I get it. Trans fats are bad for you.

[lightningandsnow]

So is working too hard, drinking too much coffee, having bad posture, not flossing, wearing high heels, and not getting enough sleep.

And somehow, I don't see a ban on those things coming any time soon.

[onehandle]

1. I don't wear high heels.

No comment on the rest.

On edit: I do floss. Missed that one.

[rudy23]

2. But they're in food products for the benefit of the producer, not the consumer. Taste panels have

shown that there isn't a taste benefit to the trans fats, and that they present a more major health risk than was previously known. That's key, I don't agree with banning things the people demand, knowing the risks, but trans fats are not for the consumer.

I don't buy the argument that having the government protect consumers from dangerous preservatives in our food means we live in a "nanny state", or anything.

[BadgerKid]

7. Trans fat have (rightly) gotten a bad rap

so that many producers are greatly reducing their usage. I'm still leary of restaurants, so I control the food preparation by eating at home.

Still, one must read the ingredient list because there's an FDA legal loophole that permits up to 0.5 grams of trans fats per serving to be called zero grams.

[I work for workers]

35. Cheap food isn't for the benefit of the consumer?

Maybe your gated community doesn't give you contact with many poor people. Try asking the person you send out to shop for you if she would appreciate a rise if food prices so you can feel better about what you eat.

[mondo joe]

38. Food poisoned to make it cheaper isn't for the benefit of the consumer.

Duh.

[I work for workers]

49. If unhealthy = poison, half of what we eat is cyanide.

Transfat is bad for you. That doesn't make it poison.

I remember seeing a news broadcast about this when it first became the medias seasonal scare issue (sometime between summer of the sharks and summer of the dying bees). I laughed my head off when the discussion panel acted shocked to learn what anyone with a brain already knows; restaurants are more concerned with taste then with health.

People become overweight and unhealthy because they eat more calories then they burn. It's that simple. Banning transfat is a sad attempt to ignore the real problem we face.

[mondo joe]

52. It's not just unhealthy. You're operating under a fase assumption.

Transfat is more than just bad for you.

But more importantly, it is in products substituted for real food in ways consumers are hard pressed to detect.

It's not about weight - I never mentioned weight. It's about what amounts to plastic being put into food for the benefit of corporations, at the expense of consumers.

[I work for workers]

67. Now trans fat is plastic? Funny, I could swear it was vegatable oil...

No one is denying that trans fat is bad for you. We are denying that the health content of food is a valid reason from banning it at restaurants.

This is entirely about weight, and the unhealthy side effects that go along with it. We live in society that has a rapidly growing population segment that is unhealthy and overweight. Proponents of banning trans fat like to dream their beloved prohibition will help make America healthy. People who stop and think realize that the unhealthy are most often the way they are by choice, and that banning trans fat will raise the cost of food. It will also be an undue burden on our vegan friends, who rely on trans fat to avoid animal fats.

[mondo joe]

70. You're denying that "health content" is a valid reason for banning some items at restaurants?

Do you not believe in public health standards at restaurants?

[I work for workers]

78. Your confusing saftey standards with health standards.

I support safety standards. Restaurants should be required to store and prepare food properly, serve fresh food, and keep their establishments clean.

Health standards are a different matter. If a restaurant wants to serve a 50 gram of fat, 1500 calorie meal, more power too them. If it tastes good, I might order it. I couldn't give a damn if they serve me transfat. If I did, I'd be ordering off the healthy selection part of the menu, or preparing my own food that night. The overwhelming majority of the time, people eat at restaurants for taste and the social experience, not to find healthy options.

[mondo joe]

82. And the point of safety standards in food isn't health?

?

[I work for workers]

90. Again, you are confused.

For the sake of this discussion, I'm differentiating between health standards (as in the food isn't dirty or uncooked) and healthy standards (as in ban trans fat because it's not nutritious). As applied to restaurants, the former is good, the latter is bad.

[mondo joe]

106. Your distniction is arbitrary. NT

[fishwax]

73. it isn't entirely about weight

not even close. You don't have to be overweight to be unhealthy, and consuming trans fats is unhealthy whether one is overweight or not.

It will also be an undue burden on our vegan friends, who rely on trans fat to avoid animal fats.
Vegans love trans fats? That's news to me :shrug:

[I work for workers]

83. I agree that you don't have to be overweight to be unhealthy.

You can also be overweight and be relatively healthy. I know plenty of skinny people who chose to be unhealthy. But the trans fat debate is primarily framed around the visible symbol of weight to drive prohibition.

