NYC Bans Trans Fats From Eateries

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Dec 6 2006, 05:28 AM) [snapback]358689[/snapback]</div>

Zero seems like a good idea. Contrary to what many people believe regarding their diets, if you eat small amounts of something that is bad for you, it doesn't suddenly become good for you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Dec 7 2006, 08:00 AM) [snapback]358800[/snapback]</div>

Good morning my good doctor.
Amazing how many people here seek to have complete and total control over others lifestyles and rights to choose.

 

I'd be content if the labeling of the contents was done in a consistent and straightforward manner. What is "one serving?" - that varies a lot.

My gut feeling (pardon the pun) is over the last few decades the American diet was gradually been degraded with ingredients that are not necessarily outright toxic, but still should be avoided.

 

Yes, there needs to be consistency in labeling, serving size, etc. But thats really a whole other issue. As i said in the stop smoking thread, where does the government get the right, or power, to enact this legislation? It's not given to them in the Constitution, it's not provided for in the Declaration of Independence. It's an act that infringes on our freedom, and possibly on our pursuit of happiness. Where does the government get this right?

 

If you did a history of food regulation, it would probably start around 1900 when Sinclar Lewis wrote that sickening account of a meat plant (The Jungle) that nausated Thedore Roosevelt and resulted in the Food and Drug Administration.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Dec 7 2006, 07:06 AM) [snapback]358839[/snapback]</div>

I think the chemical industry really took off after WW II. At that point they began putting stuff in our food that had never existed before, stuff our bodies had no evolved mechanisms to fight. In a fairly relaxed regulatory atmosphere it was enough for food or chemical companies to state that they had tested a chemical and found it safe. Before that time people mostly ate food prepared at home from fresh ingredients. Now the bulk of our diet is packaged food-like substance, most of the ingredients of which never existed before 50 or 60 years ago, have never been adequately tested, and that most of us cannot even pronounce. A good first approximation is that if you cannot pronounce it, it's very likely bad for you.

Note that while products marketed as drugs, which carry health claims, are fairly strictly regulated and require extensive testing, supplements and additives, which are not marketed with health claims, are regulated in a much less strict manner, with very different, and more lax requirements.

Chemicals put in our food should be tested to the same or greater standards as are drugs, all the more so since these chemicals are used, not to benefit the consumer, but to benefit the manufacturer.

 

"Before that time people mostly ate food prepared at home from fresh ingredients."

Exactly. It is still that way in places like China, which is why the food is so good. Our food supply has been industrialized. We must get back to fresh foods and home preparation, at least as much as possible. If it comes from a can or is frozen, how likely is it to be fresh?

 

I've heard stories that mortiticians don't need as many preservative on bodies as they did 50 years ago because of our diets.

Over the last century, these ingredients seem to have increased in the American diet:
- salt
- sugar
- meat
- carbonated beverages


...along with a more sedentary lifestyle, it's probably created a lot of cardiovascular and diabetic problems.

 

"I've heard stories that mortiticians don't need as many preservative on bodies as they did 50 years ago because of our diets."

Interesting. I wonder if we are more or less combustible in the crematoria? I can wait to find out.

 

Here's something thats disturbing:

Current US population: about 300,000,000
Current US estimated growth rate:0.92% (2,760,000)
Estimated % of US population with Diabetes: 6.3%
Estimated growth of diabetes: 1.3 million new cases per year

diagnosed diabetes is growing faster than our population growth rate - thats a sure indication that something environmental is causing it.

that being said, i think it's compelling evidence for the FDA to monitor and test additives to food, issue warning labels, etc... but banning something like trans fats is still taking it too far, IMO. Remove one source, and you still have 100 to deal with. Educate the public, and they'll remove all sources for you.

 

"diagnosed diabetes is growing faster than our population growth rate - thats a sure indication that something environmental is causing it."

Not necessarily. Diabetes is closely corelated with obesity.
Also, it may be being diagnosed more aggressively. Autism is an example of this. The dramatic increase in autism rates could be due to increased awarness of and testing for it.

 

On diabetis, there has to be a link with calorie-dense foods (a lot of it processed food and yes with transfats).

