BH
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 7:27 am

Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:42 am

I am doing a paper on the new push in the US for cities/states to ban trans-fats, and was wondering what some of my fellow anetters thoughts were on this. Do you agree with them, is this government interfering with personal choice, etc.

Any thoughts would be great, and could lead to you being cited with full credit in my paper!  cool 
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:08 am

Quoting BH (Thread starter):
Do you agree with them, is this government interfering with personal choice, etc.

You have to ask yourself, do people really go into a restaurant and ask for an order of trans-fats with their fries? No. Just like we didn't ask for DDT residue, etc. If something is proven harmful, it's the government's job to look after our welfare in these types of issues.

We elect a government to take care of all those things that we individually can't take care of on our own. Build roads, establish schools, foreign relations, on and on, and one of the things in the list is our health, safety and welfare.
International Homo of Mystery
 
QXatFAT
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:16 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
You have to ask yourself, do people really go into a restaurant and ask for an order of trans-fats with their fries? No. Just like we didn't ask for DDT residue, etc. If something is proven harmful, it's the government's job to look after our welfare in these types of issues.

 checkmark  I could not agree more! I want to know what is harmeful to my body that way I can continue to stay healthy.
Don't Tread On Me!
 
BH
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 7:27 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:18 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
We elect a government to take care of all those things that we individually can't take care of on our own. Build roads, establish schools, foreign relations, on and on, and one of the things in the list is our health, safety and welfare.

Agreed, but I became confused on this since they are "banning" transfats, yet they are just putting warning labels on cigarettes. Smokes are obviously more harmfull than these fats, so i do not understand why they are not banned(one of the main point in my paper).
 
kaddyuk
Posts: 3697
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:04 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:19 am

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 2):
I want to know what is harmeful to my body that way I can continue to stay healthy.

So you haven't yet realised that all those burgers and bean burrito's are harming your body and you need the government to make it the law for someone else to tell you? How about self education?
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:19 am

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 2):
I want to know what is harmeful to my body that way I can continue to stay healthy.



Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
If something is proven harmful, it's the government's job to look after our welfare in these types of issues.

To your way of thinking, we should ban alcohol too, and cigarettes/cigars.

Be careful what you ask your government for.
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:21 am

Quoting BH (Thread starter):
is this government interfering with personal choice

Yes it is.

Other examples of personal choice include:

Murder, rape, burglary, speeding, slander...so the government choosing which personal choices shall be considered unlawful or subject to regulation is a big part of what they do.

My issue on this is that while this ban has been effected in Manhattan (and perhaps elsewhere), trans-fatty acids are not banned nationwide. Either they are OK for you or they are bad for you, and the FDA should make a nationally-binding ruling that is commensurate with the health risk associated with their ingestion.

I understand the concept of states rights to govern themselves, and in matters of social policy, etc., that's fine, but health issues are a job for national agencies and should be implemented nationally.
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:22 am

As far as I am concerned, above replies #1 and #2 are nothing short of roundabout ways of saying "I don't want to take responsibility for my actions. I'd prefer to have a nanny state and let those choices be spoon fed [so to speak] to me".
 
QXatFAT
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:28 am

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 4):
So you haven't yet realised that all those burgers and bean burrito's are harming your body and you need the government to make it the law for someone else to tell you?

I did not know bean burritos were bad for you. So cooking up regular pento beans and putting them in a tortilla is bad? And I dont eat burgers. How do you like that one  Wink? I know what foods are harmful to my body but if a resturant is cooking with something that I am unaware of, I want to know. It is as simple as that.

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 4):
How about self education?

Well I do do self education. There are somethings that I just cant study up on because of my limited knowledge. Thats when you look to others to help you out. Do you know what that is?

Quoting Matt D (Reply 7):
As far as I am concerned, above replies #1 and #2 are nothing short of roundabout ways of saying "I don't want to take responsibility for my actions. I'd prefer to have a nanny state and let those choices be spoon fed [so to speak] to me".

Your opinion then. Not a fact  Wink
Don't Tread On Me!
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11855
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:30 am

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 6):
Yes it is.