If you are vegan and poor, trans fat is an easy way to get fatty oils for cooking. It's a bad way, but an easy way.

[mondo joe]

84. Are you crazy? Who frames bans on trans fats as a WEIGHT issue? The puh on

trans fats is quite the opposite - it's a fat alternative in foods, promoted as better for weight reduction.

[LeftyMom]

114. News to me too.

I avoid the partially hydrogenated crap as much as I can.

[mondo joe]

117. It's the poster's second bizarre claim about TransFats:+

1. They are considered bad because of weight gain. (totally bizarre - they're promoted as a fat alternative!)

2. Vegans rely on TransFats. (I wonder if the poster knows any actual Vegans.)

[uppityperson]

142. Oh, come on.

That poster works for workers. eyeroll when I saw who it was.

[I work for workers]

147. What does that mean?

I work for the AFL-CIO. Hence the name.

[LanternWaste]

59. There's a difference between...

There's a difference between 'cheap' food and 'inexpensive' food.

[bunkerbuster1]

69. Dollars and cents, please. Cite the anticipated price increase.

I've not heard anything to make me believe that eliminating TFs would be some kind of burden on the working class.

[I work for workers]

97. Trans fat is used because it is cheaper and lasts longer.

Without trans fat food will cost more to make and have to be replaced sooner. Of course I can't break down the exact costs for you, but to deny that removing such an ingredient will affect the cost of food reflects total ignorance of the economics.

When the price of supplies rises, suppliers must respond by cutting production, raising prices, or shrinking their own profits. Which of the three do you think is the least palatable corporate option?

[bunkerbuster1]

102. Don't you mean "most" palatable?

I'd say raising prices would be simplest, and I'm guessing it'd be easily absorbed. But I can be convinced otherwise (the potential health cost from consumption of spoiled goods if TFs were to be removed from the process is worth addressing.)

As for inferring "ignorance of the economics," that's a whole lotta infferin' from a short post. Obviously there are costs involved, and I'd welcome any cost-benefit analysis on the topic you might be able to cite. But simply saying, in essence, "Don't ban it because it will add cost to the process" isn't an argument.

[Evoman]

87. Dude, your wrong here.

Trans fats are literally poison. It's not just "unhealthy" like too much sugar, or too much fat. It's dangerous like having poisonous chemicals.

We should be doing whatever we can to encourage their removal. The add NOTHING to taste or texture, and are completely unessecary.

[On the Road]

3. Baninng Transfats in Restaurants is a No-Brainer

Very easy fix. Major public health improvement.

[Atman]

4. Don't vote for them.

:hi:

.

[Deja Q]

5. K&R

:thumbsup:

(Too little work isn't good either, but it's amusing what the media says before saying 'health care costs are skyrocketing, yippie kay yay...')

[fishwax]

6. most of those are individual choices

whereas nobody is clamoring for trans fats--they're just used by food producers to cut down costs.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Man Boobs should, by law, be required to be restrained by manbrassiers.

There.

I said it.

[lightningandsnow]

9. Also, trans fats are naturally occuring in all dairy products.

Actually. They're in milk, yogurt, cheese, butter, etc., in small amounts.

I guess we can't eat dairy anymore?

[Marrah_G]

10. Don't be silly- no one is saying that

[Sugar Smack]

11. Oh, why d'ya have to be a wet blanket, AspieGrrl?

;-) :P

[mondo joe]

12. Most of the things on your list are purely your choice. But trans fats are put into food

and require consumers to actively have to watch for them to avoid them.

BAD ANALOGY.

[Snarkturian Clone]

13. Slippery slopes do exist.

Trans fats are no good but banning them will lead to more and more bans. Then when one city does it, another city tries to be as cool as them and they do it too. I live in Philly and both our smoking and trans fat bans are less about health and more about trying to be like other cities.

Eventually someone is going to try to ban veal in some city. When that happens... there will be blood.

[lightningandsnow]

14. That was kind of my point.

[mondo joe]

15. Hey, why not just get rid of those trendy public health laws for restaurants altogether?

They're just doing it to be like other states anyway. Who cares if there are rat turds in your salad?

[Snarkturian Clone]

18. quit your flamebaitin' NT

[mondo joe]

19. Wow - now thinking there should be public heath rules for food service is flamebait?

Sure you're on the right board?

