to go. Sure it is not their "job" to raise children, but if they had more of a sense of social responsibility, we might not be discussing this now. Most parents are not particularly knowledgeable in this area, anyway, and even if they were, they have a hard time not giving into their children. For a variety of reasons, I do not take my family to FF joints except on very rare occassions.

Let me turn this back around. Is there anything truly worthwhile about trans-fats in a culinary sense that could justify their continued use and is not provided for at least as well by other fats?

[Sneakeater]

I post these links only for purposes of discussion. I really don't have a position on the culinary or medical aspects of transfats:

http://nymag.com/daily/food/2006/09/left_b...ating_a_ci.html

http://nymag.com/daily/food/2006/09/trans_...estaurants.html

Edited September 28, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

Is there anything truly worthwhile about trans-fats in a culinary sense that could justify their continued use and is not provided for at least as well by other fats?

←

Nothing significant, as far as I know. This is close to a zero-loss, zero-cost regulation. Which is totally beside the point. The problem with this regulation is that it's based on flawed and dangerous reasoning. It mischaracterizes trans fats as toxic/carcinogenic when in reality most foods (trans fats included) are safe to eat in moderation but have toxic/carcinogenic properties when consumed beyond a certain threshold. All the same justifications being offered for this misguided regulation can be used to justify the prohibition of most any ingredient out there. Restaurant food contains a lot of fat, sugar and salt, not to mention all sorts of flavorings and colorings especially in the mass-market places. That's just the way it is. Does anybody who has ever turned on a television set still not know this? If so, that's the problem to address, rather than the use of trans fats that will just be replaced by saturated fats.