The Trans Fat Banned Wagon

[Vadouvan]

HD 73 :

What I think V was saying was that the customers of these restaurants are the real "have nots", and they are the ones that are, dietarily speaking, getting the shaft. The ban will help them the most.

That is absolutely correct.

The salient point of this whole discussion is this :

There is no reason for anyone or entity to oppose this ban.

The majority of evidence show's that the "have not's" are the people who live in the poorest urban communities in America. There just happens to be a collateral issue of people who eat deep fried foods every now and then.

The "have not's" as we have chosen to label them pretty much eat fried foods for 90% of the time.

Typically a fast food breakfast, a fast food lunch or fry shack lunch and possible another fried dinner. It's easy to sit on the computer on e-gullet and dine in fancy restaurants but it really wont change the lives of the people on this forum.

Go to North Philly, Trenton, Baltimore, Atlantic city,Detroit and see what the poor people eat.

The only two other points are these :

THE COST ISSUE :

The cost issue is pointless because the people who refine frying oils already have alternatives on the market at insignificant cost increases. We are talking the big agrodudes like Archer Daniels Midland. The markup on breaded deep fry foods in fry joints is high enough to absorb the slight increase in oil. Even if they pass it on to the consumer, the "have not's" will still continue to buy it because they have no options and that is what the are used to.

The cost issue is Invalid.

THE CIVIL LIBERTARIAN ISSUE :

The food libertarians want you to believe that allowing the government to legislate food is a slippery slope and thus there should be a blanket denial of government involvement in what we eat. It's frankly absurd because there are laws on the books and procedures determining what is safe or adulterated. As medical research gets more sophisticated the law catches up.

Most of our elected officials are intelligent enough to draw the line between politics and absurdity.

Case and point: Governor Eliot Spitzer isnt going to allow a Foie Gras ban to Pass in New York but isnt opposed to a trans-fat ban. He is *actively* opposed to classifying Foie as an adulterated product simply because of witchcraft science by the PETA nazis.

They arent going to slowly take our food away but to continue to let the poor people die of heart disease is Immoral.

Even if we dont care, guess who pays for it, social security, medicare and emergency rooms.

Translation : YOU.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Vadouvan (log)

[annecros]

They were invented by the food industry to save themselves money: baked and fried goods produced with them last longer on store shelves, reducing waste, and they are cheaper than natural oils to fry with, so restaurants save a little money. There is nothing you can do with hydrogenated oils that you can't do with natural oils, the hydrogenated ones are just cheaper. In return for the pennies saved, the people who consume hydrogenated oils get higher bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol, and maybe other health effects we don't know about yet because these substances haven't been around all that long.

←

So, pray tell, what is your alternative food source, for the individuals who are buying this food. Would you rather they ate boiled rice, or a stir fry including fresh vegetables and trans fats?

Would you rather they not eat?

You and I can both afford to eat well. You want them to spend extra to eat the way YOU think that they should eat. And, as far as I can tell, you are making your decisions based upon not knowing what it is like to eat on a budget.

These substances have been around forever. Butter is in and out, wine is in and out, coffee is in and out, margarine was the beesknees until it was out.

Sandy, will I be able to get my cheesesteak in Philly once every three or four years with Whiz or not?

I have no problem, and am in favor, of labeling. That's a separate issue from a ban.

Edited January 27, 2007 by annecros (log)

[annecros]

I don't think this ban will be the death of many restaurants, especially with the non-monetary penalties it imposes. 

What I think V was saying was that the customers of these restaurants are the real "have nots", and they are the ones that are, dietarily speaking, getting the shaft.  The ban will help them the most.

←

Interesting, so you favor the ban because it has no teeth?

How, specifically, will it help the have nots? They have to eat, you know.

[annecros]

HD 73 :

That is absolutely correct.

The salient point of this whole discussion is this :

There is no reason for anyone or entity to oppose this ban.

←

You state a conclusion before you presented your argument. Great way to shut down open minded discussion without hearing an alternate point of view. You obviously have your mind made up. Why further argue with those who are "ignorant" of the "facts" that are presented?

Slam dunk, no discussion. You can go home and eat your cookie now. I'm not stopping you.

