NYC mulls ban on trans fats in eateries

[Intrepidation]

NEW YORK - Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.

ADVERTISEMENT

The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.

Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.

Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.

"Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.

He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.

The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts.

Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy.

"It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient," Frieden said. "No one will miss it when it's gone."

A similar ban on trans fats in restaurant food has been proposed in Chicago and is still under consideration, although it has been ridiculed by some as unnecessary government meddling.

The latest version of the Chicago plan would only apply to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million, a provision aimed exclusively at fast-food giants.

A few companies have moved to eliminate trans fats on their own.

Wendy's announced in August that it had switched to a new cooking oil that contains no trans fatty acids. Crisco now sells a shortening that contains zero trans fats. Frito-Lay removed trans fats from its Doritos and Cheetos. Kraft's took trans fats out of Oreos.

McDonald's began using a trans fat-free cooking oil in Denmark after that country banned artificial trans fats in processed food, but it has yet to do so in the United States.

Walt Riker, vice president of corporate communications at McDonald's, said in a statement Tuesday that the company would review New York's proposal.

"McDonald's knows this is an important issue, which is why we continue to test in earnest to find ways to further reduce (trans fatty acid) levels," he said.

New York's health department had asked restaurants to impose a voluntary ban last year but found use of trans fats unchanged in recent surveys.

Under the New York proposal, restaurants would need to get artificial trans fats out of cooking oils, margarine and shortening by July 1, 2007, and all other foodstuffs by July 1, 2008. It would not affect grocery stores. It also would not apply to naturally occurring trans fats, which are found in some meats and dairy.

The Board of Health has yet to approve the proposal and will not do so until at least December, Frieden said.

The U.S.

Food and Drug Administration began requiring food labels to list trans fats in January.

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives.

"Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year," he said. "The federal government should have done this long ago."

--

I think it's a bunch of bull $h!. Everyone knows fast food isn't good for you, most sane people go there knowing it's unhealthy...who cares? If you don't wanna eat it then don't, but don't force your health nut issues on others.

[Croc]

I'm for the ban. Trans Fat is nasty and unnecessary.

[Intrepidation]

I'm for the ban.  Trans Fat is nasty and unnecessary.

198542[/snapback]

Don't eat the food then...I mean seriously...do you go to McDonald's cuz the food is healthy? I should hope not. Besides, chaning teh oil isn't gonna magically make everything healthier...you still fry the $h! outta it.

[pow]

Good. Synthetic fat =

[deftonesfan867]

Nazi-ism...yes I said it...

[Flybrian]

Exactly. More federal intrusion into areas where it shouldn't belong.

[thegriffon]

Hydrogenated vegetable oils are an attempt to turn naturally liquid oils into something closer to naturally saturated fats such as butter (milk fats) and lard (beef or pork fat), which are semi-solid at room temperature. In doing so they reduce the benefits of these normally poly-unsaturated fats, by saturating them with more hydrogen. FYI McDonalds uses a vegetable oil with natural beef flavoring as a substitute for lard, except in regions with a strong taboo about eating beef.

[Croc]

Trans fats came to be used so frequently back in the 1960s and 1970s when it was thought that butter and lard was incredibly unhealthy. Hydrogenated VEGETABLE oil sounded healthier...but in reality is worse.

It isn't that these kinds of foods will become healthy, but that they will become much less unhealthy.

As far as cooks throwing out recipes...only recipes that date back to the 1960s/70s will be affected. This isn't eliminating every restaurant of granny's special meatloaf or anything...

Honestly the biggest benefit to hydrogenated oils is that the processed foods have a longer shelf life. That's it. Donuts were made before hydrogenated oils, and all that delicious Southern cooking was too...so those recipes will get switched back to bacon fat or lard like they were before...big deal. They'll all taste the same or better.

Exactly. More federal intrusion into areas where it shouldn't belong.

198583[/snapback]

I believe these were city ordinances, not Federal laws. Edited September 28, 2006 by Croc

[regfootball]

I'm for the ban.  Trans Fat is nasty and unnecessary.