[Dorian Gray]

24. How is that flamebait?

I think it's actually a relevant to the discussion point.

[izzybeans]

29. To be fair you said slippery slopes do exist and Mondo simply pointed one out.

[LostinVA]

16. Trans fats are fake

They aren't real fats like what's in butter, lard, etc. The industry created them as a "fat" that wouldn't go bad, basically. So, those Tastykakes which used to only be on the shelves for a few days until going stale NOW can stay there forever... forget about taste or health. Trans fat looks and acts like solid furniture polish. It isn't natural or needed and it's highly bad for people. It's CREATED fat.

[Sugar Smack]

26. I am learning A LOT in this thread.

:pals: Thanks.

[backscatter712]

39. They're not just fake fats, they're slow poison.

They're used because they keep longer in storage. Biologists say this is the case because "Even microbes won't eat that shit." Trans-fats are not found in nature, and because of this, neither microbes nor humans have evolved the means to metabolize them. So they build up in your bloodstream, get stored, don't get used in bodily processes or consumed like normal fats do, and if you eat too much of them, they WILL clog your arteries, screw up your metabolism and kill you.

They're slow poison. Scientists are advocating banning them for good reason.

[Lorien]

61. and why anyone would OBJECT to banning that man made crap is beyond me

I saw the OP and wondered what's next-an objection to the banning of asbestos? If it's an unnatural human invention that causes health problems then why would anyone WANT to ingest such garbage? Health advocates like Dr. Andrew Weil have been warning against trans fats for years. It's only due to pressure from the health care community and consumers themselves that corporations are finally getting rid of it. Maybe some day the same will happen to a number of artificial sweeteners.

[High Plains]

119. Maybe because some of us object to banning things in general.

We believe in things like, you know, choice.

[Lorien]

120. You can choose to drink Draino or Chlorox if that's what you want to do

that's up to you. But I'd personally like to know that the foods that I order at restaurants don't contain man made inventions like trans fats. I've had more than my fair share of health issues and I'd rather not have my heart stop due to "healthy" food choices at restaurants that secretly contain that crap. There are enough toxins in the environment as it is, no need to add to the problem.

[mondo joe]

130. Thinks like asbestos? Or lead paint? I guess it could be a choice to live in a

housing complex with both.

[ProfessorGAC]

76. Sorry. That's Wrong

They aren't fake. They are the natural outcome of the hydrogenation process in which oils are "hardened", or the levels are unsaturates are reduced by the addition of hydrogen.

When a double bond is satisfied by hydrogen, a conformational rearrangement occurs. When this happens in a long chain with more than one double bond (a polyunsaturate) what can occur is that only one or two (instead of 2 or 3) of the bonds get hydrogenated.

The result is that some of the remaining double bonds get "stuck" in the trans configuration. Not all. But enough to have some negative health effects, as these undergo the metabolic process in a stearically hindered way.

So, they're not created. It's just an outcome of certain fats when hardened for food use.
The Professor

[backscatter712]

86. Hydrogenation does not happen in nature.

Before humans came out of the trees, even cooking was a concept that did not exist. Human and animal digestive and metabolic processes evolved in the absence of hydrogenation or trans-fat, which occurs in nature in trace amounts.

Our systems do not have a clean metabolic path for dealing with trans-fats. That's why they're so bad for us.

[ProfessorGAC]

94. Try To Read For Comprehension

I didn't say they were naturally abundant at those levels. (Although they can be, btw.)

And, also, hydrogenation is a natural process. Many chemical processes are merely accelerated versions of what happens in nature. (How do you think fats get fully saturated in the first place? Metabolic chemistry!)

I also said they have bad effects. i wasn't defending anything. Simply setting the technical record straight.

So, all my post said was they aren't fake. They are a natural outcome of hydrogenation. And, if monounsaturated fats are used as raw material, then TF's are far less likely. (Or at least fats with minimal polyunsaturation and those, especially with very little conjugated double bonds, would be better yet.)

Don't read into it what wasn't there.

GAC

[backscatter712]

100. OK, fair enough.

Would it be true to suggest that trans-fats exist in nature in miniscule trace amounts, when compared to the quantities put in McDonalds' french fries?

Our systems evolved only to deal with these tiny amounts of trans-fats.

[ProfessorGAC]

103. Yes

And i said that in my first post. I said they were bad because the metabolic processes are stearically hindered. (Remember that?)

