Hasta La Vista, Fatty...aka Schwarzenegger bans trans fats in restaurants

[Delirious]

In July the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed a bill that would ban trans fats in restaurants. This law took effect on January 1, 2010 for oil and shortening, but January 1, 2011 is the date for discontinuing deep-frying yeast dough and cake batter. Violation of this law could result in a fine of $25 to $1000.

The law barring restaurants from using oils and shortening with more than half a gram of trans fat per serving was pushed by medical groups, including the California Academy of Family Physicians.

New York City, Seattle, Philadelphia and parts of Maryland have banned trans fats in some areas. California is the first state with this law.

Trans fats are basically a partially hydrogenated oil, which is formed when liquid oils are treated with hydrogen to turn them into a solid, for example margarine and shortening. Experts have tied trans fats to clogged arteries, strokes and heart disease. Yet, some think what you eat should be a personal choice. Critics of this ban are under the opinion that people are able to make their own decisions whether they want to eat trans fats or not. If all the facts are presented and visible, then people have the right to choose what they want to eat.

http://www.efitnessnow.com/news/2010/01/03/schwarzenegger-bans-trans-fats-in-california/

Do you think this is a right thing to do? One could say someone has their own personal choice whether or not to have trans fats in their foods or not. Another thing could be having a choice of trans fats or not, but that sounds difficult to implement. Another one could say trans fats are bad all together and you should avoid them at all costs...whats your say?

 

[Tornado]

Not this nonsense again.

 

[niky]

It's funny...

I haven't seen California ban the sale of beef to the public yet. Or milk. Or butter.

True, there is evidence that trans-saturated fats are worse than saturated fats... but it smacks of alarmism to completely ban them. Putting large warning labels may just be enough, especially since to switch products over to less harmful forms of fat isn't as expensive as, say, growing organic crops.

C'mon, this is capitalism! Let the consumers decide!

 

[Slicks]

Well, good thing I don't live in California.

I like to decide what I eat, thanks - Not the gov't.



Breaking news: Arnie mandates 4-6 servings of fruit and veggies, also Wheaties.
[/s]

 

[Swift]

LOL, California is going broke, congress shuts down water to the best farmland in the country and the best thing the terminator can do is kill trans-fats? What a punk.

 

[Northstar]

I love how all these places are banning trans-fats, yet we are just getting fatter.

 

[FoolKiller]

Do you think this is a right thing to do? One could say someone has their own personal choice whether or not to have trans fats in their foods or not. Another thing could be having a choice of trans fats or not, but that sounds difficult to implement. Another one could say trans fats are bad all together and you should avoid them at all costs...whats your say?

You also forgot the business owner's right to cook using whatever ingredients are legally available on the market and will gain him an increase in business.

I love how all these places are banning trans-fats, yet we are just getting fatter.

Because it doesn't change eating habits, and trans-fats is more of a cholesterol/heart disease issue. The comedy to all of this is that trans-fats, such as shortening and margarine, were brought in as the healthy alternative to things like lard and butter.

And with these bans I have seen people think that certain foods are actually healthier now and have even heard people, including from GTPlanet, say that these kinds of bans will make them eat healthier (they apparently have no self control) so they support them. But as you point out, people still eat crap and still get fat and still have a heart attack and die.



In the end this is another case of governments believing that they are so much more intelligent than the average citizen that they can tell you how to live your life, down to things as small as what kinds of ingredients to use in cooking and what light bulbs to buy.

 

[Mark T]

99% of peole aren't going to notice the difference anyway. If it helps promote a healthy lifestyle and doesn't affect the price of the food then why worry?

 

[Northstar]

99% of people aren't going to notice the difference anyway. If it helps promote a healthy lifestyle and doesn't affect the price of the food then why worry?

The problem is that people have a tendency to think if the government bans something like trans-fats people think they can eat as much food as they want as long as it doesn't have trans-fat in it. Essentially we have a serious lack of self-control.

