The Trans Fat Banned Wagon

[MarketStEl]

From today's Philadelphia Inquirer:

Council goes on the attack on trans fats

By Dianna Marder

Inquirer Staff Writer

Crisco and Girl Scout cookies are now free of artery-clogging trans fatty acids. But what about our beloved cheesesteaks?

After a public hearing yesterday, City Council's Committee on Public Health and Human Services took the first step toward barring restaurants, food trucks and takeout eateries from using products that contain trans fats.

The bill, proposed by Councilman Juan Ramos, will move to the full Council on Feb. 1, when it will face the first of two votes. The legislation would require local eateries to rid their kitchens and pantries of trans fat by Sept. 1.

Offenders would not face fines or penalties. Instead, Ramos said, they would be subjected to re-education and the possibility of public scorn.

(remainder of story at Web site)

Well, I guess if we're going to outlaw things that aren't healthy for us, shame is about the best we can hope for as a form of punishment.

I just hope that Councilman Ramos isn't contemplating the creation of Trans Fat Re-education Camps to which the offenders would be sent.

I remember an old saw that said, "You can't legislate morality." This was aimed at those who sought to enshrine the values of their particular faith in the laws of the land.

So now that it's our bodies that are the temples, here we go again, attempting to do just that. Cigarettes, overstuffed geese livers, trans fats....

What's next? Alcoholic beverages?

[Andrew Fenton]

Offenders would not face fines or penalties. Instead, Ramos said, they would be subjected to re-education and the possibility of public scorn.

Ooh yeah, now that's a law with some teeth to it.

[philadining]

Trans-fat Reeducation through labor! A great leap forward! What could go wrong?

[Andrew Fenton]

Trans-fat Reeducation through labor! A great leap forward!  What could go wrong?

Indeed! It could be a real revolution for the culture of Philadelphia!

Smash the Running-Dog Trans Fats for the Glory of the Proletariat

[K8memphis]

It'll never make it to Memphis.

We'll build a stadium to honor

the dear departed trans fat first,

a Trans Mahal if you will.

We're into stadiums here.

[hathor]

At least you guys are funnier than the NY crowd. We've already had our Trans-fats banned, and I'm just feeling so much better about myself.

I think my city gov't knows what best for me in all things. I trust my gov't.

[MarketStEl]

At least you guys are funnier than the NY crowd. We've already had our Trans-fats banned, and I'm just feeling so much better about myself.

I think my city gov't knows what best for me in all things. I trust my gov't.

←

City, Commonwealth, it doesn't matter...one quickly disabuses oneself of such notions here.

And no, I didn't miss the sarcasm.

Maybe we can help Councilman Ramos out by preparing some chef's whites with scarlet T's sewn on them. We can even have a sewing party with wine and cheese. I can go pick up a Chairman's Selection at my local State Store.

[annecros]

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

[HD73]

I don't know, from an economist's point of view, this is the type of situation where government regulation accomplishes something that a free market can't.

The cost difference between using trans-fat laden oils and trans-fat free oils isn't huge. It's just kind of a pain in the ass to switch over to the trans-fat free kind and entails a little agonizing over making the food taste the same. It's not like trans-fat makes food taste better, it just a) improves shelf life; and b) takes longer to spoil if you're using it, say, in a deep fryer.

The public at large knows trans-fat is bad for them, and is capable of shopping for trans-fat free products at the grocery store, so that's not a problem. But when you're going to a food cart, how the hell are you supposed to know what's going on? You think the couple that runs the Yue Kee truck can tell you how much trans-fat is in the Beijing Hot Noodles?

So we've got an industry that just needs a small push to become drastically healthier at little cost to consumers, but also no incentives to do it on their own. This is where government regulation is a good thing.

Do you really feel terrible that McDonald's is going to have to shop around for a new source of frying oil?

Do you really not feel better knowing that your intake of a very unhealthy substance is going to go down without changing the taste of what you're eating?

You can argue the finer points of smoking bans, foie gras laws, etc. and make some good points, but I fail to see any serious downside to a trans fat ban.

[K8memphis]

Do you really not feel better knowing that your intake of a very unhealthy substance is going to go down without changing the taste of what you're eating?