198542[/snapback]

"he said, while he lit up another cigarette....." pot and kettle? just sayin' if we ban this stuff, where do we stop? Whole milk can make you obese. Peanut butter is bad for you. That cheese will kill you.

Edited September 28, 2006 by regfootball

[Croc]

"he said, while he lit up another cigarette....."  pot and kettle?  just sayin' if we ban this stuff, where do we stop?  Whole milk can make you obese.  Peanut butter is bad for you.  That cheese will kill you.

198654[/snapback]

No...?

And New York already banned smoking...and I have no problem with that.

Whole milk doesn't make you obese...and it contains a lot of healthy vitamins and nutrients. Peanut butter is actually really good for you unless you get the kind with trans fats. Cheese? Won't kill you. Cheese is also a good source of dairy.

Trans fats have zero positive health effects, and many negative ones. Trans fats became used based on a lie (that margerine was better for you than butter). Why keep em?

[regfootball]

And New York already banned smoking...and I have no problem with that.

Whole milk doesn't make you obese...and it contains a lot of healthy vitamins and nutrients.  Peanut butter is actually really good for you unless you get the kind with trans fats.  Cheese?  Won't kill you.  Cheese is also a good source of dairy.

that's good news because right now that is seemingly all my kid will eat!

just jerkin your chain on the ciggies things....LOL

[Croc]

yea...if you get the kind of peanut butter that comes with the oil on top that you have to mix in, you got the good stuff. Smucker's makes a really good peanut butter.

[ocnblu]

An outright ban is overkill. I would support a disclosure law, however, for menus. This is not like a smoking ban. Smokers affect the entire room.

[Flybrian]

I believe these were city ordinances, not Federal laws.

198648[/snapback]

Same difference. I don't pretend to live in New York, but I would hardly think this is the worst of their problems...

[the_yellow_dart]

I'm with Croc on this one.

I'm all for reducing the amount of artificial crap these corporations stuff down our mostly-captive throats.

Ever read the label on Dasani? There are INGREDIENTS - in the WATER!!! Leave it to Coke. Bastards.

I recently switched to butter after having used margarine all my life. Even when I did buy margarine, I always used non-hydrogenated, after one of my friends informed me of what hydrogenation is.

[Croc]

Trans fats are dangerous, unhealthy food additives. Why NOT ban them?

MSG is a lot less unhealthy than trans fats, but I would be shocked if NY were proposing a ban on MSG and the same negative reactions were given...

[the_yellow_dart]

Trans fats are dangerous, unhealthy food additives.  Why NOT ban them?

MSG is a lot less unhealthy than trans fats, but I would be shocked if NY were proposing a ban on MSG and the same negative reactions were given...

198791[/snapback]

You want to know my theory on that one?

MSG is an acronym. It sounds artificial, so it's easier for people to imagine it as unhealthy.

Trans fats sound natural (and are, in very limited amounts).

[tmp]

I've been in restaurants in New York where I would not be surprised to get rabies from the food. The trans-fat issue seems a lot smaller than the cleanliness one.

Another feel-good "nanny me" law; there are no second-hand trans fats and no geese are force fed them. Make a law to disclose them by all means, but lets get over it otherwise.

Besides, like that scene in the movie "Sleeper", years from now they'll reverse themselves yet again and declare that transfats are great for you, as is smoking and drinking.

Edited September 28, 2006 by tmp

[Croc]

You want to know my theory on that one?

MSG is an acronym. It sounds artificial, so it's easier for people to imagine it as unhealthy.

Trans fats sound natural (and are, in very limited amounts).

198793[/snapback]

How does "partially hydrogenated oil" sound? That sounds pretty damn artificial to me...

[the_yellow_dart]

How does "partially hydrogenated oil" sound?  That sounds pretty damn artificial to me...

198815[/snapback]

You're right, and if the title here was "NYC mulls ban on partially hydrogenated oils in eateries", the reaction would probably be different...

[Croc]

America is just too obsessed with big portions of fatty food...you know, the country really could use a nice long obsession with anorexia...one that extends OUTSIDE of Westwood.

[the_yellow_dart]

Yeaaaahh... 'cause anorexia is healthy.

