Re: New York bans trans fats

[Guest guest]

Hi all,The trans fats that are banned in New York are artificial. added trams fats. such as in hard margarine or french fry oil. Naturally occurring trans fats are unregulated. There is a strong correlation between trans fats and heart attack and stroke. That is the justification -- that it is a major public health issue. I don't know if they considered labeling a requirement or not. Tom S.St. , MN

[Guest guest]

Good question. I am generally not a fan of more government "help" and the transfats issues is on the slippery slope of legislating good behavior.I am not a food scientist or doctor so I don't know how strong the case is against transfats, I was personally convinced long ago, but I am also convinced the general public is eating themselves to an early grave.The current situation with tobbaco may be a good proxy for the transfat issue. Few people expect transfats to be healthful, but may feel it's a fair tradeoff for the benefit (as in Mcs french fries). I believe Mcdonalds has been trying for years to come up with a good replacement and palm oils or other obvious substitutes may have their own issues. While the public awareness seems only capable of grasping one or two major concepts at a time, for the moment transfat hazards are in the news and the food industry will respond to appear healthful. I believe governent has a place in food safety and nutrition research and in educating the public, wrt hazards. The cost consequences of poor public health practices is quickly becoming a burtden on us all so this is harder to ignore as a general governance issue. JR On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:04 AM, bill4cr wrote:Not sure of the legal arguments but i assume the govt has the right tolimit or restrict exposure to harmful substances if it is deemed apublic health issue. My question to this list do trans fats pose a public health concernand warrant a prohibition? Does this esteemed list applaud thisdecision, or is this just another example of unnecessary govtintrusion into our private lives (as some claim)? Where does theresponsibility lie? On another related issue, do you think similar advertising should beregulated?bill

[Guest guest]

A few weeks ago I posted an article re: the " trans-fat hysteria " .

While the article was really looking at some the legal ramifications

of the issue, it also illustrated the weakness of scientific data to

justify the campaign to quash trans-fats.

For the time being, I will chose to treat them like the proverbial

plague, avoiding them as much as possible. I feel that all the

attention being drawn to the issue such as the New York ban, will

force more scientific research to determine if trans-fats really are

as dangerous as currently perceived.

Unlike other toxins such as cigarette smoke, most people do not have

the nutritional awareness to easily make decisions to avoid trans fats

in restaurants, because they don't know which foods contain them. I

recently was looking at a website of a local restaurant I frequent to

check the nutritional content of the meals I usually order. While I

was pleased to see that the information had been posted, I was quite

shocked at the levels of trans fats in some of the items that I

assuemed to be fairly innocuous. My point is, if New York really wants

to protect consumers from the perceived dangers of trans-fats, they

either have to force restaurants to conspicuously disclose the

trans-fat content of every item on every menu, or they have to ban

them altogether. Personally, I would prefer the former option, as I

think people have the right to chose. Market demand would then

determine whether restaurants change their formulas or not.

>

> Not sure of the legal arguments but i assume the govt has the right to

> limit or restrict exposure to harmful substances if it is deemed a

> public health issue.

>

> My question to this list do trans fats pose a public health concern

> and warrant a prohibition? Does this esteemed list applaud this

> decision, or is this just another example of unnecessary govt

> intrusion into our private lives (as some claim)? Where does the

> responsibility lie?

>

> On another related issue, do you think similar advertising should be

> regulated?

>

> bill

>

[Guest guest]

good questions..

I think eliminating trans fats is a good idea, as they

are harmful. I wish people who either consume the

food or make and serve the food would be able to make

these choices on their own, but apparently not. So,

maybe govt intervention is neccessary. I dont know.

But as far as health goes, I think it is window

dressing. There are many more issues that are more

harmful that are allowed. And also more difficult to

change and or remove. So, trans fats, gives these food

companies and restaurants the ability to look like

they are doing something healthful and helpful, when

in reality, its not the most helpful thing they can

do. But, to the public, they know look like the " good

guys " .

But, fried foods are still not good for anyone, with

or without the trans fats. Most of the articles I

have seen in the major newspapers on the ban feature

pictures of foods like french fries, fried potatoes

and donuts. As if these foods are now healthy since

they are now trans fat free. Hopefully, we all see

the insanity of this.

In addition, (unless I am wrong on this) the ban only

stops " existing " trans fats in foods, like in

hydrogenated oils. You cant use them. But, It doesnt

stop trans fats that are produced in heating of oils.

So, while it may be trans fat free when you bought it

and brought it in the restaurant, its not trans fat

free when it is served to the consunmer

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

---------------snip--------------------

>

> I think eliminating trans fats is a good idea, as they

> are harmful. I wish people who either consume the

> food or make and serve the food would be able to make

> these choices on their own, but apparently not. So,

> maybe govt intervention is neccessary. I dont know.

>

----------------snip-------------------

I don't think we should necessarily look at this as " the government

intervening to force us to consume healthy foods " . When

restaurants/food manufacturers use trans fats in their cooking, it is

virtually impossible for a person who *wants* to avoid them to eat

anywhere but in his own home. The people who don't care about trans

fats can still use Crisco at home all they want. There's no

government intervention to protect them. The people who are

innocently eating trans fats when they don't want to are who are being

protected.

It's analogous to banning cigarette smoking in restaurants. Cigarette

smokers squawk about government intervention there, too, but every

cigarette smoker is forcing everyone else in the restaurant to breathe

his carcinogens. The laws are to protect the innocent person, not the

nicotine addict. The smoker can smoke at home all he wants.

If I want to make bad choices, it is my right and my own folly. But

it does not mean that I have the right force it on others. This

includes restaurants who choose inexpensive but dangerous fats to cook

with. They shouldn't be " slipping " this dangerous product into the

food of innocent people.

Just my 2 cents.

- Diane