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 (8 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
 
2006-09-27 12:22:12 AM
the homer tax:

and you realize that by criticizing both parties in that manner, you yourself are coming off as arrogant as you are portraying either side?

but, hypocrisy aside, morality does not have a scientific basis. health and personal safety, however, does.

either way..pardon us "liberals" for attempting to save you from toxins to which the majority of the population is ignorant. ill leave you to the conservative method of life-saving: jesus.
 
2006-09-27 12:22:30 AM
do you even know what a trans-fat is?
 
2006-09-27 12:24:16 AM
shrugs: also..we dont HAVE to replace trans fat with saturated fat. we COULD choose to use monounsaturated oils like coconut or olive.

sum dum gaiGood 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.


coconut oil is solid at room temperature. im staring at a jar on my nightstand right now. works great as lotion, too.
 
2006-09-27 12:25:25 AM
cache.defamer.com

"I demand trans fat poison in my restaraunt food!"
 
2006-09-27 12:26:16 AM
boloxor..

trans fat is a veggie oil thats treated (hydrogenation) to prolong shelf life and to solidify it.

/nutritional science major
 
2006-09-27 12:27:32 AM
shrugs
but, hypocrisy aside, morality does not have a scientific basis. health and personal safety, however, does.

Again, all of life is a balancing act between quality and quantity of life. Do you honestly trust the government so much that you'd let them make such a decision for you?

coconut oil is solid at room temperature.

It melts at 76 degrees farenheit. That makes it a liquid at room temperature in many/most parts of the world, at least in summer.
 
2006-09-27 12:29:26 AM
shrugs: morality does not have a scientific basis. health and personal safety, however, does.

One could argue that some morals prevent transmitting certain diseases thereby promoting health and personal safety... not that I'm saying forcing certain morals on others is right, but neither is forcing food choices that in moderation are not inherently dangerous.
 
2006-09-27 12:30:53 AM
Hell, after this thread I've changed my mind.

I'm all for this, as long as my McDonald's fries taste the same.
 
2006-09-27 12:32:07 AM
Sum Dum Gai
The point is that healthier fats would work just as well as trans fats. A study found that in a NYC McDonalds, a large fri and a chicken nugget combo has 10.2 grams of trans fat (5 grams a day can increase your risk of heart disease by 25%). Compare this to in Denmark where for the same thing there's only .33 gram.
 
2006-09-27 12:32:45 AM
sum dum gai:

that depends. because of my background in health and the passion i have for the topic, i do know that the decision to ban the use of trans fat in NYC restaurants is most definitely a step in the right direction.

but if youre asking me whether or not i trust my govnt to decide which FOODS im allowed to eat (notice, trans fat - in all honesty - is not an actual food)...then of course not. specifically since they by no means have my best interest in mind most of the time, and regard solely the betterment of their own agendas.

im the last person to support governmental control. truly. but this is a good, solid decision that will positively affect a significant amount of people.

state decisions often seem better intentioned than federal decisions, IMO.
 
2006-09-27 12:35:49 AM
Radioactive: One could argue that some morals prevent transmitting certain diseases thereby promoting health and personal safety... not that I'm saying forcing certain morals on others is right, but neither is forcing food choices that in moderation are not inherently dangerous.


true, but morals are a conscious choice. how often do you see restaurant food labeled with "this contains trans fat!" or similar messages regarding the less-appealing aspects of their ingredients?

people dont even know theyre consuming this stuff half the time. SPECIFICALLY when food is marketed as "all natural" but still contains high-fructose corn syrup, or marketed as "healthy" but still contains small amounts of trans fat.
 
2006-09-27 12:36:32 AM
God, I hate authoritarian leftists.
 
2006-09-27 12:36:51 AM
and you realize that by criticizing both parties in that manner, you yourself are coming off as arrogant as you are portraying either side?

but, hypocrisy aside, morality does not have a scientific basis. health and personal safety, however, does.

either way..pardon us "liberals" for attempting to save you from toxins to which the majority of the population is ignorant. ill leave you to the conservative method of life-saving: jesus.


You do realize that by trying to "save me from toxins" you are comming off as arrogant, don't you?

Hypocrisy aside, I'm sorry that you can't realize that you are just as bad as the evil conservatives that you chastize on a regular basis.

I'm not a farking retard. I don't need you to be my farking mommy. I have eyes and ears and a farking brain and I can make desicisions for myself. If other people can't, than that's their problem.