Now, I can't think of a good reason for anyone in the whole wide world to propose, and then support, this ban.

Bad form.

[annecros]

HD 73 :

Most of our elected officials are intelligent enough to draw the line between politics and absurdity.

←

Are you serious? Do you really believe that most of our elected officials are intelligent enough to draw the line between politics and absurdity?

Do you really believe this? Is this the foundation of your argument? And why would we have elections every now and then if this were true?

[K8memphis]

The salient point of this whole discussion is this :

There is no reason for anyone or entity to oppose this ban.

←

I think it is a market issue. I oppose it.

[shacke]

If you banned trans fat today, many food purveyors would have to buy a different brand of frying oil.  A couple of things might taste different if a particular purveyor didn't care enough to shop around.  The cost of running a restaurant would rise incrementally.  Basically, nothing would happen.  Except we might see a real decline in heart disease in 20 years or so.

Let me be ignorant and bourgeois here. I suspect that the restaurants of the caliber we praise in here are not frying in partially hydrogenated fats. Perhaps they are exposing use to margarine or shortening in desserts. Unless you are a fan of packaged baked goods, you are not going to notice much.

As Vadouvan touched upon, the big shaft is getting rammed up the have nots. I can't say I am in favor of that.

←

Yes, the burden of cost will fall pretty heavily on "have not" restaurateurs. But I think you're misinterpreting V's point. These "have not" restaurateurs do HAVE restaurants, and that's pretty darn good. I don't think this ban will be the death of many restaurants, especially with the non-monetary penalties it imposes.

What I think V was saying was that the customers of these restaurants are the real "have nots", and they are the ones that are, dietarily speaking, getting the shaft. The ban will help them the most.

←

Let me clarify.

When I said I was not in favor of shafting the have nots - I meant that it is the have not consumers who bear the brunt of the trans fat problem and this should not be. Rereading my post, I see that one might infer that I do not support a ban against businesses themselves. Quite the opposite.

[mrbigjas]

In the meantime, many of us crow now because our Oreos won't be as tasty.  Waa waa waa.

the other day i had a chocolate-covered mint oreo. i don't usually eat stuff like that, but DAMN was it good.

i don't think i'd notice if it was made with a non-trans fat, though. i just don't eat them often enough to notice a minor difference in texture or something.

man that was tasty though.

[Andrew Fenton]

IRON LAW OF eGULLET #1: when chain restaurants are mentioned in a thread, the discussion must devolve into a squabble about (a) whether the Olive Garden sucks, and (b) whether the people who think it does suck are a buncha elitist snobs.

IRON LAW OF eGULLET #2: when foie gras and/or trans fat bans are mentioned, there must be running around screaming that oh noes! next, the gummint is gonna take away our TastyKakes and wooder ice!

Please note that Law #2 includes even those cases when, apparently, the law in question is blatant posturing, without enforcement provisions beyond "public shaming". (Because in America's Fattest City, that's going to work really well, right?)

[shacke]

Perhaps we should take a step back for a moment and look from another angle. No reason to get all bent out of shape in here.

Asbestos was some pretty useful stuff but we don't use it anymore. Why? Well because long term exposure killed a lot of ordinary folks and disabled many others. I have seen it. It's quite nasty.

Many of you may not even want to briefly walk into a room with asbestos wrapped pipes - or into a basement with high radon levels. You can you know.

Imagine now that it became standard of practice to cook with asbestos microfibers added and then it became apparent one day it was really bad for you. Imagine furthermore that it was cheaper and maybe even tasted better to the consumer. When you see a clear correlation with a culprit to a specific debilitating disease, its easier to support banning that culprit. Chronic intake of trans fatty acids may not lead to a specific form of coronary disease so it's more stealthy. Heart disease is already the number 1 killer of Americans. It may be hard to dissect the victims of chronic trans fat intake out of those numbers.

When mounting evidence comes to light that says the risks to public health are significant and there are other alternatives to achieve similar aims, even at higher costs, the government should step in to protect the public health. It's one of the things the government must do for us.

