If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Having solved all its other problems, New York City now considering making trans fats in food illegal   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 301
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

2101 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Sep 2006 at 10:02 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



301 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-09-26 11:32:34 PM
I don't know for sure how I feel about this. I am usually very much for personal freedom no matter how destructive people may be to themselves. For example, I am very against many of the smoking bans. However, I don't know enough about trans fats to say whether or not they should be banned. I lean a little on the side of banning them for certain reasons...

Whereas regular fats are a necessary part of human diet, trans fats are not. They occur naturally in very small quantities, but the amount we ingest in processed foods is exponentially more than we could possibly consume by any natural means. Trans fats also don't add to the flavor of food as much as they make them more economical to package and ship.

I don't know that my above statements are correct, but that's the information that I have been given. My main concern is that they are not as much an ingredient as they are a harmful additive that is used to save money.
 
2006-09-26 11:33:13 PM
betachi
Either way, vegetable shortening made without trans fat does exist today.

Yeah, but they're not drop-in identical to the others; essentially the new shortenings are made by fully hydrogenating oil into a complete saturated fat, which is waxy like a candle, and then mixing it with liquid oil to attempt to match the texture.

These shortenings don't bake exactly like the partially hydrogenated oils do, and it can be complicated to try to reformulate a recipe that works, much less a recipe that is as good as the original.

There's a tradeoff too between saturated fats and trans-fats. When you decrease one, especially in baked goods, the other needs to rise.

I could support trans-fats not being used for frying -- there are plenty of good alternatives in that respect -- but in general, if the frying is properly done, it really won't make much difference one way or the other. For baking, though, there are simply areas where trans fats simply excel above all other contenders.
 
2006-09-26 11:34:30 PM
You are most certainly privileged, my friend, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Don't make assumptions. I'm not much above the poverty line currently. Food without transfats isn't that expensive if you are careful.

But you are thinking only of yourself and within your world view.

No, I'm thinking that individual rights are what this country is built on.

You have the choice to eat what you want while others do not because they cannot afford to do so.

Once again, I'M POOR!

You are educated in the matter and they are not.

So instead of expecting people to be educated, we should just ban things they don't understand? That's pretty sad.

You are judging people wrongly by saying that it is their own fault they are fat.

Wait, whose fault is it? Mine? How is it not their fault? If they are too farking stupid to look in the mirror and realize something is wrong, then let Darwin weed them out.
 
2006-09-26 11:34:40 PM
howdoibegin

Well done, but I think it was so well done it went over most farkers heads.

I love these libertarian wank-fests where personal choice constitutes a fantasy world where people can never be taken advantage of.
 
2006-09-26 11:35:56 PM
I say, sue the bastards who took away my butter and gave me this nasty margarine instead.

/just kidding, I still eat butter
 
2006-09-26 11:36:59 PM
tonesskin:
Look, people do stupid things all the time. There is no reason for the government to get involved. We are talking about something that doesn't kill instantly and doesn't HAVE to be consumed. There is no overwhelming evidence that the alternatives to transfats will bring about some major change in society (note that I personally don't touch the stuff UNLESS I go to a restaurant which is very, very rare...yes, I read labels). Plus, it is cheaper than the alternatives.


no, "cheaper alternatives" like trans fat (hydrogenated oils), high-fructose corn syrup, white (refined flour), etc. DONT kill instantly. they only cause learning/mental disorders like ADHD, ADD, depression instantly. they are only causing type II diabetes in CHILDREN instantly. they are only causing an influx of chronic DISEASE instantly.

and you say people dont have to consume it? youre right..they dont. but i challenge you to find ONE packaged food item that is reasonably priced that is completely natural, derived from completely whole foods, void of preservatives/pesticides/artificial sweeteners.

you might be able to find a few products from Kashi. thats going to be about it.

the truth is..yes these terrible things in food can be avoided - i, for example, live on organic, whole produce. but in all honesty, the majority of people are NOT going to commit to that sort of lifestyle..and more than likely the majority of people would not be able to afford a grocery bill comprised solely of organic produce. SPECIFICALLY if theyre feeding a family (which, luckily enough, im not).

it IS the governments responsibility to step in and refine what is and is not allowed in food sources. its the govnt's responsibility to at least provide a substantial opportunity for public health. once the opportunity is available, THEN personal responsibility steps in.

broaden your perspective a bit, hun, and allow yourself to indulge slightly in the concept known as "empathy."
 
2006-09-26 11:37:19 PM
I love these libertarian wank-fests where personal choice constitutes a fantasy world where people can never be taken advantage of.