All i ever said was they're not fake. No defense of TF's. No defending trying not taking them out of foods. Just a technical correction.

And, yes, for the reasons above, our systems are not really designed to deal with more than low levels.

One thing: IIRC, the reason why many food products ended up with hardened oils was twofold: Cheaper coconut oil (although not true anymore), and public health concerns about too much lard and tallow.

So, this might have been a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Not completely sure about this last bit, though.
GAC

[backscatter712]

121. OK.

I guess my assertions were oversimplified.

We both agree - trans fats, especially as we eat them in fast foot and such, are slow poison and will eventually kill you.

[LostinVA]

89. Right, they're fake

[ProfessorGAC]

91. Sigh

I'm not the "man". There are not fake. They are a naturally occuring species that is INCREASED by chemical processing.

Go ahead. Act like a flat earther. Heaven forbid you should learn something from someone with expertise in chemistry.
The Professor

[Gormy Cuss]

122. You are splitting a hair, Professor.

Within your discipline the distinction between fake and naturally occurring may be defined that way, but in the popular vernacular "increased by chemical processing"=faked, whether it mimics nature or is a wholly new process. Too often the argument for engineered food ingredients or processes is framed as only increasing what happens naturally and remains silent on whether such an increase would have ever occurred naturally.

[ProfessorGAC]

123. I'm The One Splitting Hairs?

The word is a simple, easily defined one. It is not fake. It is, like any other fat, a FAT!

Nothing fake about it.

That's not hair splitting. It's called correcting a technical error. Heaven forbid we would want to avoid being like freepers and accept the scientific facts.
The Professor

[Gormy Cuss]

124. The hydrogenation process, Professor. Not the fat itself.

I wrote in the previous post that the technical distinction on fake vs. natural may be important within your discipline --that's where it would be a technical error.
It's not freeperish nor hostile to scientific fact to use the term 'fake' to describe the hydrogenation process used for these food ingredients.

[ProfessorGAC]

127. Then We Disagree

To suggest that the word fake is open to interpretation is dishonest. Something is either real or fake. There is no fake fat being added.

That's all i ever said and all i ever meant.

To attempt to interpret a simple word like fake to justify a blatant technical error is laughable.
The Professor

[Gormy Cuss]

136. Yes, we disagree.

I'm sorry that you find it laughable or dishonest to suggest that words have different meanings depending on context and frame of reference. Note that I did not suggest that you are wrong, only that you were looking at the word 'fake' from the perspective of your discipline and ignoring the way the word is understood outside of chemistry. I have a vocabulary with precise meaning within my discipline but have learned to accept that outside of it, those same words seem to have fuzzier edges.

[ProfessorGAC]

137. I Said No Such Thing

I never said words don't have different meaning based upon context. I said THIS word is non-contextual. The word fake is not interpretive. It's meaning is clear, obvious and unambiguous.

Now, to support your point, you've put words into my mouth.

How convenient.
The Professor

[Gormy Cuss]

138. I'm sorry if it came across as too broad a statement.

I was not trying to put words in your mouth. With that clarification I stand by what I said. The word "fake" has different accepted meanings, even if you find it unambiguous.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

140. I understand a thing or two about organic chemistry.

"Fake" is perfectly fine to me.

[Common Sense Party]

128. Not all trans fats are created (equal.)

According to the American Heart Asociation:

Small amounts of trans fats occur naturally in some meat and dairy products, including beef, lamb and butterfat. It isn’t clear; though, whether these naturally occurring trans fats have the same bad effects on cholesterol levels as trans fats that have been industrially manufactured.


Key word, obviously, is SMALL. But SOME trans fats, apparently, occur in nature.

[blondeatlast]

17. Trans fats are added to most foods (meat and dairy have them naturally)

and are unnecessary (alternatives exist but they cost a bit more). Added trans fats have no nutritional benefit.

Take it from someone who has drastically changed her diet owing to heart disease diagnosed at 39. Consequently, I lost 15 pounds and have never felt better in my life.

[Raster]

92. 10 years ago I had approx. 20% of the blood vessels feeding my heart blocked.

I failed a stress test and went through the nuclear imaging stress test. My cardiologist sat me down and said if I didn't change anything else I should remove trans fats from my diet. His caution: "...eat trans fats and wear them in your arteries." I began to remove trans fats from my diet. I had another nuclear imaging on my heart a year ago. That test showed minor damage from previous blockages, but found NO SIGNIFICANT BLOCKAGES. Trans fats--the man made kind, not the naturally occurring type--are a type of edible--though not digestible--"plastic." Their only purposes were to extend shelf life and act as a fatty acid filler in processed foods.

