NYC banning transfats
- Thread starter LauraMax
- Start date
I agree that I don't want the government playing Big Brother, but no one, that I know of anyway, complains about cities making restaurant inspections mandatory. Just seems similar to me.
As far as smoking bans go, if it was dangerous to just the person smoking, it probably wouldn't pass anywhere. But it's bad for the people around them, who have no choice in the matter.
I have a friend who is a chef, and owns a nice restaurant in a small town, and she banned it in her establishment. She's very proud of the food she serves and said that she wants the people who come there to eat to actually be able to taste what they're paying good money for without nasty cigarette smoke stinking up the place. She lost some bar business, but has actually seen an upswing in dining.
As far as smoking bans go, if it was dangerous to just the person smoking, it probably wouldn't pass anywhere. But it's bad for the people around them, who have no choice in the matter.
I have a friend who is a chef, and owns a nice restaurant in a small town, and she banned it in her establishment. She's very proud of the food she serves and said that she wants the people who come there to eat to actually be able to taste what they're paying good money for without nasty cigarette smoke stinking up the place. She lost some bar business, but has actually seen an upswing in dining.
MadnNatsmom
Cathlete
>>>You are right, but I don't think it's the government's job to choose our diets or our children's diets.
The government is not going to choose our diets. The ban applies to retaurants where you cannot order your food to be cooked in your choice of oils. Currently, most retaurants use the cheapest stuff which is oil containing trans-fats to the detriment of your health.
This is akin to finding that red dye used in food coloring was toxic and was banned.
This is an excerpt from the linked article:
"Trans fats, which are used in many fried and processed foods, increase bad (LDL) cholesterol and decrease good (HDL) cholesterol. New York City health commissioner Thomas Frieden calls trans fat "a dangerous artificial chemical that increases heart attacks and strokes, and no one will miss it when it's gone. We're confident that what we proposed will sustain legal challenge."
But, of course this is being opposed by "Center for Consumer Freedom" FINANCED by restaurants and foodmakers. Why are the oppopsing this? Because it will cut into their PROFITS.
"This is a solution in search of a problem," says Rick Berman, executive director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group financed by restaurants and foodmakers. Many restaurants, he says, are reducing trans fats. As for listing calories on menus, "people know a Diet Coke has fewer calories than a milkshake," he says.
Forcing restaurants to provide menu labeling and eliminate trans fats "is an unreasonable, one-size-fits-all approach," says Chrissy Shott, a spokeswoman for the National Restaurant Association.
Really? Menu labelling so we can actually know what we are eating and eliminating trans fats is "unreasonable"?
Everyone complains about the rising cost of health care. One of the reasons that health care costs is increasing is that people are getting SICK from eating this crap. Banning this artery-clogging chemical is the right direction which will hopefully benefit us all by educating the public about what they are putting into their bodies.
The government is not going to choose our diets. The ban applies to retaurants where you cannot order your food to be cooked in your choice of oils. Currently, most retaurants use the cheapest stuff which is oil containing trans-fats to the detriment of your health.
This is akin to finding that red dye used in food coloring was toxic and was banned.
This is an excerpt from the linked article:
"Trans fats, which are used in many fried and processed foods, increase bad (LDL) cholesterol and decrease good (HDL) cholesterol. New York City health commissioner Thomas Frieden calls trans fat "a dangerous artificial chemical that increases heart attacks and strokes, and no one will miss it when it's gone. We're confident that what we proposed will sustain legal challenge."
But, of course this is being opposed by "Center for Consumer Freedom" FINANCED by restaurants and foodmakers. Why are the oppopsing this? Because it will cut into their PROFITS.
"This is a solution in search of a problem," says Rick Berman, executive director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group financed by restaurants and foodmakers. Many restaurants, he says, are reducing trans fats. As for listing calories on menus, "people know a Diet Coke has fewer calories than a milkshake," he says.
Forcing restaurants to provide menu labeling and eliminate trans fats "is an unreasonable, one-size-fits-all approach," says Chrissy Shott, a spokeswoman for the National Restaurant Association.
Really? Menu labelling so we can actually know what we are eating and eliminating trans fats is "unreasonable"?