You can argue the finer points of smoking bans, foie gras laws, etc. and make some good points, but I fail to see any serious downside to a trans fat ban.

←

Neither is sugar a health food, diabetes is epidemic. Sugar is in lots and lots of products needlessly. It does rot teeth. There's a probably link between alcohol* and alcoholism. Drinking water recently in the news tragically killed a woman.

And our government is not known to be able to draw the line. If one regulation is good, then many more will be better and better, right?

*That ban didn't work at allll!

[HD73]

Do you really not feel better knowing that your intake of a very unhealthy substance is going to go down without changing the taste of what you're eating?

You can argue the finer points of smoking bans, foie gras laws, etc. and make some good points, but I fail to see any serious downside to a trans fat ban.

←

Neither is sugar a health food, diabetes is epidemic. Sugar is in lots and lots of products needlessly. It does rot teeth. There's a probably link between alcohol* and alcoholism. Drinking water recently in the news tragically killed a woman.

And our government is not known to be able to draw the line. If one regulation is good, then many more will be better and better, right?

*That ban didn't work at allll!

←

If that's really the way you feel about government, then why should we even have one at all? If your argument actually made sense, then any government law or regulation would be a bad idea, including the Clean Water Act, requiring driver's licenses, criminal laws, etc.

If you're actually coming at this from an extreme libertarian perspective, it's kind of pointless to debate with you. No one is threatenting to ban sugar or alcohol in Philadelphia, and comparing trans-fat to either one of them is silly and disingenuous.

Edited January 27, 2007 by HD73 (log)

[annecros]

... and comparing trans-fat to either one of them is silly and disingenuous.

←

I disagree, sugar and alcohol are huge dietary issues, but I don' t think they should be banned. Government was created to provide for the common defense, period, and in my opinion. But, I guess you would probably categorize me as an "extreme" libertarian. Although concerning a libertarian philosophy, that is not an anachist philosophy, it would be difficult to characterise any libertarian philosophies as extreme.

Unless you want to single out a nut case. But that can be done for any philosophy, and I find that sort of misrepresentation of any group do be "extremely" disengenuous.

My opinion only.

My burning question is, is Whiz transfat free, or is it just the natural cheeses that are loaded with transfats?

Edited January 27, 2007 by annecros (log)

[K8memphis]

Do you really not feel better knowing that your intake of a very unhealthy substance is going to go down without changing the taste of what you're eating?

You can argue the finer points of smoking bans, foie gras laws, etc. and make some good points, but I fail to see any serious downside to a trans fat ban.

←

Neither is sugar a health food, diabetes is epidemic. Sugar is in lots and lots of products needlessly. It does rot teeth. There's a probably link between alcohol* and alcoholism. Drinking water recently in the news tragically killed a woman.

And our government is not known to be able to draw the line. If one regulation is good, then many more will be better and better, right?

*That ban didn't work at allll!

←

If that's really the way you feel about government, then why should we even have one at all? If your argument actually made sense, then any government law or regulation would be a bad idea, including the Clean Water Act, requiring driver's licenses, criminal laws, etc.

If you're actually coming at this from an extreme libertarian perspective, it's kind of pointless to debate with you. No one is threatenting to ban sugar or alcohol in Philadelphia, and comparing trans-fat to either one of them is silly and disingenuous.

←

The serious downside to banning trans fat is that there are many more 'dangerous' foodstuffs out there. This (sugar, alcohol & water) would be an illustration of the downside of banning food. Sugar and alcohol are extremely damaging to our bodies.

... and comparing trans-fat to either one of them is silly and disingenuous.

←

My burning question is, is Whiz transfat free, or is it just the natural cheeses that are loaded with transfats?

←

I wrote to the Cheez Whiz folks to inquire about the uncertain fate of Philly cheesesteaks and they will respond Monday maybe. So eat up over the weekend!!

Edited January 27, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[HD73]

... and comparing trans-fat to either one of them is silly and disingenuous.

←

I disagree, sugar and alcohol are huge dietary issues, but I don' t think they should be banned. Government was created to provide for the common defense, period, and in my opinion. But, I guess you would probably categorize me as an "extreme" libertarian. Although concerning a libertarian philosophy, that is not an anachist philosophy, it would be difficult to characterise any libertarian philosophies as extreme.