 

[Mark T]

The problem is that people have a tendency to think if the government bans something like trans-fats people think they can eat as much food as they want as long as it doesn't have trans-fat in it.

Maybe, but I can only see it as beneficial to the customer. To be honest I'd rather not eat in a restaurant that uses trans-fats. I'm sure the only reason it's used is because it's dirt cheap.

 

[Tornado]

99% of peole aren't going to notice the difference anyway. If it helps promote a healthy lifestyle and doesn't affect the price of the food then why worry?

Because the government shouldn't be making that decision for the people in the first place.

 

[FoolKiller]

99% of peole aren't going to notice the difference anyway. If it helps promote a healthy lifestyle and doesn't affect the price of the food then why worry?

How does it promote a healthy lifestyle? You remove one part of an overall unhealthy diet, but don't actually change the diet?

In this picture the only thing affected by this is the type of oil used to deep fry the french fries.

That does not promote a healthy lifestyle, and even using trans-fat free oil doesn't change the fact that you cut up carb laden potatoes and dipped them in boiling oil.

In the end it is a waste of taxpayer money and achieves nothing. The true comedy in this is the fact that after New York City banned trans fast most places stopped using them anyway. McDonald's, the icon for healthy lifestyles, does not use trans fats now. Neither does Wendy's or KFC. Basically, the only thing a local government is doing by enacting a trans-fat ban now is attacking the locally owned places, and making themselves feel and look like they are actually doing something important.


And I worry because when government believes they can tell you what food products you can and cannot eat they have little incentive to stop encroaching on all other minute aspects of your life. Governments are also attacking soda and other sugary foods in the US, to the degree of comparing them to tobacco. Where does it end? And if you think that allowing governments to dictate healthy living is a good idea think very carefully about what exactly it would entail to truly make the average person live a healthy lifestyle.

Maybe, but I can only see it as beneficial to the customer.

Good thing they don't own the businesses being regulated then, huh?

To be honest I'd rather not eat in a restaurant that uses trans-fats.

Then don't. It is amazing how the free market works that way.

I'm sure the only reason it's used is because it's dirt cheap.

But you just said that it doesn't affect the price of the food.
If it is a price thing then you are hurting local businesses by banning it, and if price is not a factor then maybe we should look at why it is used before we go banning it.

 

[niky]

And even if you're using non-trans-fat oil for the fries... you're still using fat-laden oil for the fries... not to mention all those yummy saturated fats in the burger and the cheese.

Frying is unhealthy, period. Just by banning trans-fats, you're not stopping people from eating unhealthy foods... you're telling them that suddenly their burger and fries diet is healthier.

I'm diabetic... and I also have adverse reactions to fryer oil at times. Do I think that fast food outlets should ban sodas and french fries? No. I simply drink water and eat crackers.

I think it's a woeful thing that they concentrate on what is simply the buzz of the moment and ignore other, more important sources of dangerous fats in our food... beef and pork. of course... that being "natural" means that they're "better". Doesn't seem to stop heart disease in pork-eating populations.

And what about refined sugar? Refined sugar is some of the worst stuff you can eat, and too much of it can cause diabetes. Nobody's banned that yet... and yet, many products now make do without it simply due to market demand for "healthier" options.

 

[YSSMAN]

Governments are also attacking soda and other sugary foods in the US, to the degree of comparing them to tobacco. Where does it end? And if you think that allowing governments to dictate healthy living is a good idea think very carefully about what exactly it would entail to truly make the average person live a healthy lifestyle.

Interesting that the government subsidizes High Fructose Corn Syrup then, eh? Interesting how the whole argument kinda goes back to health policy too. To paraphrase the dude on the Daily Show tonight, "Imagine what happens if Health Insurance companies actually have to give a damn about our health."

Because the government shouldn't be making that decision for the people in the first place.

Depends on your opinion. I'd care to wager that people across the country are going to make a much larger hullabaloo than those in the Republic (given their progressive nature and political activenessesnenesnsnes, probably not). Food policy walks a very thin line with a lot of people simply because it is a very personal thing. We don't want government controlling what we can and cannot eat, but at the same time, we want them to protect us from unsafe practices and policies in the creation of that food that we consume.