Other examples of personal choice include:

Murder, rape, burglary, speeding, slander...so the government choosing which personal choices shall be considered unlawful or subject to regulation is a big part of what they do.

One could make the argument, however, that those choices that you listed have a direct negative impact on others, whereas consuming fatty foods (or drinking or smoking) do not.

I'm wishy-washy on this one. I think people need to be personally responsible for knowing what chemicals they're ingesting. It's hard to know where personal responsibility ends and governmental responsibility begins.

~Vik
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:42 am

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 4):
So you haven't yet realised that all those burgers and bean burrito's are harming your body and you need the government to make it the law for someone else to tell you? How about self education?

Trans-fats and hydrogenated oils are tasteless substances that have absolutely no place in food. Mono-saturated and pure vegetable oil are suitable replacements in the vast majority of food products.

There is no good reason to "keep" trans-fats.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 7):
As far as I am concerned, above replies #1 and #2 are nothing short of roundabout ways of saying "I don't want to take responsibility for my actions. I'd prefer to have a nanny state and let those choices be spoon fed [so to speak] to me".

How ignorant can you be?

I can't take a lab kit with me to every restaurant I eat so how am I suppose to know what is in my food? Do I not have the right to know what will go in my body? Trans-fats are used in so many types of foods it's impossible to know for sure what is a healthy eating option.

Governmental agencies already exist to enforce the health and quality of the food products we eat. Naturally, it is their responsibility to police trans-fats now that their danger is known.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 5):
To your way of thinking, we should ban alcohol too, and cigarettes/cigars.

The human body can safely metabolize quantities of alcohol. There is no safe intake of nicotine, however there is a multi-billion dollar lobby machine established to keep it legal.

Quoting BH (Reply 3):
Agreed, but I became confused on this since they are "banning" transfats, yet they are just putting warning labels on cigarettes. Smokes are obviously more harmfull than these fats, so i do not understand why they are not banned(one of the main point in my paper).

You can remove trans-fat from a food product without changing the flavor or texture.

You can't remove nicotine from tobacco and still have tobacco. Like I said, there is a multi-billion dollar lobby to keep tobacco legal.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:45 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
There is no safe intake of nicotine, however there is a multi-billion dollar lobby machine established to keep it legal.

I believe the multi-billion dolllar soy lobby is behind the trans-fat ban as well. Soy is listed as a good alternative to trans-fats.
 
Coz
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:29 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:45 am

Quoting BH (Reply 3):
Agreed, but I became confused on this since they are "banning" transfats, yet they are just putting warning labels on cigarettes. Smokes are obviously more harmfull than these fats, so i do not understand why they are not banned(one of the main point in my paper).

People enjoy consuming nicotine. Trans-fats do nothing to enhance the flavor of food; there's simply nothing about them that will cause a person to want to consume such a substance. The only thing trans-fats do is act as a preservative. Furthermore, they're clinically proven to cause coronary heart disease. Take a minute to consider the ramifications of health care costs regarding this substance.

There are various other methods of preserving food that will serve the same purpose without such health consquences, why should trans-fats be allowed?

Does anyone here have any reason to endorse trans-fat in food?
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:45 am

Quoting BH (Reply 3):
Agreed, but I became confused on this since they are "banning" transfats, yet they are just putting warning labels on cigarettes.

Follow the money. There's a HUGE tobacco lobby funneling money to keep cigarettes on the market, and you KNOW they are bad for you, and you choose to smoke or not to smoke. Trans-fats are, like DDT was, seeping into nearly everything we eat.

There's an equally huge anti-smoking lobby. How about non-smokers just sit in the non-smoking section and not complain about me smoking? Oh, right, second-hand smoke seeps through to the non-smoking section. Same difference.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 5):
To your way of thinking, we should ban alcohol too, and cigarettes/cigars.

Nope, you choose to drink or smoke. Give me a list of everything you ate in the past week and whether or not there was a trans-fat in any of them, and if you knowingly ate it or not, and I might agree with you.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 7):
replies #1 and #2 are nothing short of roundabout ways of saying "I don't want to take responsibility for my actions. I'd prefer to have a nanny state and let those choices be spoon fed [so to speak] to me".