Everyone complains about the rising cost of health care. One of the reasons that health care costs is increasing is that people are getting SICK from eating this crap. Banning this artery-clogging chemical is the right direction which will hopefully benefit us all by educating the public about what they are putting into their bodies.
andtckrtoo
Cathlete
I'm not going to get into the debate on trans fats - I see both sides and I agree with both sides (how's that for sitting on a fence?). But I most certainly would like to see nutritional information listed on menus. Of course people know that a diet coke has less calories than a milkshake! But I think there is a lot of misinformation out there. I know a lot of people would order the Chili's Cajun Chicken sandwich because it's grilled - thinking it would be healthy. Would they still order it if they knew it had 820 calories and 43 grams of fat? Maybe not. (It does, by the way). And I do believe that given the information, a majority (slim majority most likely) of people would opt to make better choices.
onedayatatime
Cathlete
Christine--I agree with what you are saying -- that people ultimately will have more power to make the choices that suit them best with more information.
I remember the day vividly when I read the nutritional info at DQ on the blizzards. I wouldn't have guessed the lowdown was that bad. A lot of entree titles give the impression that they are prepared more healthfully than might be the case.....
-Barb
I remember the day vividly when I read the nutritional info at DQ on the blizzards. I wouldn't have guessed the lowdown was that bad. A lot of entree titles give the impression that they are prepared more healthfully than might be the case.....
-Barb
kathryn
Cathlete
One question: why would anyone (but the makers of hydrogenated oil products) be against this ban? It's not like people won't still be able to eat french fries and pastries if they want, they will just be prepared without trans fats. It's not really a question of the consumer's 'freedom of choice' being taken away here (unless someone REALLY wants to eat foods with trans fats in instead of less dangerous tropical oils...and that makes no sense to me).
With more manufacturers voluntarily removing transfats from their products (but also, unfortunately, some misinformation about 'transfat free' foods that still have transfats in--just less than .5 gram per serving) and bans like this, I'm hoping we're moving towards a complete ban of the hydrogenated oils.
With more manufacturers voluntarily removing transfats from their products (but also, unfortunately, some misinformation about 'transfat free' foods that still have transfats in--just less than .5 gram per serving) and bans like this, I'm hoping we're moving towards a complete ban of the hydrogenated oils.
MadnNatsmom
Cathlete
>I know a
>lot of people would order the Chili's Cajun Chicken sandwich
>because it's grilled - thinking it would be healthy. Would
>they still order it if they knew it had 820 calories and 43
>grams of fat? Maybe not. (It does, by the way). And I do
>believe that given the information, a majority (slim majority
>most likely) of people would opt to make better choices.
I remember when I'd go to McDonald's with my co-workers and this one woman insisted that the filet o'fish had less fat/calories than a burger because it was fish! She also insisted that Taco Bell's taco salad was healthy because, after all, it had lettuce. x(
I think the older one gets, the more conscious they are of what they eat. DH and I didn't really care about what we ate in our 20s (oh, I can't count how many chicken fried steak sandwiches we had), but now that we both have high cholesterol, we make better food choices.
If I'd known 20 years ago what those chicken-fied steak sandwiches were doing to me, I wouldn't have eaten so many!
>lot of people would order the Chili's Cajun Chicken sandwich
>because it's grilled - thinking it would be healthy. Would
>they still order it if they knew it had 820 calories and 43
>grams of fat? Maybe not. (It does, by the way). And I do
>believe that given the information, a majority (slim majority
>most likely) of people would opt to make better choices.
I remember when I'd go to McDonald's with my co-workers and this one woman insisted that the filet o'fish had less fat/calories than a burger because it was fish! She also insisted that Taco Bell's taco salad was healthy because, after all, it had lettuce. x(
I think the older one gets, the more conscious they are of what they eat. DH and I didn't really care about what we ate in our 20s (oh, I can't count how many chicken fried steak sandwiches we had), but now that we both have high cholesterol, we make better food choices.
If I'd known 20 years ago what those chicken-fied steak sandwiches were doing to me, I wouldn't have eaten so many!
nancy324
Cathlete
Kathryn, even those in favor of the ban have admitted that it's going to be very difficult for the restaurants to produce the same products, with the same tastes and textures, without the transfats.
I think if someone wants to eat a Whopper (or whatever it's called) that tastes like a Whopper, they should be able to. Since I don't eat that stuff, I personally have no problem with NY being free of transfats. I'm just concerned that the next thing to go may be something I care about. It reminds me of the prohibition against alcoholic beverages, although that was even worse because it was on the federal level, which is even scarier than local government. I think people should be allowed to drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, or eat Kentucky Fried Chicken if they want to. The freedoms we enjoy in the U.S. are as precious as can be in this crazy world.