Idiots SHOULD be taken advantage of.
 
2006-09-26 11:37:22 PM
So if food manufacturers start adding small amounts of liposuction waste to their products to "increase shelf life," and everybody gets used to it, is it a bad thing for the government to ban it later on? People, this is a food component that does nothing but bad things to your body solely so that manufacturers can make a few more bucks. This isn't the government banning junk food; it's the government banning a harmful substance with no real purpose beyond cost-cutting.

Personally, I think they should institute a system of labeling food products that make it clear when the product excludes trans fat. Let restauranters plaster it all over the menu (Jason's Deli does it). This way the restaurants who cut out the trans fat can by comparison look much healthier and higher quality than competitors! ("Finally, a banana stand that won't kidnap and kill you!")

Would you crazy libertarians get in a tissy if the government tried to ban some of the poisonous substances in cigarettes if there were still plenty of tobacco and nicotine?
 
jgi
2006-09-26 11:37:55 PM
xip_80: Yours is probably my favorite post in this thread so far and I applaud you because you are actually thinking about the matter. You are absolutely right in your analysis of trans fats and you clearly see the difference between the elimination of trans fats and smoking bans; smoking is harmful but pleasureful and therefore has merit while trans fats are harmful and have absolutely no benefit to the consumer. Please continue to think like this throughout your life.
 
2006-09-26 11:40:14 PM
Personally, I think they should institute a system of labeling food products that make it clear when the product excludes trans fat. Let restauranters plaster it all over the menu (Jason's Deli does it). This way the restaurants who cut out the trans fat can by comparison look much healthier and higher quality than competitors! ("Finally, a banana stand that won't kidnap and kill you!")

I think all companies should do this.
 
jgi
2006-09-26 11:41:00 PM
tonesskin: I was just about to respond to your above post but then you said this...

Idiots SHOULD be taken advantage of.

Wow.
 
2006-09-26 11:41:29 PM
jgi
You are judging people wrongly by saying that it is their own fault they are fat. People in this country were not so overweight one hundred years ago and it's an alarming trend and something those of us who do have a choice and are educated have to help fix.

The problem isn't trans-fats, it's overeating and the severe reduction of exercise. I'd say in general, the desk job is the biggest contributor to being fat. You don't really gain weight when you work fourteen hours a day in a coal mine. You do if you just sit on your ass all day long.

And nowadays, people have the economic means to overeat, and in general, left to our own devices most humans (like most other animals with a limitless food source) will overeat. It's simply an instinctive drive because for most of our evolutionary history, we've been in a severe competition for food. Overeating when you have the ability makes sense if the remaining time you're undereating; this leads to an instinctive desire to overeat when more food is available. And now, food is always available.

You can point all the fingers you want at trans fat, or high fructose corn syrup, but the simple fact is, when you combine a natural desire to overeat with a sedentary lifestyle, you're going to have a whole lot of fat people.
 
2006-09-26 11:42:29 PM
Yours is probably my favorite post in this thread so far and I applaud you because you are actually thinking about the matter

Yep. I've never thought about it. I have read Fat Land, Fast Food Nation, The TransFat Remedy, Eat...Drink...and Be Health, and about 10 other books on nutrition and exercise. I'm an avid believer in healthy eating. But I don't think the government has a right to dictate what we eat because there are a lot of things bad for us (including many that are worse than transfats). People should use due diligence.

But I'm not on your side, so I clearly haven't thought about it.
 
2006-09-26 11:44:04 PM
jivy: People, this is a food component that does nothing but bad things to your body solely so that manufacturers can make a few more bucks.

exactly.

do you people lose sleep pondering how fascist it was for the government to ban the use of coca leave extract in coca cola, too?

stop trying to perpetuate controversy over every little thing. im by no means a fan of the current administration, but some of you are just being ridiculous and ridiculously ignorant.
 
2006-09-26 11:44:25 PM
Wow.

Hahaha, that was easy!

/see what I did there was ignored the argument because it made no sense, so I just said something like, "idiots deserve to be taken advantage of" instead and then someone fell for it as if I were being serious
 
2006-09-26 11:45:22 PM
Sorry, but can someone list the alternatives to transfats that have the same shelf-life? I'd like see that list.
 
2006-09-26 11:46:10 PM
I know one guy who will be very disappointed!

images-eu.amazon.com
 
2006-09-26 11:46:28 PM
A Slippery Slope is a FALACY.

So let me get this straight then. It should be legal to use lead in paint, asbestos in walls, etc?