Hey Matt, how about a nice spray of DDT? I'm sure it can be arranged. Up for it?
International Homo of Mystery
 
BH
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 7:27 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:45 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 7):
As far as I am concerned, above replies #1 and #2 are nothing short of roundabout ways of saying "I don't want to take responsibility for my actions. I'd prefer to have a nanny state and let those choices be spoon fed [so to speak] to me".

Good point, people should be responsible in their food choice. People choose not to drink alcohol, smoke, etc.., why cant they choose what they eat with out the government telling them.
 
QXatFAT
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:46 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
Trans-fats and hydrogenated oils are tasteless substances

This is correct. Thank you for pointing that out. So now I buy my peanut butter that has no hydrogenated oils in it. Before you could not tell the difference if someone was to put two samples infront of you and ate them.
Don't Tread On Me!
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:47 am

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 9):
One could make the argument, however, that those choices that you listed have a direct negative impact on others, whereas consuming fatty foods (or drinking or smoking) do not.

A fair point, but drinking can have a direct impact on others (drunken drivers, brawling hillbillies smashing beer bottles on innocent barflys  Wink ), as can smoking (second-hand smoke). The fatty food argument is weaker, I'll admit.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 5):
To your way of thinking, we should ban alcohol too, and cigarettes/cigars.

Be careful what you ask your government for.

Well, the alchol ban has been tried and failed miserably. Also, the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have been well documented. Consumption of large amounts of alcohol is at least already considered unlawful in matters of public intoxication, etc.

Cigarettes are regulated to varying degrees, but may never be banned due to the strength of the tobacco lobby. As a smoker, I freely admit that cigarettes and cigars should be regulated as a drug-delivery system.
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
QXatFAT
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:49 am

Quoting BH (Reply 14):
Good point, people should be responsible in their food choice. People choose not to drink alcohol, smoke, etc.., why cant they choose what they eat with out the government telling them.

Like Aero said, give me a list of foods that have the trans fats in them at the resturant and I will not eat those foods. It is as simple as that. You KNOW that there is tobacco in your cigarett. I do not know there is transfat in my Veggies or anything like this.
Don't Tread On Me!
 
BH
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 7:27 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:52 am

Quoting Coz (Reply 12):
Does anyone here have any reason to endorse trans-fat in food?

Not for the engineered Transfats but for the natural ones that occur in animal fats and milk I might. There are some dietary supplement called CLA that contain natural transfats and claim to help in weight loss and muscle gain, however these statement are not backed by the FDA, so for now I can only see it as another dietary supplement that it full of B/S until its claims are supported.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:52 am

Quoting Coz (Reply 12):
Does anyone here have any reason to endorse trans-fat in food?

No, I just see problems with policing such bans. Besides, the NYC ban does not apply to packaged foods used by the restaurant to prepare meals, so it is sort of a half-assed attempt at improving health. It only applies to food created in the kitchen itself.

A lot of this was discussed in a thread a while back...you can read some my arguments from that.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/1454232
 
BH
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 7:27 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:58 am

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 17):
Like Aero said, give me a list of foods that have the trans fats in them at the resturant and I will not eat those foods.

As the FDA has required food labels to list transfats, I think they should move those requirements to the restaurant field also, and req. them to provide a list upon request that list not only transfats but all other ingredients as well.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:00 am

Quoting BH (Reply 20):
I think they should move those requirements to the restaurant field also, and req. them to provide a list upon request that list not only transfats but all other ingredients as well.

Do I understand you right? You'd like a food label like you find on a can of beans next to every item on a restaurant's menu?
International Homo of Mystery
 
QXatFAT
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting BH (Reply 20):
As the FDA has required food labels to list transfats, I think they should move those requirements to the restaurant field also, and req. them to provide a list upon request that list not only transfats but all other ingredients as well.

There is our compromise for you and me then BH. Nice to know we can work that out civil  Wink haha

But honestly, no resturant IMO will list down what entres will have trans fats in them. Most resturants already tell you the jist of whats in the food but not the spices. I believe it was KFC who made it public that they will be changing their oils to a healthyer (is that an oxymoron?) oil to deep fry their food.
Don't Tread On Me!
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:05 am

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 22):
healthyer (is that an oxymoron?)