The only healthy way to lose weight is SLOWLY.

...but yes, I agree about portions. It also has something to do with how fast you eat. I've heard that it takes 15 minutes for your brain to register that your stomach is full. In that 15 minutes, if you kept eating, you overstuffed it.

For me, I know how much I should eat and stop - then feel full later. I hate the bloated feeling of "eating until you're full", because you're really over-stuffing yourself.

[Croc]

Oh I agree the only way to healthily lose it is slowly...but let's be honest...crash diets haven't been big for no reason at all.

The only time I will conciously overeat is at Thanksgiving, as it is my favorite holiday. That's it. Self-control is paramount the other 364 days of the year...

[FAPTurbo]

I'm never usually for intrusive regulation, but I'm going to side with Croc on this one.

My country is mulling a similar ban, and already many snack foods (such as Lays) up here have had their trans fats eliminated, which helps to prove that changing the recipe isn't that hard. One of our cookie companies, spent almost half a million dollars changing their recipe and eliminated Trans Fats. Their sales have increased because many of Nabisco's offerings still contain these fats.

Eateries should follow suit because Trans Fats are becoming a major factor in heart disease and obesity in general. These fats have a tendency to go straight around your abdominal muscles, thus poorly affecting your health.

However, people will instantly think McDonalds is the culprit for all this. In fact, McDonalds, at least in Canada, has the lowest average Trans Fat amounts in their food, because the company is actively trying to reduce the amounts of partially hydrogenated fats.

You'd be surprised to realize that Starbucks had the highest average of Trans Fats in it's foods. CTV News Link and that some of its beverages have more fat than a Big Mac...

For the sake of our well being, these fats should be banned.

[Croc]

Yea...I mean I'm Libertarian and therefore generally against nanny laws...but it's really hard to eat anywhere without consuming these partially hydrogenated oils!

As for Starbucks...yea their baked goods and pastries are nutritionally disgusting. The drinks, though, are fine. If you're health-concious, order non-fat, no-whip.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Croc

[Flybrian]

What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Nothing you eat is harmful in moderation. People need to learn themselves how to eat healthy or suffer the consequences if they don't.

[FAPTurbo]

What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Nothing you eat is harmful in moderation. People need to learn themselves how to eat healthy or suffer the consequences if they don't.

198850[/snapback]

See, I'd normally agree.

But when 109 Million Adults in the North American population are overweight or obese... (61% of the population) you know you have a problem.

It's an epidemic, and plus, the fat parents aren't doing their kids much good by making their kids fat, genetics or not. This shows that people are too lazy, selfish or too embarrased to make a change.

Sometimes, people need to be told how to act and governed. Yes it's almost totalitarian, but even democratic societies sometimes have to wake up and face the facts as well.

There are about 300,000 deaths annually in America that are attributed to "fat." and this also costs the health system billions...

[Camino LS6]

Nazi-ism...yes I said it...

198562[/snapback]

[Camino LS6]

What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Nothing you eat is harmful in moderation. People need to learn themselves how to eat healthy or suffer the consequences if they don't.

198850[/snapback]

Just another example of the "Nanny Ninnys" going all out to protect us from ourselves.

I flip them the giant bird.

How and what I eat,smoke, and drink is my business alone.

[regfootball]

It's an epidemic

Sometimes, people need to be told how to act and governed. Yes it's almost totalitarian, but even democratic societies sometimes have to wake up and face the facts as well.

198856[/snapback]

oh geez. we have a crackpot on board.

"Sometimes, people need to be told how to act and governed. Yes it's almost totalitarian"

I'd love to see you try that statement in a bar in Montana, or Idaho or Wyoming, etc.

Well, since we're gonna start regulating that too, why don't we set limits on who we can have sex with. Why don't we only allow the genetically superior to breed and we'll just kill everyone else. Because the rest of them aren't worth anything as people. We must only live by the mandate of a chosen few.

[frogger]

Healthier citizens = lower health care costs... tax unhealthy foods?

Edited September 28, 2006 by frogger

[Flybrian]

The personal ramifications for being unhealthily overweight are enormous. Shouldn't that be enough? If not, you have to live with the consequences.

