NYC Bans Trans Fats From Eateries

" to legislate my option to choose a trans fat containing food is wrong. Much as it would be wrong for me to legislate against you eating raw spinach b/c of the risk of e-coli."

I disagree. Trans fats are artificial fats that are proven to be toxic. Banning trans fats does not mean banning fast food - it just means restaurants will have to switch to a healthier oil, like cannola oil. There are many healthy susbstitutes for trans fats; otherwise they would not have been banned in New York.

In fact, it is a scandal that the federal government has not banned trans fats, forcing city governments to do it instead.

Personally, I avoid fast food, but banning trans fats will not close fast food restaurants. (Politicians are not that stupid)

 

Denmark has effectively outlawed manufactured trans fats since 2003, and Europe is way ahead of the US.

I disagree with Evan regarding the notion of simple posting nutritional warning at restaurantts on practical grounds: they have no idea how much trans fat is in their prepared products, and it would be a beauracratic nightmare to try and regulate otherwise. A restaurant could post "we have crisco on the premises", but how helpful is that ? I would also point out that a large fraction of the trans fat consumed is in junk food of the baked and fried varieties, consumed by children. We don't put cigarette vending machines in our schools, and we shouldn't put trans fats there either.

Manufactured trans fats are a health pandemic*, are easily substituted, and have no redeeming health qualities. I say just outlaw their production and be done with it.

*I wonder how many people realize just how bad this stuff is ?
30,000 annual heart disease deaths in the US, according to this article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...st_uids=8179036

The 2006 NEJM article by Hu et al found a doubling of Coronary heart disease risk for every 2% increase in daily caloric consumption as trans fat.

 

"The 2006 NEJM article by Hu et al found a doubling of Coronary heart disease risk for every 2% increase in daily caloric consumption as trans fat."

I expect, then, the AMA will be opposed to banning trans fats. Especially the heart surgeons.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Dec 6 2006, 10:16 AM) [snapback]358405[/snapback]</div>

I agree. If we allow the govt to start banning things in restaurants - who is to say they cannot march forward into new frontiers of our lives. They should stay out of my dining room or choices of dining rooms as well as my bedroom and any other rooms I may want to enter. It is MY choice - they do not need to protect me from myself and if the need arises that they might believe they need to protect others from themselves do not involve me in that process.

 

"Manufactured trans fats are a health pandemic*, are easily substituted, and have no redeeming health qualities. I say just outlaw their production and be done with it."

I agree.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 6 2006, 11:54 AM) [snapback]358452[/snapback]</div>

Outlaw their production? Cars do more harm - outlaw them - make everyone bicycle to and fro. How about soft drinks? Fast foods too - outlaw McyD's?

 

first. i think it's great that the fast food joints are switching to a hopefully healthier alternative, even though they were pretty much forced to do so.

and ya know, the whole idea of the government legislating my food choices also does not sit well with me. i do not need to be protected from myself. i personally haven't eaten a fast food burger in years but the idea is still the same.

however... outlawing trans fats i think is a good move in the end because trans fats or not, fast food is still available. it's not like they're taking anything away from us. some people are too apathetic to care about trans fats, and given the ill health effects and the condition of our healthcare system it seems to be worth pushing the fast food companies to do something healthier.

 

I completely agree with Evan here. The notion of trans fat being a poison and toxic is ridiculous, as he stated. Trans fat presents a personal risk, but not a public one. To draw an analogy, they once tried to ban alcohol, but then saw their mistake. Alcohol, much more than trans fat, is bad for you. it's addictive, fattening, causes impaired judgment, kills people, and is a public safety risk (drunk drivers, etc). And yet we allow it to be drank. There are laws that limit what you can do when you drink, and punish for taking careless action after having drunk, but it's still allowed, even though it's much more dangerous than trans fat. There were over 16,000 alcohol related automobile fatalities in 2005. How many of them were innocent victims of a drunk driver? of those 30,000 people who died of heart disease were innocent victims? I'd say none - they all willingly, even eagerly, ate the foods that killed them. What about smoking - there have been 63 million deaths due to smoking in the past 50 years - and average of over 1 million a year, and yet it's still a heavily contested area. the government doesn't attempt to ban the sale of cigarettes, they simply print warnings on the boxes. Why shouldn't that be done with something far less deadly?