I'm sorry you don't realize that for every civil liberty you take away from the people in the name of saving people from themselves, the conservatives use the same logic and precedent to save people from turrists and hell.

You're just as bad as they are, you're just as bad as they are...eventually this notion will sink in for one of the two parties. The first party to figure it out will see a surge in the polls of a magnitude greater than anything imaginable. Or you can continue the petty bickering and fearmongering, and pave the way for a 3rd party to bowl both of your asses over.

You're just as bad as they are. FSM forbid you pull your head out of your ass for 2 seconds, get over yourself, and realize this.
 
2006-09-27 12:41:35 AM
but if youre asking me whether or not i trust my govnt to decide which FOODS im allowed to eat (notice, trans fat - in all honesty - is not an actual food)...then of course not. specifically since they by no means have my best interest in mind most of the time, and regard solely the betterment of their own agendas.


The one thing that you fail to grasp is the fact that when you cede liberties to the government, they won't stop there. They will continue on, taking more and more. The Slippery slope in an ideal logical plane is a fallacy, but when you are talking about the government, it's not. They will utlize the same logic employed to ban trans fats in other things. Saturated Fats, any fats, sugars will probably be next. Etc.

Eventually it will come to something that you enjoy, and it's going to be too late. I could give a fark about trans fats. I give a fark about the government being my mommy.
 
2006-09-27 12:42:28 AM
the homer tax..

did you even read the article? theyre talking about banning the use of trans fat in restaurants..PUBLIC restaurants.

youre still free to use hydrogenated oils as often as youd like in your own home. if you want to eat nothing but trans fat..just dont go to restaurants. similar to how id assume you wouldnt go to a vegetarian restaurant if you wanted nothing but meat.

there are those "choices" you keep ranting about...
 
2006-09-27 12:43:20 AM
I feel dirty for saying this, but I actually agree with this ban. If they were banning certain foods or even food groups, then this would be an example of fascism. But it's just a chemical that doesn't do anything something else can do, and healthier.

When they start banning candy and other junk foods, however, they will be the first against the wall.
 
2006-09-27 12:43:45 AM
The Homer Tax: I'm not a farking retard. I don't need you to be my farking mommy. I have eyes and ears and a farking brain and I can make desicisions for myself. If other people can't, than that's their problem.

The problem is that "other people" have no idea about a) what the shiat does, or b) when they are consuming it. How can they make a decision about something when they don't know what it is or when it's affecting them?
 
2006-09-27 12:43:56 AM
the homer tax...

so, as i mentioned before, i assume you refuse to drink coke in protest of the fact that the use of coca leaves was banned in the 70s?
 
2006-09-27 12:43:57 AM
DoNotSwallow
The point is that healthier fats would work just as well as trans fats.

For frying? Of course, any oil or fat that can reach the needed temperatures will work just fine.

For baking? No, there are not always healthier fat choices, unless you're willing to live with a less enjoyable meal.

shrugs
that depends. because of my background in health and the passion i have for the topic, i do know that the decision to ban the use of trans fat in NYC restaurants is most definitely a step in the right direction.

I disagree. Although I do my own cooking so I virtually never eat restaurant food, if I were a patron of a restaurant I would be livid if someone else thought that they had the right to tell me what kinds of foods I can eat and how good they'll be.

And at home, yes, I do use trans fats in several recipes because I have not found alternatives that produce results that are as good or better.

You go live your life and make your choices, and let other people make theirs. It's arrogant beyond belief to think that you know what's best for everyone and you will force them to live how you see fit. If you think they're uneducated, educate them, and let them make their own decision. They're adults, not babies. They don't need you to make their choices for them.

You know, I see smokers every day, and although I think their choice is wrong, you know what? I realize it is THEIR choice, not mine. They're living their life, and if they feel they'd rather shorten their life than live without smoking, then although I think it's stupid, I think they should be able to do it. I know for a fact I don't have the right to dictate what they can and can't do.
 
2006-09-27 12:48:00 AM
sum dum gai..

i think were on two separate wavelengths here. i completely support the use of whatever you want in your own home..but i think that limiting this use in public food about which the patrons are seldom educated is truly a good thing. your reference to smokers demonstrates your point, but its imperative to realize that those that smoke KNOW what they are doing to themselves, thereby making it a conscious choice. restaurant-goers rarely know the ingredients in their food, let alone the extensive possible effects of their ingredients.

why incorporate something with no nutritional value when it is unnecessary and there are more healthy alternatives? this isnt a matter of governmental control, its a matter of smart perspectives attempting to prolong the well-being of the human race.
 