Maybe I should clarify that my main source of disbelief and resentment is where this legislation is coming from. If transfat is so unhealthy (and I'm not arguing that it isn't), why doesn't the Food and Drug Administration do something about it? They are the ones that hold the power to set a standard for the entire nation and really tackle the problem; New York City is doing this to get attention and look like they're doing something. Has anyone thought about enforcement...going into every eatery in NYC and checking the ingredients, ingredients that, by the way, you can BUY at a grocery store. That's legally-questionable itself. Without the FDA, this legislation can't even set a meaningful precedent because you as a person can still buy foods high in unhealthy fat content at the grocery store within NYC city limits. This won't even end up 'saving' people, only burden the small, non-franchise establishments that have to reevalute their entire menus. How much impact on this nation's health do those restaurants have compared to McDonalds, Wendy's, etc? Not to mention those chains are already changing their own menus and ca afford to do so.

I do see it as unnecessary government meddling for little - if any - tangible result. People will still be fat and people will still die from obsesity complications because one proposed legislative measure in one city that works against the wrong part of only one part of the problem will do nothing to change personal behaviour. Also, visit New York City and tell me transfat is their most egregious public health problem.

[FAPTurbo]

oh geez.  we have a crackpot on board.

"Sometimes, people need to be told how to act and governed. Yes it's almost totalitarian"

I'd love to see you try that statement in a bar in Montana, or Idaho or Wyoming, etc.

Well, since we're gonna start regulating that too, why don't we set limits on who we can have sex with.  Why don't we only allow the genetically superior to breed and we'll just kill everyone else.  Because the rest of them aren't worth anything as people.  We must only live by the mandate of a chosen few.

198878[/snapback]

Do please keep in mind that I live in Canada, so my tax dollars go to public healthcare. In some provinces, half the GDP can go to paying for our health system.

In the American system, you pay insurance rates which is fairer in the sense that if you're healthy, you pay fewer premiums.

I hate the fact that my tax dollars go to "Fatty" who's having his third bypass surgery, instead of maybe fixing the massive potholes down the street.

[pow]

What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Nothing you eat is harmful in moderation. People need to learn themselves how to eat healthy or suffer the consequences if they don't.

198850[/snapback]

This isn't about moderation or having a balanced diet. It's about unknowingly taking in a harmful artificial substance, whether it's from salad dressings or cookies. Trans fats should be banned in the same way DDT and CFCs are.

Obesity has nothing to do with this.

Edited September 29, 2006 by empowah

[trinacriabob]

What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Nothing you eat is harmful in moderation. People need to learn themselves how to eat healthy or suffer the consequences if they don't.

198850[/snapback]

I'm with Flybry on this one. We need to discipline ourselves. Why not ban soft drinks? Don't these have corrosive properties which, per documentaries, are alarming? I, for one, have 1 to 2 carbonated sugary soft drinks a day (AAAHHHH...love it) and, to date, I haven't had any health problems save an infection in my ankle stemming from a laceration.

Butt out, government. But, like PB said, disclosure would suit me just fine. I'm glad to be told in MickeyD's lobby that the Big Mac has 560 calories...at that point, I can decide....Big Mac or Grilled Chicken Sandwich.

[ToniCipriani]

Exactly. More federal intrusion into areas where it shouldn't belong.

198583[/snapback]

More like bureaucracy. Doing something for the heck of doing something so then people won't say they aren't doing $h!.

[Mr.Krinkle]

its not like lead in paint or asbestos. no $h! its bad for you. every time you eat incredibly good and delicious and ask whats in this invariably the answer comes back you probably dont want to know.

good things are bad for you. hey, thats life. you can just about kill yourself with anything. or someone else.

and msg is a flavor. it actually fits into one of the taste buds. salty, sweet bitter etc. its called umami. sadly many on this part of the earth are alergic and therefore have bad reaction, thus the stigma. too bad though...mmmm. msg.

its ok though because lactose products dont typicall go as well over in asia.

the hell with the ban. people need to get some brains and take care of themselves and stop blaming everyone else.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[Intrepidation]

Anything is bad for you if you have too much of it. It's all about moderation. It's also personal responsibilty. Don't go to McDonalds expecting healthy food, and don't eat the store out. Of course wqhat pisses me off is these lazy fat bastards who sue the company for making them fat...but no one forced them to eat there, and that much of it. People are so f@#king stupid sometimes.