I suppose we shouldn't have government regulating car emmisions either? What about where companies dump toxic waste? FREE MARKET! Right?

You people arguing against the law are just doing it because your 'team' is against it for the most assinine and stupid reasons ever. YOU WON'T BE BANNED FROM EATING FOODS.

Seriously answer this question; Would you also support my right as a business to replace meat with a synthetic that can not be broken down properly by the human body? Because in essence that's what you're saying they should be allowed to do with trans-fats.

The government exists to protect us. This isn't protecting us from ourselves believe it or not. You don't know where this stuff is and you can't avoid it usually.

Why do you care? There is no slippery slope, this won't be the catylist to anything bad. Weaver keeps talking about American History but as I recall American History is filled with the government doing exactly as it is thinking of doing now.
 
2006-09-26 11:46:36 PM
Sorry, but can someone list the alternatives to transfats that have the same shelf-life? I'd like see that list.

The alternatives don't have the same shelf life. That's really the only reason it is cheaper. You can buy in larger quantities.
 
2006-09-26 11:47:02 PM
Hell I'd challenge anyone to make a good pie crust without either animal products or trans-fats.
 
jgi
2006-09-26 11:47:12 PM
I wasn't attacking you, tonesskin, I was applauding xip_80. In fact, above I said that it was clear you are educated in the matter; it's abundantly clear from your arguments. My argument with you is that you are only thinking of yourself and not the people who are most affected by trans fats. If you have the internet and have the education to read the books you mentioned, you are privileged and that is a very good thing. Many people in this country do not have those things.
 
2006-09-26 11:47:19 PM
tonesskin: Hahaha, that was easy!

/see what I did there was ignored the argument because it made no sense, so I just said something like, "idiots deserve to be taken advantage of" instead and then someone fell for it as if I were being serious


So, tonesskin, you're being nothing but a common troll then? Thanks for considerately alerting us - I'll remember to ignore you for the remainder of this thread, then.
 
2006-09-26 11:49:26 PM
Weaver95: Tell someone they have to submit to massive invasions of privacy, and they'll pitch a fit. Tell them you're doing it 'for their health' tho, and they're on board!

Do you honestly see banning trans fat an invasion of privacy? This is not an issue of the government infringing on your basic civil liberties. This isn't taking away your guns. This isn't silencing free speech. This isn't enforcing a religion on you. It's guaranteeing that all citizens, rich or poor, can avoid a harmful substance, which they usually are not the least bit aware of. Food will still be fatty and junky; it just won't contain an unnecessary additive that has many proven health issues beyond making you fatter.
 
2006-09-26 11:51:16 PM
tonesskin:
Sorry, but can someone list the alternatives to transfats that have the same shelf-life? I'd like see that list.

well..olive oil and coconut oil both have shelf lives of 1-4 weeks when stored in cool, dry places; up to a few months if refrigerated
 
2006-09-26 11:51:31 PM
tonesskin
see what I did there was ignored the argument because it made no sense

Funny, I've been doing the same thing with you.

Some people know that not everyone will exercise 'personal responsibility,' whther due to lack of education, lack of critical thinking skills, lack of time to mull over every frigging thing that comes at them, and some people will take advantage of that fact to the nth degree. Taking advantage of people doesn't solve any of those problems, either, and IMHO is immoral. That doesn't make any sense to Tonesskin - not that he doesn't agree with it, but it doesn't even compute.

/cognitive dissonance
//everybody panic
 
2006-09-26 11:52:29 PM
So, tonesskin, you're being nothing but a common troll then? Thanks for considerately alerting us - I'll remember to ignore you for the remainder of this thread, then.

Um, ok. And?

The alternatives don't have the same shelf life.

Then it isn't a useless substance. It has a long shelf-life. That is worth something to someone. I'd also argue that is more than just money.

Again, I hate the stuff and buy organic or just eat veggies if I have to. Plus, you can actually "make" transfats when you cook oil at a certain temparature (well, you can partially hydrogenate oil with cooking techniques). Thus, this would also be really hard to regulate and would potentially mislead people.
 
2006-09-26 11:52:58 PM
Once again farkers show their stupidity. This isn't about the government controlling what foods you eat, its about a certain artificial additive that is used by companies to prolong the shelf life of their products.

You can make a donut, a chilli dog, a hamburger, a thick ass pizza, etc, all without a single trans fat. You know what this is called?

NATURAL.

The federal government, not just the government of new york, should make trans fats illegal. If people want to get biatchy about their rights, then why not treat it like smoking or drinking - no trans fats until your 18 or 21?