No, just a misspelling.  Wink

For example, olive oil has health benefits, as does fish oil/cod liver oil.
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:09 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
If something is proven harmful, it's the government's job to look after our welfare in these types of issues.

Then I take it you are for an absolute ban on smoking and most alcohols (with an exception for red wine). Both these products have been proven harmful. How about violent movies, loud music and sunbathing. Should the government ban us from going to the beach? Is the risk of skin cancer any less dangerous than heart disease. Should the government place engine limiters on all cars so the posted speed limit should never be exceeded? Should it enforce 8 hours of sleep a night, perhaps ordering TV networks to shut down at 10 PM?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
We elect a government to take care of all those things that we individually can't take care of on our own.

There's a big difference between hidden dangers and known dangers that people voluntarily assume. This country is going to hell in a handbasket because people choose to do things that are dangerous with full knowledge of the danger and then want to wipe their hands of the personal responsibility.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
Build roads, establish schools, foreign relations, on and on, and one of the things in the list is our health, safety and welfare.

Sorry but if you're taking about the national government the constitution is 100% against you on this. Legislating for the general welfare is not a power of the federal government. Only a ridiculously broad reading of the commerce clause has allowed Congress to legislate things that were clearly outside the powers that the framers of the constitution wanted the federal government to have.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11855
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:13 am

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 16):
A fair point, but drinking can have a direct impact on others

True, but the things you mention ARE illegal, as they should be (well, not second-hand smoke per se, but smoking has been banned in a lot of public places, etc.)

I have not researched this topic at all, but if trans-fats truly serve absolutely no purpose that is not easily taken over by some other healthier substance, then I would not oppose their being illegal.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
BH
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 7:27 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:14 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 21):
Do I understand you right? You'd like a food label like you find on a can of beans next to every item on a restaurant's menu?



Quoting BH (Reply 20):
req. them to provide a list upon request

No not at all. Upon request, if someone wants to know they can ask and be provided with a separate list, I think it would be ridiculous to have every item on a menu listed that way.
 
QXatFAT
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:16 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 24):
There's a big difference between hidden dangers and known dangers that people voluntarily assume. This country is going to hell in a handbasket because people choose to do things that are dangerous with full knowledge of the danger and then want to wipe their hands of the personal responsibility.

Then I would consider this a hidden danger. We do not know what entres in the resturant have these trans fats. Say you were to get a dinner plate of Beef with other sides and in those sides condained trans fats at resturant "A". Then you go to resturant "B" and get the same exact plate but does not contain trans fat. Neither one of them have listings saying in the menu that this meal contains trans fats. Then that is a hidden danger because you do not know which one contains the trans fats. So if you are refuring to eating trans fats as a known danger when there is no warning at the places we eat, then I 100% disagree with you

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 23):
No, just a misspelling.

Sorry I will make sure to use spell check next time  Wink
Don't Tread On Me!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:17 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 24):
Then I take it you are for an absolute ban on smoking and most alcohols (with an exception for red wine). Both these products have been proven harmful.

Read my follow-up replies.

Quoting Pope (Reply 24):
Sorry but if you're taking about the national government the constitution is 100% against you on this. Legislating for the general welfare is not a power of the federal government.

We are a republic. Read up on it. We elect representatives to take care of what the population wants taken care of. If they don't, we vote them out of office.
International Homo of Mystery
 
BH
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 7:27 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:30 am

Another point to be heard is that Transfats were developed to be a healthier alternative to saturated fats, now they are seen being worse. With a transfat ban a lot of people believe that cooks will revert to saturated fats, and they also question the safety of new replacements. Will we find out in 10 years that these new oils are actually bad for us?

I think there need to be a lot of research before they just throw in another replacement and label it as safe.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:38 am

Quoting BH (Reply 29):
With a transfat ban a lot of people believe that cooks will revert to saturated fats, and they also question the safety of new replacements.