[HD73]

They were invented by the food industry to save themselves money: baked and fried goods produced with them last longer on store shelves, reducing waste, and they are cheaper than natural oils to fry with, so restaurants save a little money. There is nothing you can do with hydrogenated oils that you can't do with natural oils, the hydrogenated ones are just cheaper. In return for the pennies saved, the people who consume hydrogenated oils get higher bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol, and maybe other health effects we don't know about yet because these substances haven't been around all that long.

←

So, pray tell, what is your alternative food source, for the individuals who are buying this food. Would you rather they ate boiled rice, or a stir fry including fresh vegetables and trans fats?

Would you rather they not eat?

You and I can both afford to eat well. You want them to spend extra to eat the way YOU think that they should eat. And, as far as I can tell, you are making your decisions based upon not knowing what it is like to eat on a budget.

These substances have been around forever. Butter is in and out, wine is in and out, coffee is in and out, margarine was the beesknees until it was out.

Sandy, will I be able to get my cheesesteak in Philly once every three or four years with Whiz or not?

I have no problem, and am in favor, of labeling. That's a separate issue from a ban.

←

No, I wouldn't rather they don't eat. I'd rather they eat the same thing at the same price or a penny or two more but WITHOUT THE TRANS FAT. What do you find so objectionable about that?

[MarketStEl]

So, is Whiz transfat free? Possible, but counterintuitive.

←

Trans fats are overwhelmingly man-made, though I think there are a few natural sources.

They are produced when normally liquid fats are partially hydrogenated to make them solid at room temperature. (Fully hydrogenating a fat, however, produces no trans fat, IIRC.) Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils -- vegetable shortening, in essence -- are popular for baking because they produce baked products with good mouthfeel and flavor.

Margarine also contains trans fat for this reason.

Cheeses, including processed cheeses, do not contain trans fats. So you can eat that Whiz wit witout guilt.

[docsconz]

HD 73 :

What I think V was saying was that the customers of these restaurants are the real "have nots", and they are the ones that are, dietarily speaking, getting the shaft. The ban will help them the most.

That is absolutely correct.

The salient point of this whole discussion is this :

There is no reason for anyone or entity to oppose this ban.

The majority of evidence show's that the "have not's" are the people who live in the poorest urban communities in America. There just happens to be a collateral issue of people who eat deep fried foods every now and then.

The "have not's" as we have chosen to label them pretty much eat fried foods for 90% of the time.

Typically a fast food breakfast, a fast food lunch or fry shack lunch and possible another fried dinner. It's easy to sit on the computer on e-gullet and dine in fancy restaurants but it really wont change the lives of the people on this forum.

Go to North Philly, Trenton, Baltimore, Atlantic city,Detroit and see what the poor people eat.

The only two other points are these :

THE COST ISSUE :

The cost issue is pointless because the people who refine frying oils already have alternatives on the market at insignificant cost increases. We are talking the big agrodudes like Archer Daniels Midland. The markup on breaded deep fry foods in fry joints is high enough to absorb the slight increase in oil. Even if they pass it on to the consumer, the "have not's" will still continue to buy it because they have no options and that is what the are used to.

The cost issue is Invalid.

THE CIVIL LIBERTARIAN ISSUE :

The food libertarians want you to believe that allowing the government to legislate food is a slippery slope and thus there should be a blanket denial of government involvement in what we eat. It's frankly absurd because there are laws on the books and procedures determining what is safe or adulterated. As medical research gets more sophisticated the law catches up.

Most of our elected officials are intelligent enough to draw the line between politics and absurdity.

Case and point: Governor Eliot Spitzer isnt going to allow a Foie Gras ban to Pass in New York but isnt opposed to a trans-fat ban. He is *actively* opposed to classifying Foie as an adulterated product simply because of witchcraft science by the PETA nazis.

They arent going to slowly take our food away but to continue to let the poor people die of heart disease is Immoral.

Even if we dont care, guess who pays for it, social security, medicare and emergency rooms.

Translation : YOU.

←

Excellent post. I am not in favor of willy-nilly bans on what we eat. I am in favor of reasonable ones though, especially when the risk is generally well hidden as they are with trans-fats. It would be one thing if there were real advantages that would be lost, but if there are, I haven't encountered them.

[annecros]

No, I wouldn't rather they don't eat. I'd rather they eat the same thing at the same price or a penny or two more but WITHOUT THE TRANS FAT. What do you find so objectionable about that?