[Dorian Gray]

20. I don't support banning transfats

but I do support a surge in PR/education about how bad they are for you so that people can make informed decisions. Changing eating habits is really difficult, but having the information readily available to everyone is important!

They are REALLY REALLY bad for you. Even in limited amounts, they are like a poison going into your body. Of course, every once in awhile, I love a good donut or oreo, but they should be a really special treat, not a part of everyone's daily diets.

[mondo joe]

21. The bans I know of have been in restaurants, where consumers have litte to no option

to BE informed about what transfats might be used in the cooking.

[Dorian Gray]

132. That's fine...

i live in NYC, and I'm happy those bans at restaurants have occurred here. It makes eating out for me slightly healthier! :)

[readmoreoften]

25. So if I go into a restaurant, how am I supposed to know if I'm being served poison?

If I spend all day researching whether or not there is poison in my food, lead in my lipstick, or asbestos in my refrigerator model, how am I going to have time to be involved in politics? Why not just make it illegal? Is there anyone who wants to consume invisible toxins?

[Dorian Gray]

133. I was talking about supermarket foods......

I live in NYC, and I'm perfectly happy with the ban here in restaurants. It's a good thing.

[Raster]

118. Homer, I mean Dorian, donuts, like everything else yummy can be made without trans fats.

[Dorian Gray]

134. Not if Entemann's

wants them to have a year long shelf life!

Look, I am living in a place where Transfats have been banned in restaurants. I'm certainly glad that they have. I do not, however, think that banning them in the supermarket arena is necessarily the best way to go. I think that informing the public about the dangerous nature of them is a better policy, and let the public vote with their pocketbooks. I've stopped buying any products that are made with transfats in order to extend their shelf-life. I just don't buy that crap anymore. Why? Because I learned how bad it is for you.

Once bottom lines of Nabisco, Sara Lee, Entemanns, etc. are affected by people not buying that crap, they will stop using transfats in their products. It's win - win.

That's why threads like this one are great. They help educate people about the very serious dangers of these types of fats.

[readmoreoften]

22. A little lead in your lipstick shouldn't bother you either. We wouldn't wanna trouble big business!

Why would I care if McDonalds is forced to cook my fries in a more expensive oil that won't kill me? What is so fucking difficult to understand about this? The people have a right to say DON'T PUT THIS SHIT IN OUR FOOD. We shouldn't have to rely on market research to figure out where the food isn't toxic.

[zorahopkins]

27. Why Eat At McDonald's?

I don't understand why anyone would ever eat at McDonald's -- either before or after transfats are banned.

Eating McDonalds french fries -- whether cooked in transfat oils or not -- is unhealthy. French fries are full of fat and are really empty calories.

[mondo joe]

28. Missing the forest for the trees. When trans fats are allowed they are allowed in anything,

and often to make a product cheaper and/or marketable as low/no fat. But the consumer has no way to know it's there, and poorer people have the fewest options anyway.

Doesn't matter if it's in your fries or salad dressing or coffee creamer - restaurants shouldn't be feeding you substances that are essentially poison.

[zorahopkins]

30. Why Patronize Places That Serve Poison?

I don't eat at places that serve poison.

Places like Subway or Quiznos -- all the cured meat (like salami) is poison.

I don't eat potato chips or corn chips -- all the fat (whether transfat or not) is poison.

No pizza for me, either -- fat, fat, fat.

Canned soups? Not on your life. (Too much salt).

Why people choose to ingest poisons has always been a mystery to me.

It's so easy to live poison-free. It requires some thought.

But, I guess if your major concerns are things like Britney Spears and Linsey Lohan, actually thinking about what you eat is just too much work.

[Bill McBlueState]

31. well aren't you special

The smug is so thick in here, I can barely see.

[zorahopkins]

37. I Also Avoid Refined Sugar

I am indeed special.

I also avoid refined sugar. It is just lots and lots of empty calories.

And soda pop? I avoid that like the plague -- it's just canned poison.

[Sugar Smack]

32. Don't drag Britney into this!!

:nuke:

[zorahopkins]

41. Leave Britney Alone!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6FAuJod1XmY

[Sugar Smack]

44. Oh, Lord!

:rofl: I don't even get to watch that because I don't get youtube, but the whole "Leave Britney Alone" thing cracks me up.:D

[zorahopkins]

47. Too Bad

It's a cool trance remix.