2006-09-27 12:53:26 AM
shrugs: how often do you see restaurant food labeled with "this contains trans fat!" or similar messages regarding the less-appealing aspects of their ingredients?

Fine, then like I said above mandate that they list the trans fat ingredients on the menu, not ban them outright. A compromise and we both win, you get to inform people and I keep the government out of mah belly.
 
2006-09-27 12:53:40 AM
well this is about time. america was starting to make the worlds orbit spin lopsided due to all the fatasses there
 
2006-09-27 12:54:36 AM
radioactive:

id go for that
 
2006-09-27 12:56:42 AM
youre still free to use hydrogenated oils as often as youd like in your own home. if you want to eat nothing but trans fat..just dont go to restaurants. similar to how id assume you wouldnt go to a vegetarian restaurant if you wanted nothing but meat.

You're doing that thing that conservatives do where they think that everyone one who supports the decriminalization of something intend to abuse said thing. They call all people who support decriminalizing drugs potheads, prostitution - whoremongers, gambling - degenerates.

Just saying. Take a look in the mirror.

The Government's job should be to inform the people, not make descisions for them. I personally avoid trans fats for health reasons, but don't think it's my job to decide that for other people.

The problem is that "other people" have no idea about a) what the shiat does, or b) when they are consuming it. How can they make a decision about something when they don't know what it is or when it's affecting them?


Geez, this is hard, how about you inform them and let them make descisions for themselves? What do you do when people are too stupid to know what has to be done to combat terrorism? Please tell me you see what I'm getting at.

You. Are. Just. As. Bad. As. They. Are.

But keep telling yourself you're not, whatever works for you.
 
2006-09-27 12:57:08 AM
shrugs
restaurant-goers rarely know the ingredients in their food, let alone the extensive possible effects of their ingredients.

And this doesn't help them at all. Just because a food has trans fat doesn't make it automatically less healthy than a similar food without trans fats. You can't gauge the healthiness of a food based on the amount of one single ingredient. There's no quantitative measure of healthiness of a food -- every food has dozens or hundreds of ingredients, many of which play roles, possibly competing, and the healthiness of the food is an integration of all of the different effects of each component.

Again, if I used Crisco shortening which was 12% trans fat and 60% monounsaturated fat, I would probably end up with a healthier product than a shortening which was 0% trans fat but 70% saturated fat.

Reducing nutrition down to a "ZOMG X IS BAD FOR YOU" approach makes the situation worse, not better. It's not always a good idea to look for the least trans fat possible when choosing a food. You need to consider the food as a whole, and that means looking at far more than just one ingredient. And that's something a blanket ban will never accomplish.

The only solution is to educate people. If you think people are so ill informed they shouldn't have the right to make their own choices, then give them the information, don't take away the choice.
 
2006-09-27 12:58:38 AM
Everyone should eat healty that is beyond despute. But this is just the first step to more bans. Why not outlaw bacon? Its really not healty for you people really don't need it so let's get rid of it! There are lots of foods that are unhealthy for you that we eat all the time. What's to prevent the government from instituting a vegan diet for everyone?

If you can outlaw trans-fat SOLEY on the basis that it is unhealthy then you CAN ban bacon or any other for the same reasons.

Lets ban Milk --- to protect the lactose intolerant.
Lets ban Meat --- it contains fat that can clog the arteries
Lets ban Eggs --- they are loaded with colesterol
Lets ban Soft Drinks -- They contain refined sugars and can rot the teeth and cause diabetes.

No one is arguing that trans-fat is good for you but there are lots of OTHER crap that we eat that could just as easily be banned. Once governments begin banning stuff they DON'T stop.

Look at it this way. How would all you "trans-fat is like e-coli in our food and should be banned" crowd feel if the Mormon majority government of Utah decided to ban caffiene?
You'd be the first to scream "That's an offence to personal liberty!"

Its really that simple people.
 
2006-09-27 01:00:38 AM
Look at it this way. How would all you "trans-fat is like e-coli in our food and should be banned" crowd feel if the Mormon majority government of Utah decided to ban caffiene?
You'd be the first to scream "That's an offence to personal liberty!"


The Mormons can't point to any scientific evidence that says that caffeine is bad for you when used in moderation.
 
