Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on September 26, 2006, 09:07:24 PM
Quote
By DAVID B. CARUSO
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.
The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the citys 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.
Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.
Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.
Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable, said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the citys chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.
He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.
The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonalds french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin Donuts.
Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy.
It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient, Frieden said. No one will miss it when its gone.
A similar ban on trans fats in restaurant food has been proposed in Chicago and is still under consideration, although it has been ridiculed by some as unnecessary government meddling.
The latest version of the Chicago plan would only apply to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million, a provision aimed exclusively at fast-food giants.
A few companies have moved to eliminate trans fats on their own.
Wendys announced in August that it had switched to a new cooking oil that contains no trans fatty acids. Crisco now sells a shortening that contains zero trans fats. Frito-Lay removed trans fats from its Doritos and Cheetos. Krafts took trans fats out of Oreos.
McDonalds began using a trans fat-free cooking oil in Denmark after that country banned artificial trans fats in processed food, but it has yet to do so in the United States.
Walt Riker, vice president of corporate communications at McDonalds, said in a statement Tuesday that the company would review New Yorks proposal.
McDonalds knows this is an important issue, which is why we continue to test in earnest to find ways to further reduce (trans fatty acid) levels, he said.
New Yorks health department had asked restaurants to impose a voluntary ban last year but found use of trans fats unchanged in recent surveys.
Under the New York proposal, restaurants would need to get artificial trans fats out of cooking oils, margarine and shortening by July 1, 2007, and all other foodstuffs by July 1, 2008. It would not affect grocery stores. It also would not apply to naturally occurring trans fats, which are found in some meats and dairy.
The Board of Health has yet to approve the proposal and will not do so until at least December, Frieden said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration began requiring food labels to list trans fats in January.
Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives.
Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year, he said. The federal government should have done this long ago.
Ah, America, land of the free, where the government wants to tell you what you can and can't eat.
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.
The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the citys 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.
Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.
Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.
Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable, said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the citys chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.
He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.
The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonalds french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin Donuts.
Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy.
It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient, Frieden said. No one will miss it when its gone.
A similar ban on trans fats in restaurant food has been proposed in Chicago and is still under consideration, although it has been ridiculed by some as unnecessary government meddling.
The latest version of the Chicago plan would only apply to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million, a provision aimed exclusively at fast-food giants.
A few companies have moved to eliminate trans fats on their own.
Wendys announced in August that it had switched to a new cooking oil that contains no trans fatty acids. Crisco now sells a shortening that contains zero trans fats. Frito-Lay removed trans fats from its Doritos and Cheetos. Krafts took trans fats out of Oreos.
McDonalds began using a trans fat-free cooking oil in Denmark after that country banned artificial trans fats in processed food, but it has yet to do so in the United States.
Walt Riker, vice president of corporate communications at McDonalds, said in a statement Tuesday that the company would review New Yorks proposal.
McDonalds knows this is an important issue, which is why we continue to test in earnest to find ways to further reduce (trans fatty acid) levels, he said.
New Yorks health department had asked restaurants to impose a voluntary ban last year but found use of trans fats unchanged in recent surveys.
Under the New York proposal, restaurants would need to get artificial trans fats out of cooking oils, margarine and shortening by July 1, 2007, and all other foodstuffs by July 1, 2008. It would not affect grocery stores. It also would not apply to naturally occurring trans fats, which are found in some meats and dairy.
The Board of Health has yet to approve the proposal and will not do so until at least December, Frieden said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration began requiring food labels to list trans fats in January.
Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives.
Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year, he said. The federal government should have done this long ago.
Post by: Guest on September 26, 2006, 10:00:30 PM
Steve
Post by: HForrest on September 26, 2006, 10:24:47 PM
Post by: spinr on September 27, 2006, 02:34:02 AM
Let's just hurry the hell up and ban life!
That'll solve everything...
Post by: Dannyboy on September 27, 2006, 03:49:48 AM
I read yesterday, that some putz in the Bronx wants to change zoning laws to keep fast food restaurants out of the area because the poor people in the area are too fat.