←

Edited January 27, 2007 by annecros (log)

[annecros]

Perhaps we should take a step back for a moment and look from another angle.  No reason to get all bent out of shape in here. 

Asbestos was some pretty useful stuff but we don't use it anymore.  Why?  Well because long term exposure killed a lot of ordinary folks and disabled many others.  I have seen it.  It's quite nasty.

Many of you may not even want to briefly walk into a room with asbestos wrapped pipes - or into a basement with high radon levels.  You can you know. 

Imagine now that it became standard of practice to cook with asbestos microfibers added and then it became apparent one day it was really bad for you.  Imagine furthermore that it was cheaper and maybe even tasted better to the consumer.  When you see a clear correlation with a culprit to a specific debilitating disease,  its easier to support banning that culprit.  Chronic intake of trans fatty acids may not lead to a specific form of coronary disease so it's more stealthy.  Heart disease is already the number 1 killer of Americans.  It may be hard to dissect the victims of chronic trans fat intake out of those numbers. 

When mounting evidence comes to light that says the risks to public health are significant and there are other alternatives to achieve similar aims, even at higher costs, the government should step in to protect the public health.  It's one of the things the government must do for us.

←

Ya know, butter has always been a wonderful thing. Until it was abosolutely going to kill you, but then it was wonderful again and the fat of choice if you wanted to stay healthy.

Why does any individual need to tell me what to eat? Why?

I have no problem with labels, they are there for a reason, but why does another individual need to limit my decisions, because they are convinced it is better for me, even though they do not live my life?

Simple question. I am open to anyone who thinks that there is a reason to limit my decisions, or any other human being's decisions, because they are convinced that it is better for me, even though they do not live my life or in my skin.

[annecros]

So, is Whiz transfat free? Possible, but counterintuitive.

←

Trans fats are overwhelmingly man-made, though I think there are a few natural sources.

They are produced when normally liquid fats are partially hydrogenated to make them solid at room temperature. (Fully hydrogenating a fat, however, produces no trans fat, IIRC.) Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils -- vegetable shortening, in essence -- are popular for baking because they produce baked products with good mouthfeel and flavor.

Margarine also contains trans fat for this reason.

Cheeses, including processed cheeses, do not contain trans fats. So you can eat that Whiz wit witout guilt.

←

Natural cheeses contain quit a substantial porportion of trans fat. More trans fat than is required to put it on the label. I just don't know about the Whiz, and how this will impact the carts around Philly.

What are they going to do anyway? Make the cheesesteak guy go to school for a week?

[ludja]

No, I wouldn't rather they don't eat. I'd rather they eat the same thing at the same price or a penny or two more but WITHOUT THE TRANS FAT. What do you find so objectionable about that?

←

Penny or two? Are you runnig these places? Are you setting prices? Do you know what the PandL says? Why is it only a penny or two, and how can you state this as a fact? Just curious.

Yes or no.

You are making an assumption, I gather, that you know what is going on in the busines, unless you are actually in the business then I would love an address so that I can visit. I am only asking what your basis for that knowledge is founded in.

←

[annecros]

IRON LAW OF eGULLET #1: when chain restaurants are mentioned in a thread, the discussion must devolve into a squabble about (a) whether the Olive Garden sucks, and (b) whether the people who think it does suck are a buncha elitist snobs.

IRON LAW OF eGULLET #2: when foie gras and/or trans fat bans are mentioned, there must be running around screaming that oh noes!  next, the gummint is gonna take away our TastyKakes and wooder ice!

Please note that Law #2 includes even those cases when, apparently, the law in question is blatant posturing, without enforcement provisions beyond "public shaming".  (Because in America's Fattest City, that's going to work really well, right?)

←

[c] IRON LAW OF eGULLET #3: when anyone bans something, it was by an elected official and it must be right and I agree with said elected official, therefore, all other opinions are not to be heard.

[Vadouvan]

Arent we being Drama queens......clearly this conversation is going nowhere.

I am just waiting to see if it concludes like the Ny transfat thread.....

[annecros]

[

Strange argument.

If it has (or will have) been definatively shown that the current level of trans fats hidden in processed foods poses serious long term health effects for people, what is the "acceptable" price difference, in your opinion, to warrant removing them from foods?