I have a little bit of real cream on my oatmeal in the morning, and I like real half'n'half when I drink coffee. I use so little of it though, if I buy anything other than the small cartons, it'll go bad before I can use them up. People have yapped at me for years when they see me using such things that are bad for me, but then go stuff themselves silly with white sugar, white flour, red meat, oh, and don't forget the double-stuffed Oreos.

The bottom line is that trans-fats are an engineered food substitute, with no health benefit whatsoever. At least cream has some real food benefit to it.
International Homo of Mystery
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:46 am

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 27):
We do not know what entres in the resturant have these trans fats

With the impending NYC ban, we still won't know. The ban does not apply to packaged products used by the restaurant to create dishes. So, you could be ingesting transfats anyway under the new ban.
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:54 am

This thread in its entirety captures the contradictions and pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. Trans-fats are obviously bad, have no benefit and I avoid them like the plague. Since they are so bad and since I frequently have no control or even knowledge if they are in the food I eat, I can see banning them, at the national level, in all preparations, period. What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of banning trans-fats while cigarettes, booze, etc are simply 'regulated'. Additionally, I don't want local governments deciding the issue, period. If they are truly that big a threat, then deal with them all together, not in some piece meal fashion, and inconsistently at that.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
QXatFAT
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:32 am

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 32):
What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of banning trans-fats while cigarettes, booze, etc are simply 'regulated'.
I do not see it as hypocrisy. You have the CHOICE of smoking the cigarettes or drinking the booze knowing full well what will happen in the long run. While on the other hand, you do not have the choice of eating the foods with trans-fats at restaurants if there is nothing saying that the meal contains trans-fats. There is a difference between knowing and a blind taste test.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 31):
With the impending NYC ban, we still won't know. The ban does not apply to packaged products used by the restaurant to create dishes. So, you could be ingesting transfats anyway under the new ban.
So this is a hypothetical situation here that I will say...now the restaurant is putting a label next to the "Chicken Fried Steak" that says in small print next to it "Contains trans-fats". This would include the packaging that was opend in the first place to put into the whole dish that should already have a label on the packaging, "Contains trans-fats". Is this to far fetched or could this actually work? Just a thought.

Edit: Spelling


Kyle
QXatFAT

[Edited 2007-01-04 23:36:32]
Don't Tread On Me!
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:41 am

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 33):
You have the CHOICE of smoking the cigarettes or drinking the booze knowing full well what will happen in the long run. While on the other hand, you do not have the choice of eating the foods with trans-fats at restaurants if there is nothing saying that the meal contains trans-fats.

A minor point, if its simply a matter of knowledge, require the restaurants to disclose. However the ban isn't being proposed because one is a choice and one isn't, its being done solely on the basis that trans-fats are bad and serve no nutritional purpose (which they are). Using that logic, cigarettes should be banned as well, as should a good number of alcoholic beverages.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:41 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 31):
The bottom line is that trans-fats are an engineered food substitute, with no health benefit whatsoever. At least cream has some real food benefit to it.

Along that line, I never understand the fake sugar thing, especially when it comes to small amounts like in coffee. People would rather ingest a chemically enhanced substitute of the real thing.
 
Nancy
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:54 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:52 am

One of my friends has a serious inflamatory bowel disease It could kill her. She always asks what is in the food in the resturaunt before she orders it (Ex. does it have celery, walnuts etc.) Now celery and walnuts are pretty visible. Half the time the answer is wrong. If I can't trust them to correctly identify celery, I surely can not trust them to identify transfats. So, sorry, but this is not going to be conquered by the restaraunts listing transfats on the menu.
 
QXatFAT
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:54 am

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 34):
Using that logic, cigarettes should be banned as well, as should a good number of alcoholic beverages.

You bring out a good point in your counter point to me as well but I had to do this but, from "Thank You For Smoking" he got it right on the nose by the comment of Heart Desease caused by unhealthy eating such as trans-fats are the leadeing cause of killers in the USA comparied to cigaretts and drinking. It is a sad thing to say but im sorry  Sad
Don't Tread On Me!
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:58 am

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 35):
People would rather ingest a chemically enhanced substitute of the real thing

The thing is, on the whole there's nothing inherently "better" about a chemical that occurs naturally than one that is synthetic. No doubt you could cite examples where natural chemicals are better than their synthetic counterparts (e.g., sucrose vs. saccharin), but there are plenty of natural chemicals that are, shall we say, more than a little bit less than desirable.