Post by: Chris on September 27, 2006, 04:20:26 AM
Well, ten years or so later, Arnold is the Governator. Some Republican insiders I know say there's serious talk of a Constitutional Amendment to let him run for the White House. Taco Bells are everywhere. Police Caeras sprout up like dandelions. And now, anything bad for you is being banned...
Maybe the film was not just a bad movie, but a prophesy...
Post by: Ben on September 27, 2006, 05:49:53 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 27, 2006, 06:00:23 AM
Post by: charby on September 27, 2006, 07:41:51 AM
For example if you eat a lot of trans fat food and refuse to change your diet you might get moved down the list for a endarterectomy (surgical procedure to remove plaque in the artery) compared to someone who eats a low fat diet.
-C
Post by: The Rabbi on September 27, 2006, 08:25:53 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 27, 2006, 08:40:29 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 27, 2006, 08:45:47 AM
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
If the arguement is "We're paying for their health care, therefore we have an iterest in making sure everyone lives healthy", woulnd't the proper alternative be to cease paying for their healthcare instead of trying to rule their lives?
What do you think people in that situation would prefer?I agree 100% that the gov't needs to get out of the health care providing business. But until that happens this is the system we have.
Post by: lupinus on September 27, 2006, 08:54:12 AM
If anything, make the resturant put a little mark on the menu letting you know what does or doesn't have the stuff in it kind of liek they do now to let you know something has nuts in it, eating undercooked meat can be dangerous, etc.
That I would support because it lets people know what they are eating. But banning it? Hell no.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 27, 2006, 09:04:33 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
If the arguement is "We're paying for their health care, therefore we have an iterest in making sure everyone lives healthy", woulnd't the proper alternative be to cease paying for their healthcare instead of trying to rule their lives?
What do you think people in that situation would prefer?I agree 100% that the gov't needs to get out of the health care providing business. But until that happens this is the system we have.
They aren't interested in making people healthier, they want control over other peoples' lives.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 27, 2006, 09:23:13 AM
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
I know what they would prefer. I want to make sure as many other people as possible know it to.
They aren't interested in making people healthier, they want control over other peoples' lives.
Who is "they"? The doctors? The drug companies? The insurance companies? The idiot city council considering this stupid measure?
They aren't interested in making people healthier, they want control over other peoples' lives.
Post by: Nightfall on September 27, 2006, 10:48:41 AM
Quote from: Dannyboy
I read yesterday, that some putz in the Bronx wants to change zoning laws to keep fast food restaurants out of the area because the poor people in the area are too fat.
Just how poor are you if you can afford to get fat?
Post by: charby on September 27, 2006, 11:06:21 AM
Quote from: Nightfall
Just how poor are you if you can afford to get fat?
unhealthy food is some of the cheapest food we have.Lets see Banquet TV dinners are usally around $1 a piece. Pot Pies are 3 for $2.
Both are full of fat and sodium.
-C
Post by: mfree on September 27, 2006, 11:25:18 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on September 27, 2006, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: mfree
Charby's 100% about the cheap food. Where poor food used to mean lots of dried beans, preserved meats, and corn products, now it's processed "plastic" foods that are a lot less healthy than the previous.
Quite true.I eat poor food, and it's pretty hard to eat healthy.
Post by: mfree on September 27, 2006, 02:04:13 PM
A bag of split peas, a small onion, and a can of cheap mixed vegetables shouldn't run you more than $3 and will last you 5 days of lunches. Add ham for another buck, but beware the time factor....
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 27, 2006, 05:11:22 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 27, 2006, 06:22:56 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
I know what they would prefer. I want to make sure as many other people as possible know it to.
They aren't interested in making people healthier, they want control over other peoples' lives.
Who is "they"? The doctors? The drug companies? The insurance companies? The idiot city council considering this stupid measure?They aren't interested in making people healthier, they want control over other peoples' lives.
Wanna kill yourself with Big Macs? Fine, enjoy! I can certainly think of worse ways to die.
Of course, if government held that attitude they wouldn't be able to enjoy this giant new source of tax revenue...
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 27, 2006, 06:32:46 PM
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
Obesity is a self-inflicted condition... Of course, if government held that attitude they wouldn't be able to enjoy this giant new source of tax revenue...