2006-09-27 01:02:19 AM
the homer tax..

i wasnt inferring that you were going to literally live on trans fat..i was letting you know that the option was available if you choose to do so

you need to relax with the liberal/conservative namethrowing. if you must know, im an anarchist. but, seeing as people cant even have a discussion unregulated by irrational emotion on an internet forum, i suppose that also makes me an idealist.

sum dum gai...
i understand what youre saying..how about dietary guides slipped into menus that outline the nutritional content of everything that could be ordered? more of a holistic approach?

though i still dont think the ban of trans fat could do much harm. but thats just my own opinion, and i respect yours.
 
2006-09-27 01:06:06 AM
Is this the thread where I claim to only eat healthy food in an attempt to be cool?
 
2006-09-27 01:06:42 AM
delawheredad:

you seem to be a bit of an extremist.

why does it seem so irrational to ban trans fat, when the ban on certain chemicals - such as DEET in bug spray - goes by unprotested?

if something is blatantly harmful to public health, it should be regulated.

i stand by this statement regarding trans fat, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, etc.
 
2006-09-27 01:07:41 AM
Camper_Bob: when used in moderation.

Is the key phrase here. They could say that they are doing this because poor uneducated people don't know that and overindulge in caffinated food items which is unhealthy for them so they are just saving them from themselves...

See, the comparison holds up. Nanny states are a bad thing regardless of which side of the fence you're on politicaly.
 
2006-09-27 01:08:28 AM
shrugs
i understand what youre saying..how about dietary guides slipped into menus that outline the nutritional content of everything that could be ordered? more of a holistic approach?

I would love that. Nutritional information is, by law here, available upon request but it can be a little awkward to ask for nutritional information when you're dining with friends. Integrating at least summary facts into the menu would be a great thing. I personally keep a tight eye on my daily calorie count -- maintaining a healthy body, at least for me, requires it. It's a pain to try to estimate calorie counts at restaurants, which is one reason I rarely dine out. With food I make, I can measure the portions and give myself the amount I should eat.
 
2006-09-27 01:08:58 AM
ChevyGuy: Is this the thread where I claim to only eat healthy food in an attempt to be cool?

Yeah, and explaining how you only buy organic produce will earn you 10 Megafonzies.
 
2006-09-27 01:10:21 AM
Is this the thread where I claim to only eat healthy food in an attempt to be cool?

No, this is the thread where you condescendingly explain how everyone is too stupid to make informed decisions about what they eat without government intervention and call anyone who disagrees with you a Libertarian.
 
2006-09-27 01:10:23 AM
sum dum gai:

see..problems can be solved even if peoples' fundamental perspectives differ.

if only the democrats and republicans realized this... :)
 
2006-09-27 01:15:08 AM
shrugs

Hehe, yeah. I'll even spare you my defense of artificial sweeteners :p
 
2006-09-27 01:15:59 AM
Aren't there any metros like me in here who think this is a good idea? It's such a pain to eat out at restaurants and not worry that your food is like 35% trans fat.
 
2006-09-27 01:17:31 AM
fireguts:

scroll up
 
2006-09-27 01:18:08 AM
InflatableJesus: No, this is the thread where you condescendingly explain how everyone is too stupid to make informed decisions about what they eat without government intervention and call anyone who disagrees with you a Libertarian.

You people still don't get it. Nobody is saying that the government needs to make informed decisions for us. We are saying that the information (with which -- you know -- you are informed) is simply not there. How am I going to decide where to eat to be healthy if I have no farking clue who's making what with what? And what of all the people out there who don't know a damn thing about trans fats at all? Do you think they would be happy to know they are consuming a substance that yields an increased risk of heart disease so that food companies can sell products in higher quantities?

I think that most of us who aren't opposing the ban are more than happy to compromise on a system that would inform restaurant-goers about the trans fat content in their meals, rather than demanding that nobody use it. But then again, how realistic is that?
 
2006-09-27 01:30:17 AM
jivy: How am I going to decide where to eat to be healthy if I have no farking clue who's making what with what?

I am all for full disclosure of nutritional information, but this law doesn't address that. I believe in education, not regulation.
 
2006-09-27 01:30:58 AM
jivy
How am I going to decide where to eat to be healthy if I have no farking clue who's making what with what?

Many states mandate that all restaurants provide nutrition information on request. So you can probably ask, although as I mentioned earlier, that's a real pain sometimes.

And what of all the people out there who don't know a damn thing about trans fats at all? Do you think they would be happy to know they are consuming a substance that yields an increased risk of heart disease so that food companies can sell products in higher quantities?