Pretty funny.

[Sugar Smack]

51. I'll take your word, or look it up on my friends' internet.

:D Should be a hoot.:bounce:

[mondo joe]

33. First off, you don't always know who is serving poison; Secondly, the least educated

are most likely to be harmed because they are the least armed o protect themselves.

That's what consumer protection is about.

[zorahopkins]

43. I Ask

If I go to a restaurant, I always ask about the ingredients they are serving me.

If the restaurant refuses or is unable to do so, I just turn around and walk back out.

I like to take care of my health, and I r.e.f.u.s.e. to eat at any establishment that refuses to tell me about the ingredients they want to put on my plate.

You are quite right about the least educated being likely to be harmed. That is why we need to ban false ads (like McDonalds and KFC and Quiznos and all the rest) that encourage people to eat poisons. We should instead have PSA's that tell people how to choose foods wisely and healthy and NOT put poisons into their mouths.

[mondo joe]

46. So do you believe in Public Health standards for restaurants or not?

Should restaurants be able to serve food past its expiration date?

Or keep food in unsanitary conditions?

[zorahopkins]

50. I Ask

I have gotten physically sick from eating at restaurants that served bad food.

So I always ask.

I ask to see the kitchen. If anything looks unsanitary, I'm out of there.

That is also one of the reasons I refuse to eat at McDonalds or KFC or any place like that. How anyone can eat at a place like that when they see the kitchens where the food is prepared is beyond me.

It's also the reason I don't eat food at street fairs or things like that. Despite the licensing that food vendors get, it is virtually impossible for food to be kept sanitary and to be properly prepared by a vendor on the street at a street fair.

Leave Britney Alone!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6FAuJod1XmY

[mondo joe]

53. I think you're full of shit, frankly. NT

[zorahopkins]

55. High Colonics

I have frequent high colonics.

They are good at removing shit -- and toxins -- from my body.

Leave Britney Alone!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6FAuJod1XmY

[fishwax]

58. what does that have to do with whether their should be public health standards for restaurants

:shrug:

[zorahopkins]

65. Even If There Are Public Health Standards,

Even if their are public health standards, it is still up to the person doing the eating to be careful about what s/he eats.

Everytime, in the distant past, I got sick from eating at a restaurant, it was a restaurant that had a license -- a license that required the restaurant to adhere to public health standards.

Same with food vendors at street fairs -- they all have licenses to operate, but I would still not eat at any of them.

I ask. I inspect. And I am very careful about where I eat.

[fishwax]

68. that's very conscientious of you, but it still isn't relevant to

the question of whether or not their ought to be public health standards.

[mondo joe]

34. Also, fat and salt aren't poisons. NT

[Sugar Smack]

42. Look, peace, Zora, but we choose our "mysteries".

Mine are located as to why Bush is in power, why child molesters & rapists exist, and to whether I can make a buck in the coming day.;-)

[Sugar Smack]

66. Oh, and let's not forget Britney

or Poland.:rofl: If I didn't have absurdity or levity in my life, I don't know what I'd have.

[zorahopkins]

75. Poland?

Isn't Santa Claus from Poland -- the northern part of Poland?

Isn't he a North Pole?

[Sugar Smack]

80. *snort*

:spray:

[tridim]

101. I make a mean homemade, zero trans-fat pizza.

It tastes much better than a typical fat-bomb from Pizza Hut. I also take 2 tbsp of flaxseed oil a day.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can still eat great tasting food that's also nutritious if you're smart about it.

[I work for workers]

36. Because (some of) the food tastes good?

I don't go to restaurants to eat healthy. I go to eat good tasting food with friends.

Banning transfat is another lame way to sidestep the real issue of why there are so many unhealthy people; they consume more calories then they burn. Promoting diet and exercise > banning ingredients.

[mondo joe]

40. Do you believe there should be any public health standards for food service?

Or is it all just buyer-beware for you?

[I work for workers]

45. Of course. I also beleive that every single person I know has spent

years eating transfat. The are all still alive and kicking. The ones who are in lousy shape are there by choice, not because of the hidden content of their food. They don't exercise, and they eat a lot. Simple equation.