Think of it this way - sure an adult can make a decision with their "liberties" to partake in a substance that can kill them (cigarettes, or alcohol), but by the same token we don't allow children this same right. However there is a high degree of casuality between trans fats and obesity - in fact the evidence is probably about as good as smoking and lung cancer.

So you tell me, which one is going to kill you faster: Smoking a pack a day, or being 200 to 300 pounds over weight?

I figure it's a toss.
 
jgi
2006-09-26 11:53:17 PM
tonesskin: Hahaha, that was easy!

/see what I did there was ignored the argument because it made no sense, so I just said something like, "idiots deserve to be taken advantage of" instead and then someone fell for it as if I were being serious


I've spent this thread complimenting you and only asking you to take your thought one step further and you give me this? Have a little self-assurance. You're not dumb so please don't act that way.
 
2006-09-26 11:55:30 PM
All of you who are biatching and moaning like you're some kind of libertarian crusader because you don't know a damned thing about lipid chemistry, food production and distribution, or public health policy need to STFU and go read a book. If they were banning saturated fat, meat, specific food (no doughnuts), cigarettes, alcohol, weed (d'oh, too late), or anything like that, I'd be completely with you.

We're talking about fats artificially turned into something a molecule away from plastics, though. Something noone knew anything about, and Americans are the last nation in the world to get on the bandwagon about. Japan and Europe have known about this for years.

Read a book.

Stop defending corporate interests just because the gubmint is regulatin'.

Capitalism is great, but its not perfect. We learned some things during the industrial revolution, and we have some more to learn in the one thats going down right now.

/thats right, there's a neo-industrial revolution goin' on
//or if there's not, we're farked
///get on the bandwagon!
 
2006-09-26 11:56:20 PM
well said twistedfark
 
2006-09-26 11:57:30 PM
ever better said, inspeyere
 
2006-09-26 11:58:33 PM
tonesskin

Lead in paint is unnecessary. Asbestos is unnecessary.

So is candy. And pop. And your mom.


Yes, but those things all have distinctive, unimitatable taste, which trans fats (in partially hydrogenated oils) do not.
 
2006-09-27 12:01:54 AM
Yes, but those things all have distinctive, unimitatable taste, which trans fats (in partially hydrogenated oils) do not.

For the record: transfats are horrible and should never be ingested by anyone...ever

That said, they do have a longer shelf-life, which other substances do no, making them essentially different.

I think my issue is on how hard this will be to regulate more than anything. Restaurants shouldn't use transfats voluntarily.
 
2006-09-27 12:02:31 AM
jivy
It's guaranteeing that all citizens, rich or poor, can avoid a harmful substance, which they usually are not the least bit aware of. Food will still be fatty and junky; it just won't contain an unnecessary additive that has many proven health issues beyond making you fatter.

Again, if you're baking a pie, I don't think the trans fat is unnecessary at all, especially if you are a vegan or vegetarian; apart from partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, the only other shortening that can actually make a good pie crust is lard, which can present problems for people with various dietary restrictions.

And lard isn't that much healthier -- in fact, none of the shortening additives are substantially healthier than trans fats. A good rule of thumb is that 10 grams of trans fats are about the same as 11.5 grams of saturated fat, and the only things you'll be replacing trans fats with are high in saturated fats.

In fact you can very easily make a food LESS healthy by eliminating trans fats, if the changes needed involve increasing saturated fats by a large enough amount that it not only negates but actually reverses the health benefit from removing the trans fat.
 
2006-09-27 12:02:58 AM
2006-09-26 11:55:30 PM inspeyere

Wins the thread.

Too bad common sense isn't very common.
 
2006-09-27 12:03:01 AM
They have to do this. Brazilians of New Yorkers die from second hand donuts every day. Brazilians. You walk next to someone on the street eating one of those things and next thing you know, you're fat; and there's only one person to blame.

And that person is someone else.
 
2006-09-27 12:03:21 AM
tonesskin: 3) Don't like what the companies are doing? Call them or don't buy their crappy products. That's what I do.

The problem is people DON'T KNOW. Yes, we educated folk understand that avoiding trans fat keeps you healthier. But the uneducated folk (and oh are there plenty) have no farking clue. Should we really be so laissez-faire as to forget about all those people and let them be unknowingly exposed to substances that impose a greater risk of coronary disease? Yes, fatty food will make you fat, but this just makes it worse, and not everybody knows it.

Like I said before, I think a complete ban is a bit excessive, but I don't oppose it. Ideally they could just label things to keep consumers aware.
 
2006-09-27 12:04:38 AM
Ideally they could just label things to keep consumers aware.