Nancy
I think if someone wants to eat a Whopper (or whatever it's called) that tastes like a Whopper, they should be able to. Since I don't eat that stuff, I personally have no problem with NY being free of transfats. I'm just concerned that the next thing to go may be something I care about. It reminds me of the prohibition against alcoholic beverages, although that was even worse because it was on the federal level, which is even scarier than local government. I think people should be allowed to drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, or eat Kentucky Fried Chicken if they want to. The freedoms we enjoy in the U.S. are as precious as can be in this crazy world.
Nancy
CoralOcean57
Cathlete
I agree with the Big Brother aspect. I so don't want the government telling us what should be in our food, etc. However, on the flip side, you have people eating all this horrible junk food then suing McDonald's when they're obese and have heart disease. You're giving people the choice to eat what they want, then they turn around and sue you for giving them the choice to eat what they want. Huh?
Same with tobacco. You're allowing people to smoke if they want to, you warn them of the dangers but you allow freedom of choice. Then they turn around and sue when they get lung cancer. Huh? You knew smoking was bad for you, you were warned and you made a choice. If I can make the choice not to smoke or eat trans fat, so can you. If you choose to eat it or smoke it, you have to accept responsibility for your choice.
So I am against government telling me what to smoke or eat, but I can see their side since people turn around and sue everyone when the choice they made goes wrong. You had the choice to eat healthy, you didn't make that choice, you need to live with your consequences. Since no one wants to take responsiblity for their choices anymore, I guess the government feels they need to make the decisions for them then.
Same with tobacco. You're allowing people to smoke if they want to, you warn them of the dangers but you allow freedom of choice. Then they turn around and sue when they get lung cancer. Huh? You knew smoking was bad for you, you were warned and you made a choice. If I can make the choice not to smoke or eat trans fat, so can you. If you choose to eat it or smoke it, you have to accept responsibility for your choice.
So I am against government telling me what to smoke or eat, but I can see their side since people turn around and sue everyone when the choice they made goes wrong. You had the choice to eat healthy, you didn't make that choice, you need to live with your consequences. Since no one wants to take responsiblity for their choices anymore, I guess the government feels they need to make the decisions for them then.
nancy324
Cathlete
Then perhaps the FDS should consider banning them? I know the FDA can be lax sometimes, and maybe that's the real problem here. But as much as I like Mayor Bloomberg, and has much as I dislike transfats, I think we need to keep the big picture in mind. I think those in favor of the ban, including our mayor, are missing the big picture. I'd sooner put a warning on the menus then ban something entirely. I also think New York went too far with the smoking ban. I think they should have allowed "smoking bars" for smokers as long as there were prominent signs. Then non-smokers and smokers could each have their own bars.
Anyway, we'll see what happens.
Anyway, we'll see what happens.
The government has banned lead paint. I think the overall consenses is that that was a good decision and,and still is, a benefit to the health of all. I don't hear any outcries against the removal of lead from paint. The research on trans-fats is just as staggering in a different way and even mainstream doctors are speaking against it. Dr. Oz on Ophrah for example. He says don't touch the stuff. I guess I just don't see the problem banning noxious substances. If you look at the big picture, the ones who cannot speak for themselves will be the real winners.
Cheryl
Cheryl
pixiesis
Cathlete
Again, I can see both sides to this issue. But I think I've been convinced by those who are for the ban. While this kind of government ban makes me nervous, if we think of transfats are as a poison, like lead in paint, then yes, they should be banned. There are other dangerous food additives out there that I stear clear of, such as artificial sweeteners, so maybe these should be banned too? I guess it kind of opens up a can of worms for me.
I also agree with Nancy and others who say that restaurants should be required to provide information, and warnings, about unhealthy food. Maybe restaurants who serve transfats should be required to post this prominently, and restaurants who serve healthier food should also be able to advertise this. I have faith in people's judgement when they are made aware of the facts, and I think that an informed public will make more of a difference than any ban. Also, remember when all the low-fat and fat-free products came out? Everyone, myself included, thought that you could eat unlimited amounts of crap as long as it was fat-free. Does anyone else see the potential for this with the advent of trans-fat free food? This doesn't mean that a ban is not a good idea...I just think it's only a beginning, and that it's secondary in importance to educating the public.