[regfootball]

I'm with Flybry on this one.  We need to discipline ourselves.  Why not ban soft drinks?  Don't these have corrosive properties which, per documentaries, are alarming?  I, for one, have 1 to 2 carbonated sugary soft drinks a day (AAAHHHH...love it) and, to date, I haven't had any health problems save an infection in my ankle stemming from a laceration.

Butt out, government.  But, like PB said, disclosure would suit me just fine.  I'm glad to be told in MickeyD's lobby that the Big Mac has 560 calories...at that point, I can decide....Big Mac or Grilled Chicken Sandwich.

198979[/snapback]

one activist group has already gotten pop banned in a lot of schools and has said that fatty foods are next to get banned.

sure, transfats are not good for you....but its not the right path here for a municipality to take this on, just like its not right for california to go above the feds on pushing the emmisions issue. they should build consensus to make changes in the national arena. not screw up the whole system for eveyone else.

[Croc]

Actually, trans fats are NOT healthy in moderation...the current food guidelines say to eat as few of them as possible.

No one will have to re-evaluate their entire menus. It's called switch to a non-trans fat version. There are plenty of alternatives. Do trans fats improve taste? No. They have little/no effect on taste. Did food suddenly start tasting better since the 1970s when they became popular? NO!

[Flybrian]

Did food suddenly start tasting better since the 1970s when they became popular?  NO!

199070[/snapback]

How would you even know?!

Again, someone please answer my question as to what affect this is really going to have, even if passed? I still predict 'zero' because, again, you can still buy the damn food that contain transfat in the grocery store.

[pow]

How would you even know?!

Again, someone please answer my question as to what affect this is really going to have, even if passed? I still predict 'zero' because, again, you can still buy the damn food that contain transfat in the grocery store.

199218[/snapback]

Well, since trans fats kill an estimated 50K people/year, and NYC has 2.8% of the US population, that's 1400 lives saved?

[Flybrian]

Well, since trans fats kill an estimated 50K people/year, and NYC has 2.8% of the US population, that's 1400 lives saved? 

199237[/snapback]

Can one conclusively determine transfat is the direct killer of 1400 people like, say, a gunshot or a fire, or is it merely a contributor? As far as I know, ingesting a donut will not kill you, but eating nothing but them over a long period of time and sitting dormant on your couch will certainly increase the chances of heart problems that will eventually lead to premature death. So, no, transfats do not 'kill' anyone, but do play a role in an unhealthy lifestyle choice.

Someone with a sedintary lifestyle that consumes large amounts of food rich in transfat will certainly die sooner than someone who has the occasional large fry or french cruller but leads an active, healthier lifestyle.

Again, how do you think this is really going to be enforced if the transfatty ingrediants are still readily available to you and me as a direct consumer, just not you and me if we own a restaurant and decide to use those ingrediants?

[Sixty8panther]

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Government:

Stay the fu$# out of my personal life choices.

Less regulation is BETTER regulation.

Thank You, signed

- Citizens against Fascism & Big Brother

[Croc]

To answer your questions Fly:

When a consumer buys a product at the store, the list of ingredients is readily available. Not so at a restaurant.

More importantly, though...this kind of legislation has already raised awareness...not only in NY but also on this message board. Yea, banning them from restaurants does nothing to the processed stuff in the stores directly, but it's a step in the process to ban them from everything we eat.

For example...Frito Lay has eliminated all trans fats. Kraft has eliminated most trans fats...do your Doritos taste like $h! because of it? Nope...

Why did Kraft start eliminating them? Because they were sued over Oreos and the Oreo Challenge they used to market in schools. Kraft settled the suit and vowed to eliminate trans fats from Oreos and begin to eliminate them from the rest of the lineup as part of the terms of the settlement.