I'm 100% for safe food standards at restaurants. I'm 100% against healthy food standards at restaurants. I, and virtually everyone I know, don't go to restaurants to eat healthy. We go to have fun and eat good tasting food. Almost every restaurants have a healthy option menu, and many I know of have voluntarily removed trasfat (while remaining spectacularly unhealthy) for marketing reasons.

A few of my good friends are professional athletes who are very into nutrition. I've asked them about this, and they all say the same thing; transfat is bad for you, but not so bad as being lazy.

[mondo joe]

48. People who eat food rats have shat in are still alive. Strawman, on your part.

No one has advocated for 100% healthy foods at restaurants.

I'm not interested in 100% healthy foods at restaurants. I enjoy cheese and duck and bacon and cream and plenty of carbs.

This isn't about whether FOOD is health or not but whether restaurants can serve something that ISN'T food but has the appearance of food, but is far worse for you in a way that consumers are unlikely to detect.

[zorahopkins]

54. Cheese?! Duck?!! Bacon??!! BACON???

Cheese?? Duck?? Bacon???

O.M.G.!!!

Do you know how bacon is prepared? Do you know the terrible risk of eating bacon?? BACON??

And cheese -- well, that is just a sure way to clog up your arteries!!

Duck may be ok -- if properly prepared and if all the fat is removed.

Next you'll be telling me you eat pate.

Leave Brtiney Alone!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6FAuJod1XmY

[mondo joe]

56. Yes, I do know how bacon s prepared. That's the point: I know.

But what consumers don't know is when plastic (trans fats) are included in their meals for the benefit of the business.

[zorahopkins]

60. So, You'd Be OK

So, you'd be OK with a law that required restaurants to state the transfats are served in their food, and to specify what dishes contain transfats?

After all, if you can eat bacon -- B.A.C.O.N.!!! -- knowing that it is poison,.....

Leave Britney Alone!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6FAuJod1XmY

[mondo joe]

64. I'd prefer that to consumers not knowing. NT

[I work for workers]

57. Now transfat isn't food, but is feces? And I'm the one tossing strawmen?

You, me, and everyone on this thread has consumed transfat and are no worse the wear for it. If we are unhealthy, it's not because of what is in our food when we go out to eat. It's because we aren't making the decision to be healthy. A pound of fat is around 3,500 calories. Burn that many calories, and you loose a pound. Consume that many calories without using them, and you gain a pound.

This is the height of simplicity, but people like to ignore the issue to escape responsibility. It's easy to be fat and unhealthy in our society, and it's hard to be healthy once you get that way. Transfat is a scapegoat for the unhealthy and politicians who want their votes.

I'll say this. I support transfat labeling on foods nutrition info, and support restaurants providing nutrition info for their meals. People should know what they are eating so they can make educated choices.

[fishwax]

62. that's silly

You, me, and everyone on this thread has consumed transfat and are no worse the wear for it.

It isn't solely the quantity of calories that you consume that effects your health--the kinds of calories you consume are also important.

One can also be thin and spectacularly unhealthy :shrug:

[mondo joe]

63. Transat was never food. The point was your strawman baseline: does it KILL you.

And you're wrong about being no worse the wear for it.

I stopped consuming transfats (or did my best to minimize it) precisely because it WAS harming me.

You seem obsessed with weight, but there are a lot of ways to have poor health other than being overweight. I don't know why you keep referencing weight and exercise - I haven't mentioned either, and I don't see the relation to the issue of putting transfats into foods.

[I work for workers]

72. Trans fat is produced from vegatable oil. It is and always will be food.

Bad food, but food nonetheless.

Weight, as in obesity, is inherently linked to the trans fat issue as it is the driving force behind some of the leading causes of death in America. As such, people scramble to solve the problem. There are good ways and bad ways to do this. Unfortunately, the advocates of restaurant ingredient bans have chosen one of the worst ways.

[LostinVA]

93. No, it isn't == it's FAKE

Spin spin spin on this thread all you want. The tarns fat they want to ban is created FAKE fat that does not improve either taste or texture -- it just saves the Corporations money. Period. It is nothing like naturally occurring fat in dairy.

[I work for workers]

96. Trans fat is made from vegatable oil. It's not plastic, oil, or pure liquid hate.

It is bad for you, but that is hardly a reason to ban it, especially from restaurants.

[mondo joe]

110. Vegetable oil is also used for biodiesel, candles and soaps - that doesn't make them food.

And an FDA that actually served the citizens of the United States would never have approved it.

[appal_jack]

116. the new seats in Ford cars are made from soybean oil...