Well, first, trans fat in itself doesn't always mean the food is unhealthier than the alternatives -- in some cases, especially certain kinds of baked goods, having some trans fats can in fact be healthier than the alternatives; it really all depends on what alternatives actually exist for the specific application you're talking about.

For example, if you can remove 2g of trans fat but in the process you add 4g of saturated fat, you'd be more heart-healthy to choose the trans fat.

Second, if people don't know about trans fats, teach them. Let them know the information and give them the knowledge to understand it and let them choose.
 
2006-09-27 01:37:30 AM
And yet smoking and drinking are still OK and kill waaaayyyyy more people than eating trans fat. Strange how that works. Oh yeah, nobody is really getting rich off of trans fats, silly me.

/trans fats are bad and unecessary
 
2006-09-27 01:44:15 AM
It boggles my mind how places like NYC where everything is 100% government regulated can still be richer and more productive than places like parts of the South and the Midwest where there is very little government intervention.
 
2006-09-27 01:45:01 AM
cardiovascular:

oh how i love people with vision
 
2006-09-27 01:46:38 AM
Why are there so many of these fark articles with guys complaining about these efforts to limit trans-fat?

I can only assume you're mostly fat guys. Stop trying to increase your numbers.
 
2006-09-27 01:49:45 AM
I propose we uplift the ban on lead and let people decide whether they want to paint their walls with lead or not. If they are too poor or too stupid to buy non-lead paint, then that is their fault for putting themselves into that situation. In fact, I say good riddance to all the poor and dumb people out there.
 
2006-09-27 01:51:42 AM
Wow, I must say, right after I posted that several rational, intelligent posters started repping the much demonized trans-fat. I'm going to have to side with Mr. shrugs on this one, though. Sum Dum Gai is making some good points, especially regarding the fallacy of thinking eliminating a single bad chemical will save you, but I can't see how this ban hurts people.

Unless it has unforseeable side effects, like much higher operating costs for bakeries now that they have to shave 3 days off their shelf lives, and 40% increase in food waste from restaurants which rapidly fills up garbage island. Or something. Kinda like how the ban on lead in computers is going to bankrupt the aerospace industry.

Damned butterfly effect!

Education is always preferable to regulation, but for some reason people in this country don't really seem too interested in being educated on food.

Am I wrong in assuming that? Why are we all so fat? Is it an education problem, a self control problem, or what? Is it because we treat our children like a demographic, market to them and feed them crap, molding them into a nation of Michellin Men and Stay Puft land manatees? What gives?

/not so closeted "fatist"
 
2006-09-27 01:52:53 AM
I've been saying for years that all we need to do is charge people extra when they take extra public healthcare money. I don't wan't my taxes bailing out people who take more risks than I do.

/actually I haven't been saying that for years
//I just wanted to use the expression
 
2006-09-27 01:53:10 AM
InflatableJesus and Sum Dum Gai:

I think we can all agree that the disclosure of nutritional information on food in restaurants is a wonderful thing, but as Sum Dum Gai was saying, it's not readily available or easily accessible. In fact, can you think of any way for it to be? We would need some sort of standardized list of symbols to put next to items on the menu, unless you wanna go with the full list of ingredients method, which frankly seems entirely unreasonable. I would much rather see this happen than a flat-out ban, but bannination would definitely take care of the problem more easily.

Sum Dum Gai: Second, if people don't know about trans fats, teach them. Let them know the information and give them the knowledge to understand it and let them choose.

I appreciate all the info you have given on the subject! You have definitely raised my competence when it comes to trans fats and cooking. However, I still feel like the only time I am making an informed decision at restaurants is when I pick something with a little heart icon next to it, and even then, who's to say it's even remotely healthy?

Although, you gotta wonder, why don't people make this much fuss over laws that restrict us from cooking domesticated animals? Sure it seems barbaric, but there's an example of the government regulating what we can and cannot eat. What's the difference? We haven't all lived our entire lives eating cats and dogs, so restricting the practice doesn't phase us. We're all already slaves to the margarine overlords (I know it's used in way more than that), so it comes as a shock to suddenly experience a forced weening off the hydrogenated goodness.
 
2006-09-27 01:56:26 AM
Radioactive Ass

Even overlooking your Godwin, your analogy isn't quite on. The Jews were victims. In this case the victim is...transfats? People who like transfats?

Here's a less outlandish analogy: Is the FDA wrong to regulate Mercury levels in fish?
 
Displayed 50 of 301 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report