NYC mulls ban on trans fats in eateries

[NDL]

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

199247[/snapback]

Although I am against the use of unhealthy ingredients in foods, I am with you. For I find similar distaste in the City-wide ban of smoking in bars, in spite of the fact that I recognize tremendously, the health benefits of not smoking, after I quit my two-plus-pack-a-day habit.

I hope that all of this 'behavior' demonstrates also this:

This mayor is a Republican. Republicans used to represent conservative ideals, and like libertines, conservatism used to stand for maximum personal freedoms. But once again, we are shown this: In spite of all their rhetoric, the majority of Republicans are for expanding an ever intrusive government, which is anything but conservative in nature.

[regfootball]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25853307/

Again, Calfornia thinking they need to legislate everything themselves....legislating society again.....

California bans trans fats in restaurants

Gov. Schwarzenegger signs bill making state the first to adopt such a law

The Associated Press

updated 4:17 p.m. CT, Fri., July. 25, 2008

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California on Friday became the first state to prohibit restaurants from using artery-clogging trans fats in preparing their food.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation that will ban restaurants and other retail food establishments from using oil, margarine and shortening containing trans fats.

In a statement, Schwarzenegger noted that consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease.

“Today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California,” he said.

Violations could result in fines of $25 to $1,000. Food items sold in their manufacturers’ sealed packaging would be exempt.

New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle and Montgomery County, Md., have ordinances banning trans fats, but California is the first state to adopt such a law covering restaurants, said Amy Wintefeld, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

California and Oregon already had laws banning trans fats in meals served at schools, she added.

The legislation signed by Schwarzenegger will take effect Jan. 1, 2010, for oil, shortening and margarine used in spreads or for frying. Restaurants could continue using trans fats to deep-fry yeast dough and in cake batter until Jan. 1, 2011.

Trans fats occur naturally in small amounts in meat and dairy products. Most trans fats are created when vegetable oil is treated with hydrogen to create baked and fried goods with a longer shelf life.

Stephen Joseph, a Tiburon attorney who was a consultant to New York City in developing its ban, said trans fat is a larger health risk than saturated fat because it reduces so-called good cholesterol.

The California Restaurant Association opposed the bill. Spokesman Daniel Conway said the federal Food and Drug Administration rather than individual states should be developing regulations on trans fat use.

He said, however, that the association has no plans to challenge the law, in part because restaurants already are phasing out trans fats to satisfy customers. Several major fast-food chains have announced that they have eliminated trans fats from their menus or intend to so do in the near future.

“We’re confident that California restaurants can meet the mandates of the bill,” Conway said.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25853307/

[Croc]

No, this is a very, VERY good thing. Trans fats are one of those few food additives where there is no "safe" range of consumption. Any intake at all is bad for you. Trans fats convert to the very difficult-to-burn visceral fat that lines vital organs around the chest and abdominal cavities, and chokes the organs.

All this law is saying is that restaurants cannot use a food additive that is harmful. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to this, unless directly tied to a company that profits from trans fat usage and consumption. Restaurants do not make food for long shelf lives, so the only benefit to trans fat usage is immaterial in the restaurant business. Restaurants are still able to use naturally-occuring fats and oils such as lard, butter, canola oil, olive oil, sesame oil, peanut oil etc.--just not anything that is created in a laboratory.

[regfootball]

well, ban smoking and drinking then too.

this should be a federal issue.

[Satty]

No, it shouldn't. Any argument that the federal government has the authority to regulate what people eat is fairly specious. It should be left up to a statewide referendum.

[Croc]

well, ban smoking and drinking then too.

this should be a federal issue.

No, it shouldn't. Any argument that the federal government has the authority to regulate what people eat is fairly specious. It should be left up to a statewide referendum.

This isn't an issue of what people eat; it is an issue of what is added to food by manufacturers. Up until a year ago, a consumer wouldn't be able to know how much trans fat was in a product because the labeling was not required until very recently. The only way to know would be to be able to decipher the gobbledygook in the ingredients list. Even with the current labeling, you can still be mislead. If the per serving amount of trans fats is less than .5 gram, the label can say "0g trans fat per serving," even if it contains .499g per serving.

