NYC banning transfats

LauraMax

LauraMax

Cathlete
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Naturally (no pun intended) I'm all for encouraging people to eat healthier & reduce obesity.

On the other hand, it seems kind of big brother-ish to me for the government to legislate what people are allowed to eat. If it's not poisonous (although I guess you could make the case that transfats are poisonous in the long run) I just don't know if the govmt should have the right to tell someone they can eat one thing but can't eat another.

I haven't eaten in a fast food restaurant in at least 5 years, but I must confess to the occasional Krispy Kreme & the like. So what, now when I want to splurge my options will be even more limited?

What are your thoughts?

ETA: forgot the link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-09-26-nyc-cooking_x.htm
 
I'm all for it!

The government often does things that they feel are for the greater good. And reducing the amount of cardiovascular disease in this country (which we all pay for through our taxes and possibly through insurance rates) would be for the greater good.

The invention of transfats (an artificial substance that doesn't exist anywhere in nature) is one of the biggest blows to health in the US (along with the predominance of HFCS in foods). The tropical oils they replaced are much less dangerous.

I just wonder how many people will think that fries and burgers and other fast-food 'non-food' is alright after there are no more transfats in them?

I think it's especially important to ban these in schools, so that kids don't get a bad start that will set them up for future health problems.
 
LauraMax:
I am with you 100%. I have issues with government banning anything that isnt illegal. Unfortunately I also believe that the reason things that are killing us (tobacco, trans fats... whatever) are not made illegal is because of the $$$$ factor.
If its not bad enough to be illegal then I say let us all choose! Certainly have food industries disclose whats in their food... make that mandatory and then let freedom and free choice still have a place in our society.

****jumps off soap box*****:D
 
this sort of seems like a slippery slope. first it was the smoking ban inside of buildings in some states, and now this...

while something does need to be done, this may not be it. really, the government should worry more about cleaning up the food that is served to kids in school.
 
I'm for it (and smoking bans). This is like the bans of decades ago against certain food coloring. There is no reason for it to be in there in the first place. This isn't just a matter of choice - the ban is against restaurants - places where you as a consumer go and have no control, no ability to choose what's in your food. The trans fat that you choose to enjoy in your packaged, processed foods from the store are all yours. Have at them. This ban is on restaurants, bakeries, etc. - you can't presently go in and order the items without trans fat. Plus, the state ultimately is paying for this in health care costs, etc. It's funny - people get so bent about a ban like this "infringing" on their rights, but they don't think about the current laws that are the same thing, just because they've become used to them. For example - alcohol. Advertising on tv (except for beer) is illegal and has been since the 50s or 60s. It's heavily regulated - you have to be a certain age, you can only buy it in certain, licensed places. Do you have the "right" to get drunk? Absolutely. But not to stumble down the street in public, being a nuisance. And not to get behind the wheel of a car. Why? You are a danger to yourself and others. Smoking? Same thing. You are endangering others. While trans fats are slightly different, this is actually a "ban" that is giving you more control over your diet, not less. The city is making sure no one is "poisoning" you against your will or knowledge. With the obesity epidemic the way it is going, this is nothing but a good thing. If your meal costs $1 or 2 more, so be it.
 
I am not a fan of interferring government but my opinions on trans- fats are so strong that I am all for New York setting a precident for what I hope is the entire country. I think it is the government's responsibilty for fixing a problem they probably created in the first place with subsidizing the soybean oil industry. (just an opinion)
Trans-fats are not a real food and our bodies do not know what to do them. They are directly deposited into the arteries and are DEADLY! I have read some articles that compare them to plastic in the viens. The extra hydrogen molecule they add to the oil to make it solid and last forever has changed a natural food into a chemical. As far as I am concerned, there is no 80/20 when it comes to trans-fats. We really should try to eliminate entirely them all from our diets. Is it an easy thing to do? No, but nothing worth doing has every been easy. Put a stick of trans fat margarine and a stick of real butter on the pavement and see what the bugs do. They will suck the butter dry and completly ignore the margarine. Nature can be a wonderful teacher. My 12 year old is a fanatical label reader and won't touch trans-fats. (wonder where she get that from?)
Trans-fats scare me and I applaud the vigilent persons who have worked so hard to get this information out to the public despite big business road blocks. Cheryl
 
Wow-I wish MN would start getting more concerned especially with the smoking bans. A few counties have them but then the business can get special permits to allow smoking again. It is just crazy. I can't even go bowling close to home because the smoke is so bad (thank goodness St. Paul is smoke free). I keep hoping the law will be made state wide like other states.

Joanne
 
Hi Joanne! I'm with you on the smoking ban thing here. I think that it's better to just do it state wide than city by city. Only because a lot of restaurants and bars in Minneaoplis/St. Pual lost a lot of business because the smokers just stoped going there and started going other places where they could smoke. I have a sil htat is a bartender and had a huge hit in the pocket because of that.
As far as the trans fat thing goes, I have no problem with it. I wish that they would do that here in MN too. But it seems that NY is a trend setter and we will follow suit soon enough.

Kathy
 
The trans-fat ban may have some positive effects, but I agree that it has a bad, "big-brother" feel about it. What I would like to see is nutritional information in all restaurants. I also think that, like cigarettes, bad food should come with warnings. People need information in order to make good decisions. As for smoking bans, that's a tough call. With smoking you are hurting other people, so I don't really strongly disagree when it's banned. But I can sort of see the other side to this too. I think people need freedom, but with a healthy dose of knowledge!