 

[Max_DC]

I think it is a good idea. Actually giving people the choice by putting a label on food is the wrong way, because the result would be what you described : People would think, that they can eat as much as they want, because they chose food without transfats.

I don't know if a ban is the right way, I'd prefer a law that forces a massive reduction un use for the whole food industry. For examle no food product may have more than 20% trans fat acids ( regarding total fat ).

While it might not change the life style of people, it never the less helps increasing the overal health status.

If people only (99%) consumed olive oil and omega 3 fat acids then one major risk factor for ateriosclerosis and adipositas would be eliminanted. So this law is a step in the right direction, but of course not the solution to all health related problems...

 

[Bram Turismo]

Because it doesn't change eating habits, and trans-fats is more of a cholesterol/heart disease issue. The comedy to all of this is that trans-fats, such as shortening and margarine, were brought in as the healthy alternative to things like lard and butter.

And with these bans I have seen people think that certain foods are actually healthier now and have even heard people, including from GTPlanet, say that these kinds of bans will make them eat healthier (they apparently have no self control) so they support them. But as you point out, people still eat crap and still get fat and still have a heart attack and die.

[/thread]

You don't get fat or get healthier by eating healthier. You get healthier by moving that fat bottom out of the couch and get active! I get so frustrated with people that think they'll live a happy and healthy life by eating healthier and not caring about the energy it takes to burn away all the calories you take in. Wrong. If you don't move your butt, you are not getting any healthier at all. I still eat crap every now and then, but only because I don't want to spend tons of money each day on fresh vegetables and potatoes and whatnot. I lost about 15-20 kilos of weight when I was 16. Not because I changed my eating habits, which I didn't, but because I started with heavy cardio.

You, Mr. Arnold, are ruining the food party.

 

[Sureboss]

I lost 6 & 1/2 stone without getting active. You can lose weight by simply eating healthier, of course getting active works too, but it's not the sole requirement.

 

[Bram Turismo]

I lost 6 & 1/2 stone without getting active. You can lose weight by simply eating healthier, of course getting active works too, but it's not the sole requirement.

Keep personal motabolism in mind and personal causes of being overweight. I was overweight not by eating rubbish, but never being active.

 

[FoolKiller]

Interesting that the government subsidizes High Fructose Corn Syrup then, eh?

Local city governments are currently attacking sodas, San Francisco most recently, and they are not able to control federal subsidies. But there have been unsuccessful ideas tossed about to tax soft drinks to pay for the health care proposals. My guess is that they are unsuccessful because Congress doesn't want to attack an industry they are subsidizing, and have actually gone out of their way to avoid attacking any one industry in this (aside from insurance companies, but they are getting paid off by the mandate).

Interesting how the whole argument kinda goes back to health policy too. To paraphrase the dude on the Daily Show tonight, "Imagine what happens if Health Insurance companies actually have to give a damn about our health."

I didn't want to bring this up, because it borders on sounding like a conspiracy theory, but if Congress can defend a health care plan with a mandate by touting general welfare in the Constitution, imagine what kind of food regulations of this nature they can bring up in the name of general welfare if your poor eating habits is seen as a cost threat to that general welfare they claim to be defending.

Food policy walks a very thin line with a lot of people simply because it is a very personal thing. We don't want government controlling what we can and cannot eat, but at the same time, we want them to protect us from unsafe practices and policies in the creation of that food that we consume.

The difference is a very distinct line and shouldn't need an explanation of the differences. One limits your ability to choose as you wish based on your own informed consent, while the other protects you from dangers that you are unaware of and thus cannot have informed consent when choosing it.

It is the difference between me choosing to eat fugu, knowing full well that if it is improperly prepared I risk ingesting tetrodotoxin, and having someone throw some fugu into a can of tuna without telling me. One is my personal choice, which should never be regulated, and the other is outside of my ability to consent to, which could be considered gross neglect, and possibly manslaughter.

