Terror Trial Suspect: Keep Jews Off The Jury
Is Vegetarianism Dead?
Park Slope Parents Still Bringing Babies To Bars
"Murder Set" Drug Gang Broken Up After MySpace Bragging
Who's The Worst Neighbor?
The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has unanimously approved banning the use of trans fats. From Crain's:
Restaurants will have until July 1, 2007, to find substitutes for oils and other trans fats used in frying and spreads. But eateries will get until July 1, 2008, to find substitutes for oils and shortenings used for deep frying baked goods.In September, the DOHMH proposed measures to decrease trans fats (Health Commissioner Tom Frieden likened them to lead paint, as both are invisible and dangerous), which found a lot of support but concern from the restaurant industry that restaurants wouldn't be able to find alternative oils.
The DOHMH also voted that restaurants that already have nutritional information for their products (think fast food restaurants) post the caloric information to the menus. Fast food eateries cry while the companies that make the menu signs cheer!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
It's psychological if one notices a difference between hydrogenated and regular oil.
In 2002, McDonald's announced it would eventually move to a trans fat-free oil. Instantly, McDonald's was barraged with thousands of complaints from consumers, claiming the fries tasted worse.
There's only one problem with that claim: McDonald's didn't even change the oil yet; the people were complaining about the oil because they thought it was different, even though the oil was still exactly the same as before.
Read here: Why McDonald's Hasn't Cut the Fat (free registration to view)
This anomaly proves consumers taste what they want to taste. The human brain has a big influence on flavor. This is why most trans-fat flavor studies are misleading, because you don't know if the tester said something that might subconsciously influence the test results, such as, "Guess which one was fried in trans fat."
You'll have to pry my trans-fats out of my fat, stubby hands.
I'm wondering what the difference is between "restaurant" and "eatery" and, even moreso, how long before the former catch on and reclassify themselves as the latter.
This is reminiscent of the Rudy years when adult video stores throughout the city revamped their inventories en masse.
Maybe there will be less obese people in NYC.
Maybe there will be less obese people in NYC.
I thought trans fat causes heart disease, not obesity. That is, if you replace the trans fat with regular fat it still comes down to how much you eat that determines your weight.
Good for New York City!
P.S. What's an eaterie?
"Maybe there will be less obese people in NYC."
No, but it will make fatties smell less like bacon grease.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I do not need the government policing what or how I eat - and I object to this form of a dietary big brother.
The smoking ban didn't stop anyone I know any more than the massive levels of taxes imposed on smokers. It should be left to the individual to decide what they want to eat, and how much. The literature is out there - and it should be a matter of personal choice. God only knows what they'll come after next, now that they've sank their claws into controlling what we eat.
I personally tend to avoid trans fats, but far be it from me to tell others what they can eat. The City should mind it's own damn business, but then if it did it would have much business left, would it?
"This is absolutely ridiculous. I do not need the government policing what or how I eat"
I agree, to an extent. When it costs your health plan extra $ to pay for your heart bypass operation because your too fat, and they pass that cost on to everyone else, then it gets ridiculous. We’re paying for your bad habits.
All Obese people should pay a surcharge on top of their medical benefits.
...And a sidewalk surcharge for damaging our sidewalks. Letting fat people walk on a sidewalk is akin to letting 18 Wheelers drive over the Brooklyn bridge.
The people's socialist republic of NY never changes. I can't believe that there are people dumb enough to support such an intrusion into personal choice.
I guess I'm glad that there are no real problems in NYC anymore, that Bloomy & Co. can waste their time on garbage like this. OTOH, their search for new ways to interfere with every detail of life never seems to end. "Defector", I might be following you at some point.
Well now that NYC is banning trans fat, it can focus on the real problem at hand: fat trannies.