All of these measures are steps. If NYC and Chicago ban trans fats, that will give great momentum to the ball that's started rolling against trans fats in general. The processed food industry will be next.

Also, one more thing to note...this isn't just an argument against fat in general. Fat is most definitely part of a diet, in moderation, because you NEED some fat to survive. The problem with trans fats is that they settle around the abdomen and heart (around all the vital organs), they specifically raise the bad cholesterol and lower the good cholesterol. These fats are synthetic (except in some dairy products, where they occur naturally in extremely small amounts), and they are particularly unhealthy.

In making the change to a non-trans fat ingredient, the product will likely have about the same overall nutritional information, but the fat component will be far less unhealthy of a fat component.

[regfootball]

More importantly, though...this kind of legislation has already raised awareness...not only in NY but also on this message board.

---the purpose of legislation is not for social agenda. its to protect life liberty and the pursuit.

All of these measures are steps.  If NYC and Chicago ban trans fats, that will give great momentum to the ball that's started rolling against trans fats in general.  The processed food industry will be next.

it is not the role of cities to lead social agenda like this. cities are not to be used as mechanisms for enacting social movements. if this is a big deal the FDA and CPSC should be the ones to deal with it, just as the EPA should be the ones to deal with emissions, not CALIFORNIA. Let's stop wasting the money of the New Yorks etc. on stuff that isn't theirs to deal with.

Edited September 29, 2006 by regfootball

[Croc]

---the purpose of legislation is not for social agenda.  its to protect life liberty and the pursuit.

and these laws are protecting life. Public health, public safety, public wellfare and public morals are all valid reasons to enact legislation on a local level. Trans fats falls into public health and public wellfare...and to a lesser extent public safety. I'm sure someone would try to make a case for the "morality" of trans fats but I think that's bunk.

it is not the role of cities to lead social agenda like this.  cities are not to be used as mechanisms for enacting social movements.  if this is a big deal the FDA and CPSC should be the ones to deal with it, just as the EPA should be the ones to deal with emissions, not CALIFORNIA.  Let's stop wasting the money of the New Yorks etc. on stuff that isn't theirs to deal with.

199264[/snapback]

They are not enacting social movements...they are lending support to a pre-existing one.

If you think the FDA and CPSC will always take care of you, then you need to do a quick Google search on all the times they've dropped the ball.

Actually, New Yorkers are protecting other New Yorkers with this...totally relevant.

[pow]

Also, one more thing to note...this isn't just an argument against fat in general.  Fat is most definitely part of a diet, in moderation, because you NEED some fat to survive.  The problem with trans fats is that they settle around the abdomen and heart (around all the vital organs), they specifically raise the bad cholesterol and lower the good cholesterol.  These fats are synthetic (except in some dairy products, where they occur naturally in extremely small amounts), and they are particularly unhealthy.

199249[/snapback]

EXACTLY. Synthetic oil works great on a CTS-V, not so great on a human being.

[ocnblu]

Disclosure is all that is needed. Let the consumer make the choice. Let the market decide. If people are concerned about it, they will stop choosing those menu items with unhealthy fats, and the restaurant will either move to a different cooking method, or go out of business. It's that simple. As adults, we are in charge of our own destiny.

[regfootball]

its so wonderful to think new york's finest law officers will have to divert time from solving crime and protecting citizens to doing raids on back of house kitchens to see if there's any trans fats buried in the pantry.

"put down the cooking oil"

we expend all this effort to get rid of cooking oil but yet topics like abortion get people all frickin in denial about them fessing up for what that really is. amazing.

Some of our pets have greater HMO's than people. I saw some ad for a charity function for raising awareness and funds for pet HMO's. All this effort by privileged folks to make sure snuffy has a co-pay yet many humans sleep in boxes, and dig food out of dumpsters. Well, i guess if it has no trans fat in the after closing french fries, that's OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PRIORITIES THERE ARE BIGGER FISH TO FRY THAN getting rid of trans fats in NYC. Like, trying to avoid another 9/11 maybe???????????

Edited September 30, 2006 by regfootball