Some might think there is also a link with diabetis and carbonated drinks, even the diet ones.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 7 2006, 11:03 AM) [snapback]358913[/snapback]</div>

And you don't consider obesity to be caused by environmental factors, like the availability of foods, serving sizes, poor health education, and the peer pressure when eating?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 5 2006, 11:13 PM) [snapback]358294[/snapback]</div>

Actually, transfats are essentially artificial lard. That's the main reason that food scientists invented over-processed oils in the first place, to come up with another substance that remains solid at room temperature. And as unappealing as it may sound at first, genuine lard is actually far more healthy to consume than the artificial lard which is toxic transfat. But there is no difference in taste or texture, and your grandmother probably would have sworn by it.

The only real problem in dumping these garbage transfats from our food supply will be for vegetarians--lard is an animal byproduct, and without transfats, they will have to go back to eating rabbit food. But the eating disorder of vegetarians is no reason for everyone else to be sent to an early grave.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Dec 6 2006, 11:42 AM) [snapback]358449[/snapback]</div>

Any amount of transfats is bad for you. The saturated fat in red meat and butter and so forth, on the other hand, contains Essential Fatty Acids, which are healthy for you and "essential" to a healthy diet (so long as not taken to an extreme).

And lets be perfectly clear here. Eliminating transfats does not mean eliminating fried food or pastries, nor does it mean replacing them with some sort of diet version of them. It just means taking a poison out of them, that all. You wouldn't notice, if someone didn't tell you, this is the absolute truth, and I'm not some vegan trying to push their awful cookies on you either. Actually, cakes made with butter instead of Crisco taste a lot better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Dec 6 2006, 12:08 PM) [snapback]358457[/snapback]</div>

That's right exactly. When the government criminalizes marijuana for instance, they take away the ability to get high for some tiny percentage of the population who cares about ridiculous laws. For right or wrong, those people have lost something, had it taken away from them by the government. But that is not what banning trans fats is does, nobody is losing anything. Banning transfats is more like establishing a regulation that parachutes must be checked before they are used--it doesn't stop anybody from jumping or reduce the experience in any way. But fewer people will die needlessly.

 

I think this law is somewhat ridiculous. If an adult wants to eat a crap diet, they're mature enough to make that decision. Unlike the ban on smoking that saves spectators from second hand smoke which could be detrimental to one's health, someone that eats trans fats isn't hurting anyone else (except for maybe their loved ones). Yes, there are economical concerns with regards to our nation's overall health care resulting from bad diets, but people that load up on trans fats aren't probably a very "healthy" bunch anyway. There are also probably going to be economical concerns in the restuarant industry. Those trans fats come from oils that are processed in such a manner that the oil is usable for a very long time. If eateries are to replace this product with oils that go rancid and spoil more readily, and thus have to be replaced more frequently, the cost will be passed through to the consumer.

If any venue is going to have trans fats banned, I believe it should be in our schools. Children, that would otherwise be eating healthy, trans fat free diets at home, are being forced to eat this at schools and have no say about it.

Additionally, what about all the other additives that are not healthy for us? Those sugar substitutes (I don't know the spelling...phenalalanyne???) are known to cause cancer. Cottonseed oil, which is in a ton of stuff, is laden with pesticides which are also known to cause cancer.

They're feeding us genetically modified food crops that aren't always tested for safety with long range use. They are trying to weaken laws that govern reliable labeling for our foods. They are trying to declassify mercury as non toxic and allow more of it in our environment (in the soil where are food grows and in the water that we drink). But yet, they're worried about us taking in a trans fat. Best yet, under the current food labeling laws, if there's a under a certain percentage of trans fats in a food product, the manufaturer can label it as "Trans Fat Free".

 

Question: Someone lives on a junk food diet, chain-smokes, etc. They end up in the county hospital (funded by the taxpayers) and their illness runs into the thousands. Should there be additional penalities for those that choose to ruin their health in the form of higher insurance rates....something?

 

Yes, without a doubt. In fact, here at work they have just such a system... Health plan rates are the same for everyone, but depending on your lifestyle (such as smoking/not smoking, belonging to a gym, participating in healthy lifestyle seminars, or joining a stop smoking program), you can get up to $100 back each paycheck. For us, it pays to be healthy, and honestly, it shows. From my experience, we have better retention rates and happier (and healthier) employees because of it.

Let me ask you a question... why wouldn't people who lead an unhealthy lifestyle be expected to pay more for their health insurance? It seems that for other forms of insurance, risky behavior jacks up the cost - think of auto insurance. You get increased rates for having tickets or accidents, based on the type of car you drive, and your age (less than 25 your rates can be 50-60% higher). why shouldn't the same be true for health insurance? Heck, even when buying life insurance, they usually make you take a physical to ensure you aren't a big risk factor.