The government isn't in place to limit our freedoms, except so far as those limitations are to protect the freedoms of those around us. I don't want the government telling me what i can and can't do to my body, if what i do hurts no one else.

As Evan has pointed out, just about any food is bad for you when used in excess. Eating sweets (chocolate, sugar, candy, etc) leads to obesity, which is a contributing factor to many, many heart problems, killing people every day. Should we ban sugar? or chocolate? Heck, even water, in excess, can kill you - does that mean we should ban establishments from serving water?

You can see where this is going... Banning one item from restaurants that isn't harmful in proper quantities opens the door for another, and another and another - where does it end?

 

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

Who makes the decision on what is allowed and what is not allowed? And if you want the govt to do it, what makes you believe they will stop at trans-fats?

No! Let the individual make the decision. I do not trust the govt, especially one that depends on people who have their own agendas and callings and beliefs, to tell me what I can and cannot eat. The founding father's are rolling round and round.

 

Bermann,

Should *any* chemical consumed by humans be regulated ? Do you consider it a travesty of personal rights, that soft drinks can not be manufactured with radioisotopes or cocaine in them ? Are you in favor of organic solvents in tea ? How about pesticides added as flavoring ? I presume that so long as your tap water is labeled, you have no problem with whatever chemicals industry may care to dump in it, yes ?

Evan, any problem with adding vinca alkaloids, or plant derived anti-cholinergic belladona type alkaloids to junk food ? Very natural, you know.

Cmon, let's hear the libertarian position ;-)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Dec 6 2006, 11:08 AM) [snapback]358457[/snapback]</div>

Must have been posted while i was writing my rant

If you want to pull the health care industry into it, then i'm all for that... heart disease employs thousands upon thousands of people in this country, take that away, and i'll be out on the street

But in all seriousness, i say if someone wants to eat trans fat their entire life, and suffers from it later in life, then thats their own fault. Let Darwinism rule, and those that don't recognize the danger in their actions die off. Or, if they can afford it, to pay others so they can continue their fatty consumption. It's not my job, or the governments job, to be looking out for bad decisions people may make regarding their own health. Millions get hurt playing sports - soccer, football, etc. Should we outlaw those, too, because of the condition of our health care system?

 

"i say if someone wants to eat trans fat their entire life, and suffers from it later in life, then thats their own fault. Let Darwinism rule"

You would love Hobbes.

By this reasoning, you must be opposed to laws requiring seatbelts in cars and helmets for riding motorcycles. Is that right?

 

No doubt, but these same people then whine about the sanctity of life, and how the MVA vegetables should be a ward of the state for ever onward.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 6 2006, 12:25 PM) [snapback]358469[/snapback]</div>

We are agreeing again

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Dec 6 2006, 12:39 PM) [snapback]358479[/snapback]</div>

What? You mean you are opposed to seat belt laws?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Dec 6 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]358482[/snapback]</div>

I was thinking the govt should ban other things besides trans-fats :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 6 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]358484[/snapback]</div>

Yes - provided those in accidents not wearing them would be responsible for a greater % of the costs associated with their accident - however that could be done.

Also against helmet laws - Darwin again baby.

 

Has anyone noticed the contradicitons of some peoples opinions. People I would cal "liberals" are all for more and more laws controlling our behaviou. But they couch it in terms of "father knows best". The other side, at least on this thread, who are accused of being people who want gov't to control our lives...they think this type o law is wrong.

Just an interesting oservatio of the human condition.

BTW, as for the earlier comment about writing a check for your own taxes....I think the point was, if people would have to do that, they would be OUTRAGED at the high taxes.

I like a nat'l sales tax and/or a flat tax. I am even happey with a graduated flat tax...(is that an oxymoron)..I just want ALL the special social engineering taxes stuff to go away.

I think a help will be this proposal to post ALL the spending ills on the web so we can see how our taxes are SQUANDERED.