Imagine the headlines next year:
Bloomberg outlaws food! Restaurants now only permitted to serve nutritious high-fiber non-fat sludge
I can't believe there are actually people here who are complaining. It's not like you can tell the difference, the taste is the same. The benefit of oils and shortenings with trans fats are only perceived by the businesses that use them because they have much longer shelf lives. Also, as a consumer, it is almost impossible to know if the trans fats are in there or not, so if you expressedly can't eat them, you're screwed. And your examples are idiotic. The smoking ban has been a huge success.
So, like, is everyone REALLY upset that they are banning trans fat? We're talking margerine and crisco here, not butter, not bacon, not anything really good, just OLEO (a shout-out to the crossword fans...). There is obviously a major civil liberties issue here (as in "It is my god-given RIGHT to have my fries fried in crisco instead of plain-old grease"). I honestly think people can get worked up about friggin anything...
Let me get this straight. What I do with my body (in this case, what I put in it), on my own time, is the business of the government? I suppose that all of you who are supporting this also support the government's meddling with abortion rights? Obviously not. Am I the only one who sees the absolute hypocracy in this? It is ok for big brother to meddle with individual rights, as long as it is for something that I don't care about.
All Obese people should pay a surcharge on top of their medical benefits.
Maybe if the State hadn't half-socialized medicine in the United States, we wouldn't have to worry about what the obese "added" to the health-care costs. If they could afford to be fat, good for them.
This follows a common pattern. First, we are told that if we don't give endlessly to the poor we are evil, so the State gives to the poor with Medicare/caid and generally speaking socializes medicine. Second, costs rise prohibitively because as von Mises pointed out, a socialist planner does not have the price system to guide his decisions. Finally, the State begins to criminalize things to bring down the costs of a bloated system it itself had created.
I defected:
I think you are mis-informed. At question is not whether you can buy, or use, or eat trans-fat products. It is whether restaurants can cook with them. Restaurants. I don't like to eat trans fat. But I love fries. Right now that means that I can't buy fries at McDonald's. What about my right to not eat trans fat? Don't those rights matter? This is just like smokers who said it was their right to make me inhale their second-hand smoke. And by the way, those who say that trans-fat-free foods are somehow worse don't know food. Peanut oil makes the best fries. Lard makes the best pie crust. Both of those are trans-fat free...
I think that the word "ban" just doesn't sit well with a lot of people, me included. Even though the effort is noble and in the end I support it, I think the government can find a better way to spin these kinds of endeavors. Sell the sizzle, Bloomberg.
To another point, the FDA 'bans' all kinds of foods and other consumable goods which are aimed at the same purpose: protecting consumers. I don't hear anyone complaining that they can't get red dye #5 in their M&Ms; any more.
Jonah: I am very well informed. You have the right to eat whatever you want in a truly free society. If you don't like what is being served by restaurant A, you are entitled to take your business to restaurant B. I don't think I will lose anything if trans fats disappear from my life- that is not the point. The point is that you are forcing your will on everybody. I guess that since you prefer peanut oil, so does everybody else....end of discussion. Maybe you should be king? A dangerous line is being crossed by laws like this. One that moves us closer to an authoritarian society, where government controls small decisions about how we live and what we consume. Both sides of the political spectrum have things like this that they think are alright to take away, and as control swings back and forth between them, they pick away at both ends of our freedoms.
Fair enough, if you really want the government out of every facet of life, then I can understand your perspective. Can I assume, then, that you'd want the option to choose the red dye #5 that anonymass speaks of, even though it's a known carcinogen, because you'd prefer to be the one making that decision? What about lead paint or asbestos? My point is that this law does not, in my opinion, bring us closer to an authoritarian society, because we have already set a consistant precedent to ban products that are found to be health hazards beyond the scope of the consumer's awareness. I'm a huge fan of freedom, but to me our energies would be much better focused on more important civil liberties violations, like illegal wire-tapping, searches in the subway, etc. A public health decision that will definitely save lives seems worth the small limitation in choice. Especially since trans fat is really not necessary to make almost any kind of food, healthy or not.