It is not exactly self-inflicted. I would not understate the importance of personal responsibility, but the reality is that the gov is in bed with the food companies, which actually are the tobacco companies (Phillip Morris purchased Nabisco. How wild is that?). If you do not believe me, read a new book called "UltraMetabolism". It is all explained there, including the gov stupidity in attacking natural fats and promoting a wrong food pyramid that leads to prediabetes and fatty liver. It is not even a conspiracy theory - all the facts are public knowledge, but one cannot see the forest for the trees...
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 02:43:05 AM
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
I know what they would prefer. I want to make sure as many other people as possible know it to.
They aren't interested in making people healthier, they want control over other peoples' lives.
Who is "they"? The doctors? The drug companies? The insurance companies? The idiot city council considering this stupid measure?They aren't interested in making people healthier, they want control over other peoples' lives.
Wanna kill yourself with Big Macs? Fine, enjoy! I can certainly think of worse ways to die.
Of course, if government held that attitude they wouldn't be able to enjoy this giant new source of tax revenue...
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 02:48:20 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
Obesity is a self-inflicted condition... Of course, if government held that attitude they wouldn't be able to enjoy this giant new source of tax revenue...
It is not exactly self-inflicted. I would not understate the importance of personal responsibility, but the reality is that the gov is in bed with the food companies, which actually are the tobacco companies (Phillip Morris purchased Nabisco. How wild is that?). If you do not believe me, read a new book called "UltraMetabolism". It is all explained there, including the gov stupidity in attacking natural fats and promoting a wrong food pyramid that leads to prediabetes and fatty liver. It is not even a conspiracy theory - all the facts are public knowledge, but one cannot see the forest for the trees...But it is more convenient to beleive in massive conspiracies by gov't and Big Business.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2006, 02:59:49 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Just once I'd like to see a politician questioned "what are you going to do about X" and him respond "X is a big problem. But it isn't the gov'ts problem. People more involved with it need to solve this without our help."
Absolutely. I'd like to see it a hundred times. Do you remember "pony-tail guy" when Clinton was running for president? "Think of us as your children."
Post by: Antibubba on September 28, 2006, 03:40:46 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 28, 2006, 07:17:30 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Certainly more convincingly than people like fat and salt. Companies are in business to sell products and sell what people like to eat. People make themselves fat not just through food choice but also through lifestyle choice (no exercise).
Hehehe. Don't let your opinionated self prevent you from learning things you do not know. Educate yourself about how human metabolism works, then compare to gov policies in the last 60 years and the attitude of the food companies. You'll discover that junk food is just as addictive and autocatalytically toxic to humans as tobacco is. You will also discover that the worst offenders are ARTIFICIALLY made and have no representation in a pre-food-processing diet. In that respect the food companies are no better than meth makers and drug dealers. Or do you argue all drugs should be legalized because they are what people like to have?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 07:39:18 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: The Rabbi
Certainly more convincingly than people like fat and salt. Companies are in business to sell products and sell what people like to eat. People make themselves fat not just through food choice but also through lifestyle choice (no exercise).
Hehehe. Don't let your opinionated self prevent you from learning things you do not know. Educate yourself about how human metabolism works, then compare to gov policies in the last 60 years and the attitude of the food companies. You'll discover that junk food is just as addictive and autocatalytically toxic to humans as tobacco is. You will also discover that the worst offenders are ARTIFICIALLY made and have no representation in a pre-food-processing diet. In that respect the food companies are no better than meth makers and drug dealers. Or do you argue all drugs should be legalized because they are what people like to have?
But what did I expect from someone who can't distinguish a person trying to rob him and a person asking for directions.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 28, 2006, 07:49:04 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Yes. Corn chips=tobacco=methamphetamine. No difference.
But what did I expect from someone who can't distinguish a person trying to rob him and a person asking for directions.
Nice try. The leftist media school of redirection and personal attack.But what did I expect from someone who can't distinguish a person trying to rob him and a person asking for directions.
Just answer the question.
Or better yet, eat junk food for a month or two, and then come back and tell us how easy it is to get off it.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 07:52:51 AM