In your statement above, "the real thing" is just another chemical, manmade or not. You want all natural? Eat a strychnine and toadstool sandwich.  Wink

Disclaimer: Post author does not recommend or condone the consumption of strychnine and toadstool sandwiches.
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:18 am

Then there's this....

Acrylamide Level in Food Largely Unknown
By LIBBY QUAID

AP Food and Farm Writer

WASHINGTON — Maureen Cohen read a newspaper article about cancer-causing acrylamide in her kids' favorite snacks and wanted to know more.

Acrylamide turns up in all kinds of tasty foods, including french fries, potato chips, breakfast cereals, cookies and crackers. But it's difficult for consumers to figure out how much acrylamide is in a particular meal or snack.


Key points of article:

  • Acrylamide is not an additive -- it is a natural byproduct of cooking starchy food at high temperature. Also found in other starches such as toasted oats in Cheerios, the flour in hard pretzels or even the sweet potatoes in Gerber Tender Harvest organic baby food.

  • Studies show it causes cancer in lab mice and rats. In a statement, the FDA said it is researching whether acrylamide poses a health risk to people.

  • The federal limit for acrylamide in drinking water is .5 parts per billion. That's equal to about .12 micrograms in an eight-ounce glass of water. By comparison, a one-ounce serving of Cheerios has about seven micrograms of acrylamide, and a six-ounce serving of french fries has about 60 micrograms of acrylamide.

  • Test results differ even for the same brand of food, according to the FDA. French fries from seven different McDonald's restaurants all had different levels of acrylamide.


[My comments]
So there's an invisible substance in our food that is known to cause cancer in lab mice. Its safety is questionable enough for there to be federal limits on the amount that we should ingest. Yet many foods far exceed this amount.

Can we expect pretzels and Cheerios to be banned next?

Full story at www.ajc.com. Subscription only.

[Edited 2007-01-05 00:21:38]
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:19 am

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 6):
Murder, rape, burglary, speeding, slander...so the government choosing which personal choices shall be considered unlawful or subject to regulation is a big part of what they do.

Wrong. When someone commits one of these crimes, they are forcing their will on to another person. When someone makes a decision to consume a meal containing trans-fat, the only person affected is the person eating the food. You have a choice of not eating there or at least ordering something else. Plain and simple.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
If something is proven harmful, it's the government's job to look after our welfare in these types of issues.

It's YOUR job to look after YOUR own personal welfare on individual choices. It's not the government's job to babysit you.

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 4):
So you haven't yet realised that all those burgers and bean burrito's are harming your body and you need the government to make it the law for someone else to tell you? How about self education?

 checkmark 
You'd think people would be smart enough to make their own decisions when it comes to this sort of things, but apparently not. They need the government to tell them what to do.

Quoting Pope (Reply 24):
Sorry but if you're taking about the national government the constitution is 100% against you on this. Legislating for the general welfare is not a power of the federal government.

You hit the nail on the head here Pope. The Preamble of the Constitution states "Promote the general welfare", not legislate it. Warning labels would be one thing. An outright ban is another.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:22 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 40):
Wrong.

Well, I'm not wrong in my statement, it's just that you draw a distinction that I can see but don't view as strongly as you do.
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
IFEMaster
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:17 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:24 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 24):
I take it you are for an absolute ban on smoking and most alcohols (with an exception for red wine). Both these products have been proven harmful. How about violent movies, loud music and sunbathing. Should the government ban us from going to the beach? Is the risk of skin cancer any less dangerous than heart disease. Should the government place engine limiters on all cars so the posted speed limit should never be exceeded? Should the government place engine limiters on all cars so the posted speed lim!
it should never be exceeded?

This is a laughable post. Let's break it down...

Quoting Pope (Reply 24):
I take it you are for an absolute ban on smoking and most alcohols (with an exception for red wine).