Unless you want to single out a nut case. But that can be done for any philosophy, and I find that sort of misrepresentation of any group do be "extremely" disengenuous.

←

Sugar and alcohol are huge health issues, but that's not why comparing them to trans fat is silly. A few pertinent differences:

Sugar, in some form or another, has been around for the whole of human existence (I know its refined form is relatively recent). It's one of the major building blocks of life.

Alcohol, I'd bet, has been around for the entirety of human existence minus the week it took to ferment something.

Trans-fat, at least in the form that is relevant to this discussion (partially hydrogenated oils) has been around for less than a century.

If you banned sugar and alcohol today, the city would fall apart. Thousands of businesses would grind to a halt, tens of thousands of people would become unemployed, and life as we experience it would be vastly different. Every cookie, cake, and brownie you had for the life of the ban would taste markedly different. Our whole culture would be changed as alcohol was forced underground. Crime would rise, etc.

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.

There are a spectrum of libertarian beliefs, just like any other philosophy. Believing that government exists only for the common defense* is quite a bit different from a civil libertarian who is more concerned with a certain set of core rights and not getting rid of all regulation. If you really are of the persuasion, that all regulations should be eviscerated, then what I said is true: debating this with you is silly, because you're entrenched in your beliefs against all regulation.

*(I assume you're just leaving out policing and some criminal prohibitions etc., or you're on the very edge of libertarian and shading into anarchist)

[srhcb]

If you're actually coming at this from an extreme libertarian perspective, it's kind of pointless to debate with you.  No one is threatenting to ban sugar or alcohol in Philadelphia, and comparing trans-fat to either one of them is silly and disingenuous.

←

But ten years ago no one was threatening to ban foie gras or trans fat either.

SB (that would have been just plain silly and disingenuos)

edited to correct an intentionally specious spelling of "disingenuous" in an unsuccessful attempt to "lighten" this thread.

Edited January 27, 2007 by srhcb (log)

[HD73]

The serious downside to banning trans fat is that there are many more 'dangerous' foodstuffs out there. This (sugar, alcohol & water) would be an illustration of the downside of banning food. Sugar and alcohol are extremely damaging to our bodies.

←

You're right, you convinced me. We must fight this trans-fat ban, or else the government will surely ban water tomorrow and we'll all die!

Sheesh. Make fun of the word disingenuous all you want, but there's not a better word to describe this line of argument. Should have known better than to join a political discussion on a food board.

[K8memphis]

Trans fats are being banned because of heart disease right?

Sugar beats the hell out of pancreas...diabetes.

Alcohol beats the hell out of our livers and our families and neighborhoods...cirrhosis.

Too much anything will kill you including water of which we mostly consist of.

It's none of the government's business. They currently have thier hands full deciding where to spend more of our money.

I remember an old saw that said, "You can't legislate morality."  This was aimed at those who sought to enshrine the values of their particular faith in the laws of the land.

←

The true facet to that quote is that it's the acknowlegement that legislation of such matters does not work. Morality is above the law.

Here's another old adage.

'The only law is the law of public opinion.'

Think about it.

So the longevity of a food item should determine whether it gets banned or not?

(White sugar is not a building block. )

[Vadouvan]

HD73:

Do you really feel terrible that McDonald's is going to have to shop around for a new source of frying oil?

Do you really not feel better knowing that your intake of a very unhealthy substance is going to go down without changing the taste of what you're eating?

You can argue the finer points of smoking bans, foie gras laws, etc. and make some good points, but I fail to see any serious downside to a trans fat ban.

I have to say I agree.

But also most of us are missing the point that the effects of transfats on different communities varies. In most inner city American low income neighborhoods such as councilman Ramo's, there is a high proliferation of Asian owned "fry joints" and in all honesty those places are slowly killing the residents.

In this case a small dose of regulation in probably good.

[annecros]

... and comparing trans-fat to either one of them is silly and disingenuous.

←

I disagree, sugar and alcohol are huge dietary issues, but I don' t think they should be banned. Government was created to provide for the common defense, period, and in my opinion. But, I guess you would probably categorize me as an "extreme" libertarian. Although concerning a libertarian philosophy, that is not an anachist philosophy, it would be difficult to characterise any libertarian philosophies as extreme.