Amy
I also agree with Nancy and others who say that restaurants should be required to provide information, and warnings, about unhealthy food. Maybe restaurants who serve transfats should be required to post this prominently, and restaurants who serve healthier food should also be able to advertise this. I have faith in people's judgement when they are made aware of the facts, and I think that an informed public will make more of a difference than any ban. Also, remember when all the low-fat and fat-free products came out? Everyone, myself included, thought that you could eat unlimited amounts of crap as long as it was fat-free. Does anyone else see the potential for this with the advent of trans-fat free food? This doesn't mean that a ban is not a good idea...I just think it's only a beginning, and that it's secondary in importance to educating the public.
Amy
TarHeelMom
Cathlete
I feel exactly like you do, LauraMax. I think the IDEA is a great one, but I'm a little queasy with the idea that NYC is legislating it. Like you, I'm thinking "How are ya gonna get a great pastry in NYC now?"
On the other hand, I didn't feel quite so strongly back in the day when "they" were first starting to regulate public smoking; I'm a lifelong non-smoker and was totally delighted to see the smokers segregated or outright banished.
I guess that makes me a wee bit hypocritical, doesn't it? ;-)
I think that Nancy's suggestions ought to be e-mailed to Mayor Bloomberg, because ultimately what makes the most sense -- and seems most in keeping with our nation's way of doing this kind of thing -- is for the government to intrude only so far as to require that the public be given good information from which to make their own decisions. And I like the idea of smokers' bars, along the same civil libertarian-ish lines. As long as tobacco smoking is legal, smokers should certainly have decent public places in which they can enjoy their smoking habit, I think.
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/sport/sport-smiley-003.gif Kathy S. http://planetsmilies.net/sport-smiley-5536.gif
On the other hand, I didn't feel quite so strongly back in the day when "they" were first starting to regulate public smoking; I'm a lifelong non-smoker and was totally delighted to see the smokers segregated or outright banished.
I guess that makes me a wee bit hypocritical, doesn't it? ;-)
I think that Nancy's suggestions ought to be e-mailed to Mayor Bloomberg, because ultimately what makes the most sense -- and seems most in keeping with our nation's way of doing this kind of thing -- is for the government to intrude only so far as to require that the public be given good information from which to make their own decisions. And I like the idea of smokers' bars, along the same civil libertarian-ish lines.
As long as tobacco smoking is legal, smokers should certainly have decent public places in which they can enjoy their smoking habit, I think.http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/sport/sport-smiley-003.gif Kathy S. http://planetsmilies.net/sport-smiley-5536.gif
LauraMax
Cathlete
Yes, I love the idea of nutritional info being listed on menus (& I'm also scratching my head wondering how this could be called unreasonable?).
I guess my issue here is it's a slippery slope. First it's transfats, what's next?
And don't forget, this is coming from a govmt employee--I'd legislate everything from what people wear to work to how many college kids can rent a house together. :+
It just makes me a little nervous is all.
I guess my issue here is it's a slippery slope. First it's transfats, what's next?
And don't forget, this is coming from a govmt employee--I'd legislate everything from what people wear to work to how many college kids can rent a house together. :+
It just makes me a little nervous is all.
Miss Lee
Cathlete
I agree with Nancy, Kathy, and Laura.
The smoking ban is a little easier to understand in that cigarette smoke affects non-smokers, but even this bothers me. I think bar and restaurant owners should be able to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking in their establishments. There are plenty of non-smoking eateries and bars for non-smokers to choose from. Ohio just banned smoking from all public places and I'll be interested to see where this government intrusion will lead to next.
I really hate the whole big brother attitude. I find it patronizing and condescending. I'm particularly tired of the food police. List nutritional info and let the folks decide for themselves if they want the Twinkie!
The smoking ban is a little easier to understand in that cigarette smoke affects non-smokers, but even this bothers me. I think bar and restaurant owners should be able to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking in their establishments. There are plenty of non-smoking eateries and bars for non-smokers to choose from. Ohio just banned smoking from all public places and I'll be interested to see where this government intrusion will lead to next.
I really hate the whole big brother attitude. I find it patronizing and condescending. I'm particularly tired of the food police. List nutritional info and let the folks decide for themselves if they want the Twinkie!