Amy
 
People do need freedom, but unfortunately children often do not have that luxery. What goes into their bodies can affect them for a lifetime and they, for the most part, do not get to choose what goes into the larder. There are so many children on free or reduced lunches that have NO choice on what goes on their plate. Smoke is deadly for the lungs and trans-fats are deadly to the arteries.
I know that it is such a tough call but those who can't choose for themselves sometimes have to be looked after by others.

Cheryl
 
Interesting post, Laura. I had the same reaction you had. I avoid transfats as much as possible, and I would have no problem with a requirement that all transfats be clearly stated on labels and menus, but this feels too Big Brother to me too. It just plain makes me nervous.

Nancy
 
>People do need freedom, but unfortunately children often do
>not have that luxery.

You are right, but I don't think it's the government's job to choose our diets or our children's diets. For one, I don't trust them to do it, and also it's a parent's job to make responsible choices for their kids. For better or for worse, kids are at the mercy of their parents. So it's schools and parents who need information and to make better decisions. Which brings me to ask: should people be required to have liscences in order to have kids? Sometimes I think that this wouldn't be such a bad idea...

Amy
 
>Which brings me to ask: should people be required to have
>liscences in order to have kids? Sometimes I think that this
>wouldn't be such a bad idea...


Are you serious? or are you just joking???

Missy
 
>Are you serious? or are you just joking???

um, a little of both? :p

I actually know a Philosophy professor who argues for it very convincingly. I don't recall his argument, but it's sound. But then, that's pretty theoretical. I don't really think it jives very well with reality and with freedom, so no, when it comes down to it I don't think it's a good idea. However, I do think it is a real tragedy that certain people have kids and that these kids are completely powerless.

Amy
 
I understand where you are saying; some people really don't seem fit to be parents. I see kids that have absolutely terrible parents, and it hurts my heart so badly to see the way they are treated! There is one boy in particular that I really feel for and after every conversation with his mother I feel like I need to cleanse my soul - you know what I mean?

I do have to say that were I to take any kind of test to be able to have children, I would have failed - and miserably so! Before I got preggo, I was on drugs, drank heavily, was incredibly immature, came out of an abusive home and was very selfish... getting pregnant with my daughter was what saved me. I am in no way under any delusion that I am a great parent, but because of what I have been through I know how lucky I am and show my children tons of love and do my best to protect them. Nobody that knew me when I was younger would ever believe the life I lead if they didn't see it with their own eyes.

On the other hand, some of the worst parents can look fantastic on paper; they have been at there jobs loyally for years, they pay all their taxes, give to charity, have nice clean houses, go to church, eat homemade meals every night... but can be incredibly controlling and manipulative, and care more about image than actual love. If there was some kind of test, I am guessing that they would be the ones allowed to have kids, not me as I was prior to mommyhood.

I have to admit that I cringed when I read your original post because the first thing that popped into my mind was "Hitler". I know that isn't what you meant, so please don't get offended, but he did have some pretty convincing arguements, too.

Missy
 
>I have to admit that I cringed when I read your original post
>because the first thing that popped into my mind was "Hitler".

LOL Missy! No offense taken. You're totally right about arguments; horrible wrong things can be argued for convincingly by the right person. I'm married to a soon-to-be philosophy professor and we have addressed this issue, believe me! I completely get what you are talking about. I have read many of your posts and you truly come across as a kind and loving parent, and person in general. It's wonderful that parenthood can have such positive effects on people. And it's such a terrible shame that there is no way to protect other people's children, when you see it with your own eyes. This is truly a strange world! Schools feeding kids trans-fat and soda...

Speaking of which, I'm sorry that this thread appears to have been hijacked because of me. Back to trans-fat ban discussion everyone!

Amy
 
I don't think the ban will help anything.

People who refuse to take responsibility for their own behavior will always refuse to take responsibility. You can't preotect people from themselves.

How long will it be before we justify the government deciding what you read, what you wear, what you listen to, what you watch on TV...?

And they'll be doing it for your own good and the good of your children.

It is all very scary.

AUGH.

Susan L.G.
 
I agree with you LauraMax. I see your point Susan. Just my humble opinion, which I've been told, 'ain't all that humble!
Angela:)
 
Missy, I've often said what Amy said! What I mean when I say people should have licenses to have children is that they should be required to pass a training course, like passing the bar exam, before they should be allowed to raise children, so they know what the heck they're doing. And I admit that I'm only half joking when I say it. :p
Nancy
 
Hi all..

I work in the food industry, and from the research I have read Transfat is very similiar to what a high cholesterol fat does in your body. ( And, please anybody who has some reputable research info that they can share, jump in... I'm anxious to get my hands on other sources other than Food Development technology magazines.)

Personally, I think Transfat is "the trend of the day" as far as foods to avoid. I am thinking it will cycle out similiar to that of the "bad carb"/atkins phase.

If you recall from several years back, high cholesterol/saturated fats were the food of the devil. Now, in order to manufacture alot of these tranfat free foods, manufacturers are using butter, coconut, and palm oil to get their labels to read transfat free.
It seems to me like a case of "pick your poison!"

I sure wish these diet crusaders would get passionate on promoting good healthy nutrition, instead of going overboard and wasting alot of time and money on something that will probably be cyclical in its "evilness" anyways.

Lynn M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top