I think it is a good idea. Actually giving people the choice by putting a label on food is the wrong way, because the result would be what you described : People would think, that they can eat as much as they want, because they chose food without transfats.

So we should regulate against ignorance? Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to have a proper education campaign that does not infringe on rights? If ignorance is the issue then education should be the answer.

I don't know if a ban is the right way, I'd prefer a law that forces a massive reduction un use for the whole food industry. For examle no food product may have more than 20% trans fat acids ( regarding total fat ).

Wow, so you not only want to limit business owners abilities to sell it, but even down to the consumer level? To what degree do you enforce this? Are you raiding home kitchens to ensure that shortening isn't being used in pie crusts? How do you prevent people from going back to the really bad stuff trans fats replaced as a healthier alternative, such as lard and butter (both of which I still use in some cooking, by the way)?

While it might not change the life style of people, it never the less helps increasing the overal health status.

If your health status is the responsibility of your government, not yourself, where does it end? Regulate sugar usage? Limit meats to less than 10% fat? Ban certain types of cheese altogether? Ban all but dark chocolate? At what point is it no longer a good idea?

If people only (99%) consumed olive oil and omega 3 fat acids then one major risk factor for ateriosclerosis and adipositas would be eliminanted. So this law is a step in the right direction, but of course not the solution to all health related problems...

If people only ate government created food cubes that contained all the nutrition necessary all diet-related health problems would be eliminated, but I am not about to think it is a good idea.

Government approved

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

99% of peole aren't going to notice the difference anyway. If it helps promote a healthy lifestyle and doesn't affect the price of the food then why worry?

I agree.

 

[FoolKiller]

I agree.

Then maybe you can answer my response to his statement.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Every little bit helps. Say people have a #1 at BK and it provided 500 calories. People will still be eating the #1 but now instead of 500 calories it might be more like 450 calories. Like we said most people will not even notice the difference and will be consuming less calories and fat intake. Another secret way you can help reduce calories is to ask for extra ice. Its an example that every little bit helps.

 

[Northstar]

Every little bit helps. Say people have a #1 at BK and it provided 500 calories. People will still be eating the #1 but now instead of 500 calories it might be more like 450 calories. Like we said most people will not even notice the difference and will be consuming less calories and fat intake. Another secret way you can help reduce calories is to ask for extra ice. Its an example that every little bit helps.

The calorie count stays the same, the only real difference is that the fries are fried in a different type of fat. They are still coated with salt and the Whopper still has half a jar of mayo on it, so it's still extremely unhealthy.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

The new fat is still better for you than the old fat correct?? Then my point still stays valid. If something is better for you for the same amount, then thats fine with me.

 

[FoolKiller]

Every little bit helps. Say people have a #1 at BK and it provided 500 calories. People will still be eating the #1 but now instead of 500 calories it might be more like 450 calories. Like we said most people will not even notice the difference and will be consuming less calories and fat intake. Another secret way you can help reduce calories is to ask for extra ice. Its an example that every little bit helps.

Trans-fast is not a weight gain (aka calories) issue. It is a cholesterol issue. That BK #1 is just as fattening either way. If you want weight loss via calorie reduction this is not it. If you want cholesterol reduction then it is, but you will still get fat and deal with all the health problems that come with that.

The best way to make any of these places healthier: ban the cheese.

And all of this still ignores the fact that most chain restaurants have gotten away from trans-fats already due to public perception, thus all a law like this does is attack the local businesses.

And I am still not convinced switching has not affected food prices. Food prices have clearly gone up, I have seen it on combo/value meals, but it is hard to tell if it is due to this or the economy in general, or both.

According to this article though:
http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/trans-7565-ban-barstow.html

Guardado said Rosita’s will be working with its supplier, U.S. Foods, to try several different brands before deciding on what works. The change, he said, could cost him between $5 to $15 more than what he already pays for a 35-pound container of shortening. He’s also worried that the flavor of the food may change.