People choose to drink when they are fully aware of the dangers. And people choose to smoke when they are fully away of the dangers. (And by the way, Red Wine can be equally as dangerous, a beers and spirits and other wines also have their benefits).

Quoting Pope (Reply 24):
How about violent movies, loud music

People choose to watch movies and turn the volume up.

Quoting Pope (Reply 24):
sunbathing. Should the government ban us from going to the beach?Is the risk of skin cancer any less dangerous than heart disease.

People choose to go sunbathing.

Quoting Pope (Reply 24):
Should the government place engine limiters on all cars so the posted speed limit should never be exceeded?

People choose to go faster than safe and/or posted.

Quoting Pope (Reply 24):
Should the government place engine limiters on all cars so the posted speed limit should never be exceeded?

People choose to sleep late or get up early.

Now, in all of those choices, those who made them will suffer the consequences.

Pope, when was the last time you were given an informed choice of what food to eat that contains a trans fat?

Your illustrations and comparisons don't work I'm afraid; you are comparing apples to oranges.
Delivering Anecdotes of Dubious Relevance Since 1978
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:40 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 40):
It's YOUR job to look after YOUR own personal welfare on individual choices. It's not the government's job to babysit you.

Not saying the government should babysit us. See my previous argument regarding DDT. It was proven to be harmful, and removed. I don't see anyone running around banging pots and pans trying to get DDT used again, do you?
International Homo of Mystery
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:49 am

I think this is going overboard. Trans-fats are not classified as a poison or a contaminant. While they might not be the most healthy ingredient in foods, I don't think local or national governments should be able to regulate whether or not foods contain trans-fats. It's another situation of "let the buyer beware".
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:21 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 43):
I don't see anyone running around banging pots and pans trying to get DDT used again, do you?

Actually, yes. They are....

http://syndication.indiatimes.com/articleshow.cms?msid=20451713


The whacko "scientist," Rachel Carson's idea has now been shown to have killed many millions of people because due to the banning of DDT, malaria is making a comeback, and in many third world countries, millions are suffering the effects of malaria, resulting in death each year... DDT has NEVER ONCE KILLED ANY HUMAN, but it's ban has resulted in deaths all over the world in an alarming rate..

[Edited 2007-01-05 01:26:07]
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:25 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 45):
Actually, yes. They are....

Personally, I'm glad you had to go halfway around the globe to pick up a promoter of DDT. How about something more domestic, and for its use as it was during its prime?
International Homo of Mystery
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:26 am

Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 42):
Pope, when was the last time you were given an informed choice of what food to eat that contains a trans fat?

The nutritional information is often available (like many of the fast food chains post this information online), should you ask for it. If it isn't, this should have been the action required by the government: requiring restuarants to have the nutrutional information of the food they serve on hand should someone ask for it.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 43):
Not saying the government should babysit us. See my previous argument regarding DDT. It was proven to be harmful, and removed. I don't see anyone running around banging pots and pans trying to get DDT used again, do you?

DDT was slightly more dangerous than trans fats.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
BH
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 7:27 am

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:47 am

Thanks for all the quick responses everyone. I am about halfway through my paper, so keep them coming.

So far these 2 post are directly cited in my work, thanks Queso and CastleIsland. I will make my paper available to anyone cited so far, along with anyone else that would like to read it when completed.

Quoting Queso (Reply 44):
I think this is going overboard. Trans-fats are not classified as a poison or a contaminant. While they might not be the most healthy ingredient in foods, I don't think local or national governments should be able to regulate whether or not foods contain trans-fats. It's another situation of "let the buyer beware".



Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 6):
My issue on this is that while this ban has been effected in Manhattan (and perhaps elsewhere), trans-fatty acids are not banned nationwide. Either they are OK for you or they are bad for you, and the FDA should make a nationally-binding ruling that is commensurate with the health risk associated with their ingestion.
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:02 pm

Quoting BH (Reply 48):
So far these 2 post are directly cited in my work, thanks Queso and CastleIsland.

Glad I could help out, I'm sure CastleIsland will be too. Somewhat ironic that those are the two you chose (so far), he and I see a lot of things differently but I consider him a very good friend.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: northstardc4m and 15 guests