Everybody has their idea about which civil liberties are sacred and which ones don't matter. I prefer to keep all of mine, including my right to talk to my Mom on the phone without the gestapo listening, thank you. This type of nonsense is why I no longer live in that state. Western NYers are stuck with politicians that are inflicted upon them by downstate populists. NY state is an over taxed, over regulated toilet. "Free to choose" only matters for you people if we're talking about abortion or sexual freedoms- freedoms with which I agree, BTW. For everything else, it's ok for big brother to decide for me. No thank you.
Everybody has their idea about which civil liberties are sacred and which ones don't matter. I prefer to keep all of mine, including my right to talk to my Mom on the phone without the gestapo listening, thank you. This type of nonsense is why I no longer live in that state. Western NYers are stuck with politicians that are inflicted upon them by downstate populists. NY state is an over taxed, over regulated toilet. "Free to choose" only matters for you people if we're talking about abortion or sexual freedoms- freedoms with which I agree, BTW. For everything else, it's ok for big brother to decide for me. No thank you.
Why are the pro-banners here talking about lead and asbestos? My guess: precisely because this ban /isn't/ about lead or asbestos or some horrible poison...just trans fats. Trans fats are arguably less healthy for you than other substitutes you might use. So what? We're clearly on the downhill side of the slippery slope here, because the government is banning such a marginal case. Question for the pro-banners: if banning trans fats is OK, would it be OK to ban french fries entirely? How about ice cream? They're not real healthy for you either. Nobody /needs/ them.
PS: The red dye that was suspected of being a carcinogen was #2, not #5. (AKA E123, AKA amaranth.) But it was never in M&Ms.; (Mars removed the red ones for a while because ignorant people freaked out about red dye in general.) And even the FDA admitted that the cancer connection was tenuous at best. (But what do they care? They pay nothing for being over-fearful.) And few countries other than the US forbid its use today. So if you're looking for an example of the benevolent government wisely protecting us, you're going to need a better example.
So, JD - what's your feeling about the tobacco ban in NYC restaurants/bars?
Re: trans-fats, you might want to rethink your analogue because the banning of a food isn't on par with banning a particular ingredient. As someone already pointed out, you can make french fries (or any friend food) with an equivalent alternative.
JD, that you likened lead paint and asbestos to "horrible poison" shows how much we've all been influenced by bans on those products. Lead paint and asbestos were both beloved, cheap, and effective building materials until banned. Trans fat was invented in labs in the middle of the last century to be a cheap substitute for butter. It has recently been shown, in study after study, to be seriously bad news for those who have any disposition at all towards heart disease. In the '80s, everyone was told to eat margerine instead of butter, but disease rates only got worse, for now obvious reasons. If a trans fat ban improves public health, than the future court of public opinion will liken trans fat to asbestos, and not unreasonably so...
I initially agreed with #8, 18, 19, and 22, however I do see a certain logic to the ban.
I think a complicating issue here is that a municipality (the city of NY) is going to ban something that the FDA has said is safe to consume. If the FDA wants to ban it, so be it.
However, it's not as if they are banning the consumption of trans fats entirely, however. As far as I know, it will still be legal to buy and consume, say, Chips Ahoy! cookies which contain Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil.
Therefore, it seems as if they are banning something they do have regulatory control over, that is, restaurants, as controlled by the NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene. Pre-packaged foods have information on the label to help consumers decide if it has ingredients they would like to ingest. A restaurant meal does not.
The flaw in this interpretation is that fast food eateries do publish nutritional information and their menus are standardized. So should this only apply to restaurants without published nutritional information?
I have to agree with a free market approach for fast food chains (#22) which says that if consumers demand trans-fat free french fries, and company A is not providing them then:
a) fast food Company B will provide them, and then consumer can frequent that establishment
AND/OR
b) consumers won't order french fries when they go to Company A
Jonah, #20, you're wrong: "Right now that means that I can't buy fries at McDonald's. What about my right to not eat trans fat? Don't those rights matter? "
NO! The smoking ban mitigated the fact that smokers were worsening the air quality in resturants, a shared resource. If you don't want to eat fries made with trans fat, find somewhere to eat them or make them yourself. Will you be harmed if you sit next to someone who is eating trans fat fries? No.