“Whenever you do a change it does change the way (it tastes),” Guardado said. “We used to use lard many decades ago and when we switched, it changed the flavor of the food.”

So, it looks like people may notice a difference and it could affect the price of foods.

EDIT:

If something is better for you for the same amount, then thats fine with me.

So, if anything deemed unhealthy were banned you wouldn't care as long as your monthly food bill didn't increase?

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Like I said every little bit helps. It reduces cholesterol and is better for you so my discussion here is complete.

 

[FoolKiller]

Like I said every little bit helps. It reduces cholesterol and is better for you so my discussion here is complete.

Only because you abandoned the cost part of your argument.

 

[Max_DC]

So we should regulate against ignorance? Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to have a proper education campaign that does not infringe on rights? If ignorance is the issue then education should be the answer.

No and no. Of course that would be the ideal way, but education campaigns are very long term and usually don't reach those who need education the most. Do you think people in trailer parks etc change their way of life because there is a campaign ? No. But if the potato chips, french fries, burgers and any kind of junk food has less transfat acids there is an immediate effect on anybody - willing to improve their health or not.

Wow, so you not only want to limit business owners abilities to sell it, but even down to the consumer level? To what degree do you enforce this? Are you raiding home kitchens to ensure that shortening isn't being used in pie crusts? How do you prevent people from going back to the really bad stuff trans fats replaced as a healthier alternative, such as lard and butter (both of which I still use in some cooking, by the way)?

Butter is not as bad as the food industry wants you to think. Of course it's all a matter of balance. Trans fat acids are really a problem regarding ateriosclerosis. Which leads to all sorts of cardivasular diaseases like strokes, heart attacks and other thromboembolic consequences.
everybody talks about calories. Yes that is a problem aswell, but not the only one.
You ( still ) have a different health care system. In Germany community pays for all this. We are basically talking about an open end sum of money. If our health insurence companies run out of money, as they do every year, the government pumps in several billion dollars.

This is one stepp in reducing morbidity and therefor one step in reducing costs... at least I hope so, because it might as well result in longer life which results in an increase of other diseases like M. Alzheimer, diabetes mellitus type II and what not. But I think it is worth it.

Also, where is the problem ? trans fat acids are cheaper to produce and easier to conservate over a long period of time. So all this will only cause a minimal increase in food prices and some products will have to be consumed within 6 months inseats of 12. So what.

The benefit for general health is worth it. My opinion.

If your health status is the responsibility of your government, not yourself, where does it end? Regulate sugar usage? Limit meats to less than 10% fat? Ban certain types of cheese altogether? Ban all but dark chocolate? At what point is it no longer a good idea?

It depends. Too much regulation is just as bad as not enough regulation.
Health care is something that can only be regulated properly by a government.
Markets concentrate on prices and shortterm effects. Saving the health of people in 40 years is on no agenda.

I agree, in the end I can't stop large parts of the society ruining their health by extensive smoking, drinking, eating and lack of physical activity.

But this is one way to do something, and it doesn't hurt anybody ( well maybe some people in the food industry ).

If people only ate government created food cubes that contained all the nutrition necessary all diet-related health problems would be eliminated, but I am not about to think it is a good idea.

Again. Why are so many people afraid of a little regulation. Not every little act ends in a George Orwell big brother style dystopia.

The general public simply is not smart enough to decide everything on its own

The calorie count stays the same, the only real difference is that the fries are fried in a different type of fat. They are still coated with salt and the Whopper still has half a jar of mayo on it, so it's still extremely unhealthy.

Calories are not the only problem. It is one. But there are others.
If you drink a bottle of olive oil every day you will neither gain as much weight nor increase your ateriosclerosis risk as much as by consuming the same amount of cheap industrial tran fats.

Government approved

 

[Tornado]

The general public simply is not smart enough to decide everything on its own

Such a statement implies that the government knows more about what is best for them than the people that elect them. That isn't how it works.

 

[Northstar]

The general public simply is not smart enough to decide everything on its own

The thing is if you take the ability to decide away, you have a Dictatorship.