Absolutely agree with this. And not adjust serving sizes to say "0 grams."
 
2006-09-27 12:05:34 AM
radio_silence
Yes, but those things all have distinctive, unimitatable taste, which trans fats (in partially hydrogenated oils) do not.

Those hydrogenated oils DO give foods a distinctive, unimitatable texture, though. The primary reason for shortening to exist is for texture of food, and in some applications there's nothing in existence yet that gives a better texture than partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.
 
2006-09-27 12:05:53 AM
Bon_Scott: 2006-09-26 11:55:30 PM inspeyere

Wins the thread.


I concur.
 
2006-09-27 12:05:54 AM
sum dum gai...

you can make a fantastic pie crust with olive oil replacing trans fatty shortening.

/raw food vegan
 
2006-09-27 12:08:31 AM
More transfats > more fat/unhealthy people > more medical needs > higher Health Care costs
 
2006-09-27 12:10:36 AM
You can still stay nice and fat with other fat sources. Why do you let the gov regulate pot, booze, perscrip drugs, ect.. but you have a fit about something you can't even taste?
Fark trans fat. I want a big mac, that will surely kill me untimey, w/o that crap.
 
2006-09-27 12:10:55 AM
does anybody else realize how ridiculous it is that people are suggesting the use of trans fat despite how terrible it is for you in order to provide a certain texture?

are we THAT controlled by the subliminal manipulation of the food industry to not be able to break the chains of habit and sacrifice a slightly nicer "texture" if it means possibly preventing chronic disease and/or saving your own life?

also..we dont HAVE to replace trans fat with saturated fat. we COULD choose to use monounsaturated oils like coconut or olive.

ill just go ahead and say it:
its a matter of the food industry using cheaper ingredients to monetarily profit, and its a matter of the food industry keeping us ill so that their shares in the publically-traded pharmaceutical companies do well every time you fill your prescription that helps reduce the symptoms of ::insert chronic disease here::

its all interrelated. crown me as a conspiracy theorist if you wish..but health is my passion and my current major; i do an extensive amount of research on this stuff and the underlying correlations are remarkable.
 
2006-09-27 12:12:06 AM
donotswallow:

precisely :)
 
2006-09-27 12:13:20 AM
DoNotSwallow: More transfats > more fat/unhealthy people > more medical needs > higher Health Care costs

better cheaper healthcare> people live longer> higher Social security costs> bankrupt Social Security> homeless old people living on the streets.

Why do you hate old people?
 
2006-09-27 12:16:48 AM
shrugs

Coconut Oil is actually a saturated oil, although that doesn't make it unhealthy.
 
2006-09-27 12:18:05 AM
donotswallow:

youre right..i was thinking of canola oil

coconut oils still great for ya though! :)
 
2006-09-27 12:18:26 AM
It's shiat like that that makes people hate liberals. I'm sorry, but it's true. Your nanny state health shiat, "I know better than you about what's good for you therefore I should be able to use the law to enforce these ideals" is just as bad as the conservatives' nanny state morals shiat, "I know better than you about what's good for you therefore I should be able to use the law to enforce these ideals."

The thing that you biatch about conservatives doing to morality is the EXACT SAME thing you do about health/personal safety.

I maintain that The Dems and the Pubs are two groups of people who utilize the EXACT SAME means to reach different ends. In the end, the only difference is what goals you think that a bloated, overspending, self-serving government should force on the people.
 
2006-09-27 12:20:10 AM
shrugs
are we THAT controlled by the subliminal manipulation of the food industry to not be able to break the chains of habit and sacrifice a slightly nicer "texture" if it means possibly preventing chronic disease and/or saving your own life?

You can't save your own life. Whatever you do, however you live, you will die. That's the most basic fact of existence.

What we do in the meanwhile is make choices and tradeoffs between the quantity of life and the quality of life. Virtually everything in life that is enjoyable comes with the risk of shortening your life. Hell, if we took people as babies, chained them to a hospital bed and fed them a precisely controlled diet through a feeding tube, we could probably add ten or twenty years to the average lifespan, but what a shiatty life that would be.

In moderation, vegetable shortening can create very tasty food. Maybe not the food you eat every day, but tasty nonetheless.

also..we dont HAVE to replace trans fat with saturated fat. we COULD choose to use monounsaturated oils like coconut or olive.

Good luck getting that to work in any recipe which needs its fat to be solid at room temperature. Also oils do not work the same in how they affect gluten structure (which is what shortening is used for) so they're not always a workable substitute.
 
Displayed 50 of 301 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report