Who actually complains about their "right" to eat trans-fats being taken away? Pick your battles, people. This will not be a gateway to anything else. First trans-fats, then repealing Roe v. Wade! Let's not get nuts.
Amen.
Low Fat Donuts discovered
Holey Donuts!(tm) Ultra Low Fat Gourmet Donuts
New York, NY -- NOV 20, 2006 – The low-fat donut has been the Holy Grail of the food industry. Food companies have been able to take most of the fat out of everything from cheese to Twinkies, but no one has succeeded in designing a marketable donut that dips below 4 grams of fat per serving before now.
Holey Donuts!™ announces a major innovation in the donut industry with the introduction of Ultra Low Fat Gourmet Donuts. Holey Donuts! has a unique patent pending process that avoids deep frying and produces a great tasting donut with only 3 to 4 grams of fat, unlike the 15 to 20 grams of fat in other donuts.
Holey Donuts! has created an extended line of ultra low fat gourmet donuts and cinnamon buns. These products are guaranteed to please the palate of even the most discerning donut lover while dramatically lowering fat content with zero trans-fats yet nothing about these donuts tastes low fat, its just amazing. Significantly, Holey Donuts! Ultra Low Fat Gourmet Donuts and Cinnamon Buns contain zero trans- fats,zero cholesterol and no artificial sweeteners or fat substitutes, and they just taste great.
The secret lies in a unique cooking process which avoids deep-frying. Deep frying produces a fat laden greasy donut and now Holey Donuts has changed everything. In addition to the dramatic reduction in fat content, these donuts have as much as 25% less calories than other donuts"
Over 18 varieties of donuts and mouth watering cinnamon buns are currently available for ordering on-line across the country at holeydonuts.net.
Holey Donuts! has gained tremendous popularity and much critical acclaim whenever tasted by consumers, "there is nothing ‘low fat’ about the taste of these donuts" says one taster. Holey Donuts! is such a smart concept now we can eat more donuts and not look like one!
sold on the web at
www.holeydonuts.net
The people's socialist republic of NY never changes. I can't believe that there are people dumb enough to support such an intrusion into personal choice.
Damn straight I defected from NY. It is unbelievable! Ha ha, you see! You let these Nazi Nannies get away with the Smoking Ban, and now they're going after your food. Next it will be how many babies you can have, or how many pets you can own, and what you can feed them. New York sucks!!!
[12] Posted by: I defected from NY | December 5, 2006 4:00 PM
I can't believe there are actually people here who are complaining. It's not like you can tell the difference, the taste is the same. The benefit of oils and shortenings with trans fats are only perceived by the businesses that use them because they have much longer shelf lives. Also, as a consumer, it is almost impossible to know if the trans fats are in there or not, so if you expressedly can't eat them, you're screwed. And your examples are idiotic. The smoking ban has been a huge success.
[16] Posted by: s | December 5, 2006 5:22 PM
Uhhhhh, s, the "Smoking Ban" has not been a huge success. YOU'RE DELUSIONAL! Bars have lost 40% of their revenue because of it. I have friends that are bartenders that had to get second jobs because their tips went into the toilet. So don't sit there and tell me that the smoking ban was a huge success.
You're living in a fantasy world, or you watch too much Fox, I mean Faux News. People don't go to bars to improve their health. Nor do they go to Mc Donalds to improve their health. I don't go to these kind of restaurants, nor do I eat these kind of foods, but if somebody wants to that is THEIR BUSINESS.
It is also the restaurant owners BUSINESS to sell what they want. They're already required to list the fat content. So if people know it, that's enough. This government sickens me how they are always sticking their damn mismanaged hands into places they have no business interfering with. These are private business owners!
FREE COUNTRY? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...My ass!
It's obvious that most of the people here who are against the ban don't even know what Trans Fats are. It's clear that they are just using this ban as an opportunity to fight against that big, mean, nasty government of ours.