This is a hidden food additive that has invidiously crept into our food supply system. If it turns out to pose the health risks suggested it should be removed as in the asbestos example. Artificial transfats were not a part of our food before, why need they be now?

For one, I think it would be a blessing to get rid of crap artificial processed baked goods that are loaded with trans fats and have half lives of a month.

←

[K8memphis]

Ignaz Semmelweis died a lonely broken man because his well educated colleagues laughed him to scorn permanently when he said lives could be saved by doctors washing their hands between seeing patients. After his death it took decades for this simple idea to take hold and produce the amazing results we all know it to have.

The only law is the law of public opinion.

Trans fats are unargueably bad for us. I'm not gonna loose any sleep over it. Sugar is even worse for us because it also contributes to heart disease, diabetes and cancer. It is omnipresent not to mention addictive. Try going off sugar and sweeteners for a couple days. This is an ingredient that is literally killing us. The body adjusts as best it can. Legislation is not the answer. With education and proper diet the market can correct itself. Nobody's hooked on trans fats.

If Ignaz could see me now

The Blood Sugar Blues by Carl Lowe Energy Times, July 10, 2003

The cells in your body run on the sugar they get from blood. Normally, this energy distribution system functions efficiently. When things go awry, however, blood sugar fluctuations can cause serious problems.

If your blood sugar stays too high, your pancreas, heart and other organs suffer. But stabilize your blood sugar and you can stabilize your health.

Problems linked to too much blood sugar are widespread. Diabetes, in which the body becomes increasingly unable to regulate blood sugar levels, is one of the most serious and widespread conditions. Plus, researchers now know that elevated blood sugar, even if you don't suffer diabetes, elevates your risk of heart disease and pancreatic cancer (JAMA 5/17/00).

Badda bing badda boom

[serpentine]

As HD73, Shacke, and others have said, there is no good reason to oppose this ban, unless you happen to own a restaurant or food manufacturing business.

It's a pathetic move by City Council appear as if they are "positively impacting healthly food choices in Philadelphia blah blah blah" and a PR move for the city. What it is NOT is an attempt to make the city residents healthier, safer, or more willing to put down roots instead of relocating. In short, I think the cornsyrup-ification and transfat-acity of so much of our food is revolting, but I oppose the city wasting their time on this bullshit.

[HD73]

It's interesting to me that I need to own a restaurant to tell you that cost differences between natural and partially hydrogenated oils are minimal, but you somehow have standing to tell me that most scientists are wrong when they say there's a difference between natural and artificial trans fats. I'll give you the address to my restaurant after you let me swing by your laboratory, Doctor.

There's a lot more that I could say, but your responses are degenerating into a rambling incoherence that really isn't worth reading. I think I'll just leave you to your opinions. Have a great weekend!

Edited January 28, 2007 by HD73 (log)

[Holly Moore]

First off, we are working on making the grease stains at HollyEats.Com transfat free.

Tony Bourdain, as part of a short USA Today piece on new restaurants, coined the phrase "The Food Taliban," to describe those out to impose their dietary and culinary beliefs on the rest of us. Bravo!

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Which is a greater, vaster problem from a health point-of-view - sugar or transfats? So why all the focus on transfats?

Edited January 28, 2007 by Holly Moore (log)

[KatieLoeb]

This is a fascinating discussion. Can we please remain civil and on topic? I'd hate to have to shut down what is a very interesting discussion that can go on and track the progress of this proposal through City Council.

My own personal view is if there's no damage to the "free will" of the consumer by removing what is known to be unhealthful ingredient, I don't have a problem with it. This isn't as simple as liquor and cigarettes which are legal if you're old enough to buy them. We're faced with an unprecedented health crisis in this country. Today's children may be the first generation in several centuries to have a life expectancy shorter than their parents. Obesity rates, diabetes and heart disease are rising exponentially. If there's scientific proof that transfats are at least partially responsible for it, then even my normally libertarian self can say I expect my government to protect me from it, in the same way they protect me from lead paint and asbestos, whether that be by better labelling conventions or by removing it entirely where it's not necessary. Better cafeteria food choices, mandated physical education and nutritional education in schools is a damned good start too.