Unless you want to single out a nut case. But that can be done for any philosophy, and I find that sort of misrepresentation of any group do be "extremely" disengenuous.

←

Sugar and alcohol are huge health issues, but that's not why comparing them to trans fat is silly. A few pertinent differences:

Sugar, in some form or another, has been around for the whole of human existence (I know its refined form is relatively recent). It's one of the major building blocks of life.

Alcohol, I'd bet, has been around for the entirety of human existence minus the week it took to ferment something.

Trans-fat, at least in the form that is relevant to this discussion (partially hydrogenated oils) has been around for less than a century.

If you banned sugar and alcohol today, the city would fall apart. Thousands of businesses would grind to a halt, tens of thousands of people would become unemployed, and life as we experience it would be vastly different. Every cookie, cake, and brownie you had for the life of the ban would taste markedly different. Our whole culture would be changed as alcohol was forced underground. Crime would rise, etc.

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.

There are a spectrum of libertarian beliefs, just like any other philosophy. Believing that government exists only for the common defense* is quite a bit different from a civil libertarian who is more concerned with a certain set of core rights and not getting rid of all regulation. If you really are of the persuasion, that all regulations should be eviscerated, then what I said is true: debating this with you is silly, because you're entrenched in your beliefs against all regulation.

*(I assume you're just leaving out policing and some criminal prohibitions etc., or you're on the very edge of libertarian and shading into anarchist)

←

Ahem, transfats have been around quite a while, in a proportion that would surprise you, in the form of meat, cheese, ice cream and on and on. Just a little research into naturally occuring transfat reveals that.

Now you are making an economic argument for not banning alcohol and sugar, but an argument that transfats are only used to save money as a reasoning for banning them? As the restaurants costs rise incrementally, so do the consumer's costs. Then we might see a decline in heart disease 20 years from now.

Common defense is inclusive of policing and criminal prohibitions. Duh.

Now, debating with you is silly, from my perspecitve. I have already aired my beliefs and concerns on the New York transfat ban thread, and have done all of this already. A quick search will get you there.

Now, if you would like to openly discuss the issues and ramifications of a transfat ban both socially and politically, well, I am not sure this is the board for it. Would have to ask the moderator, and Sandy.

[wkl]

"Alcohol beats the hell out of our livers and our families and neighborhoods...cirrhosis."

only when abused, let's not get carried away here,please.

[shacke]

Like second hand smoke is someone else's jolly harming you, trans fats are someone's way of harming you (not with malice) as well. A gazillion people eat them without knowing it daily and they are vicious for you.

Sugar and alcohol - not bad in moderation unless you have specific restrictions. Trans fat - not a molecule is necessary for you. Thought up by the corporate man to improve shelf life and had the benefit of providing mouthfeel, what is not that common in nature has become a staple. In the meantime, many of us crow now because our Oreos won't be as tasty. Waa waa waa. 5 year olds shouldnt be eating this on a regular basis. Many of us can restrain or moderate, but most people are clueless. Most kids are clueless - even ones who have good parents to control their intake.

Ridding them from the larger corporate produced food supply (Keebler, McD) is a good thing.

Edited January 27, 2007 by shacke (log)

[HD73]

1. I started my first post with, "from an economist's point of view", so I don't think it's really fair to claim that I'm changing horses midstream.

2. I also began by talking about artificial trans fat, particularly hydrogenated oils, which every ban I've seen so far focuses on exclusively. I'm sorry if I didn't put the word "artificial" in front of every subsequent use of "trans-fat."

3.The trans-fat that occurs in meat and dairy is a significantly different molecule and doesn't seem to have the negative health effects of artificial trans fat. If some kind of ban on foods with naturally occurring trans fat was on the table, you'd have made a good point. As it stands, your point is irrelevant and you're either just spewing what you googled five minutes ago and don't understand, or you're trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

[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.

[Buckethead]

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. There is no reason for diners to want partially hydrogenated oils/trans fats. 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.

I do agree that most of the places we talk about on EG probably don't fry with these substances anyway, but part of the ban was that all cooking oils have to retain their labels, and that can't hurt.

[HD73]

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.