From Wikipedia (Article: "Trans Fats"):

Most trans fats consumed today are created industrially in partial hydrogenation of plant oils — a process developed in the early 1900s and first commercialized as Crisco in 1911. The goal of partial hydrogenation is to add hydrogen atoms to cis-unsaturated fats, making them more saturated. These saturated fats have a higher melting point, which makes them attractive for baking and extends their shelf-life. However, the catalyst also catalyses a side reaction that isomerizes some of the cis-unsaturated fats into trans-unsaturated fats instead of hydrogenating them completely. Another particular class of trans fats, vaccenic acid, occurs naturally in trace amounts in meat and dairy products from ruminants.

Unlike other dietary fats, trans fats are neither essential nor salubrious and, in fact, the consumption of trans fats increases one's risk of coronary heart disease by raising levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol and lowering levels of "good" HDL cholesterol. Health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils are more deleterious than naturally occurring oils.

(emphasis added)

[Croc]

This is NOT an issue of "freedom of choice" by consumers. Trans fats in food is much more analogous to lead in paint, lead in gasoline, or Red #2 (Amaranth) in food.

[Satty]

Whats being added to food is indeed an FDA issue, but banning substances should still be left up to voters.

I'm in complete agreement that trans fats bring nothing to the table, and we'd all be better off without.

[Robert Hall]

This mayor is a Republican. Republicans used to represent conservative ideals, and like libertines, conservatism used to stand for maximum personal freedoms. But once again, we are shown this: In spite of all their rhetoric, the majority of Republicans are for expanding an ever intrusive government, which is anything but conservative in nature.

I think what's happened is that in modern times the far right---the fascist, intolerant, racist, social conservative evangelical side of the party has come to dominate it.

[pow]

This is NOT an issue of "freedom of choice" by consumers. Trans fats in food is much more analogous to lead in paint, lead in gasoline, or Red #2 (Amaranth) in food.

Exactly. This is not the government telling you what to eat or how to live healthier. It does not impede on your freedom to eat double bacon cheeseburgers, chili fries, or strawberry milkshakes. All it does is ban the restaurant from adding a chemically altered synthetic fat known to cause human illness to the foods you eat.

The trouble with "trans fat", IMO, is that it includes the word "fat", so people by association assume that banning it would impair one's ability to eat fatty foods.

[Croc]

Exactly. This is not the government telling you what to eat or how to live healthier. It does not impede on your freedom to eat double bacon cheeseburgers, chili fries, or strawberry milkshakes. All it does is ban the restaurant from adding a chemically altered synthetic fat known to cause human illness to the foods you eat.

The trouble with "trans fat", IMO, is that it includes the word "fat", so people by association assume that banning it would impair one's ability to eat fatty foods.

Bingo.

To everyone: I love fried foods as much as (if not more than) the next person--you can still eat your dim sum, fried chicken, egg rolls, deep-fried candy bars, funnel cakes, etc. They will taste exactly the same (maybe even better), but won't kill you as quickly.

[daves87rs]

Exactly. This is not the government telling you what to eat or how to live healthier. It does not impede on your freedom to eat double bacon cheeseburgers, chili fries, or strawberry milkshakes. All it does is ban the restaurant from adding a chemically altered synthetic fat known to cause human illness to the foods you eat.

The trouble with "trans fat", IMO, is that it includes the word "fat", so people by association assume that banning it would impair one's ability to eat fatty foods.

Agreed.

[regfootball]

This is NOT an issue of "freedom of choice" by consumers. Trans fats in food is much more analogous to lead in paint, lead in gasoline, or Red #2 (Amaranth) in food.

using that logic, it justifies the action to be taken on a federal level, not the commie nazi state antics that california is typically up to. the 'we're so cool because we banned it first' mentality.

Edited July 27, 2008 by regfootball

[Croc]

using that logic, it justifies the action to be taken on a federal level, not the commie nazi state antics that california is typically up to. the 'we're so cool because we banned it first' mentality.

Well, if there's a safety issue and the federal government isn't responding, it is the responsibility of a state to protect its citizens. CA is only the first within the US. The city of Calgary has done this, and the countries of Denmark and Switzerland have implemented what amounts to full bans.

In fact:

It is hypothesized that the Danish government's efforts to decrease trans fat intake from 6g to 1g per day over 20 years is related to a 50% decrease in deaths from ischemic heart disease.

Source: Wikipedia, "Trans Fat"