Are they food?

Look Mr. I-work-for-plastic-shilling-corps, I would no more rather down transfats than I would gnaw on some auto upholstery foam. One can make all sorts of poisons by processing natural raw materials. Transfats are poison. One can be skinny, exercise plenty, and still be on the verge of a heart attack because indigestible transfats are clogging up arteries. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

-app

edit for typo, and to correct the type of oil that Ford is using, and to add a link for those who might be curious...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/ford_develops_f.html

[KittyWampus]

74. It's NOT just calories + exercise = weight. Certain foods dampen a bodies ability to burn fat

Certain food habits encourage storage of fat. Certain foods are extremely difficult for the body to metabolize.

[I work for workers]

85. That has an effect, but the bottom line is that calories consumed: calories burned drives weight.

Dietary habits can assist or hinder weight loss, but that comes secondary to the consumed:burned ratio.

There are many reasons that prevent a person from being healthy. It takes a responsible person to realize which ones are legitimate, and which are excuses.

[Lorien]

107. Very true. There are a huge number of weight loss books out there

that confirm this (my favorite is "The eat clean diet", which isn't so much a "diet" as it is a lifestyle change). A person can only eat a bag of french fries, a twinkie, and a plate of spaghetti with sauce at a single sitting and eat nothing more all day and still remain overweight, while another person can eat a veggie omelet for breakfast, mixed fruit for a snack, salad and grilled chicken for lunch, a handful of almonds for a snack, salmon with brown rich and steamed veggies for dinner along with raspberry mousse and they'll lose weight. What you eat, how often you eat and when you eat what has a huge impact on how calories are used or stored. It really isn't a simple case of "calories + exercise= weight".

[lukasahero]

88. "The ones who are in lousy shape are there by choice, " Calling BS

If you think the concerns about trans fats are just about being overweight, I give you this:

My husband: restaurant visits are usually ethnic and infrequent, goes to the gym every other day, eats virtually no processed foods, eats lots of fruits and veggies, had quadruple bypass surgery in October.

I'm not suggesting this happened solely because of trans fats in restaurants because that would be stupid but your comment about people being "in lousy shape" "by choice" or by "being lazy" is unbelievably offensive and way off the mark.

[I work for workers]

95. I'm sorry for your husband. I hope he is ok.

Unfortunately, bad things happen to people sometimes, despite their best efforts. I hope he recovers fully, and with the active lifestyle you described, he likely has a good chance of doing so.

I'm not talking about people like your husband, who despite their best efforts suffer medical problems. I'm talking about the hordes of people who make the decision to eat a lot and do little and thus reap their rewards. Barring people with severe medical reasons, anyone can choose to be healthy. Most people simply don't do so, though almost everyone gives lip service to the idea. If the number of people who talk abut being healthy came anywhere near the number of people who act on it, we wouldn't be having this conversation because no one would need to care.

[Lorien]

115. Ethnicity and genetics often play a roll

my cousin eats mostly veggies and lean meats in small quanities about four times a day. She has a personal trainer and works out for an hour five times a week and bikes on the weekends. She has NEVER been slim. She's a Chippawa Native American and most of the people from her tribe struggle with the same issue. We all don't metabolize foods the same way, and a workout that leaves one person slim and toned might leave another heavy yet toned.

[HamdenRice]

23. Perhaps you don't know just HOW bad they are

My doctor friends consider them to be barely a half step above poisonous. If they had to go through FDA approval today, they would never have been approved.

[Lorien]

71. Well, since the FDA is run by ex-Monsanto execs today

it may indeed have been approved- depending on who would profit. Splenda gives me a screaming headache followed by body aches that feel like the onset of the flu, so I suspect that it's some really nasty stuff that got pushed through via "special connections" like nutra-sweet did. BushCo's FDA is like their EPA; always looking out for special interests over public welfare. But I certainly agree with the rest of your point.

BTW- check out "The future of food" (it's on Netflix) it's a must see documentary on this subject.

[zorahopkins]

79. If Splenda Give You A Screaming Headache,.....

If Splenda gives you a screaming headache, followed by body aches that feel like the onset of the flu, then why in the world do you put Splenda into your system??

[Lorien]

104. I didn't know that crap was in the food

I went to Thanksgiving at a friends house where apple pie was served by his mother in law. Went home with a screaming headache then thought I was coming down with the flu. Went to Christmas at the same friend's house, apple pie again- same deal. Went to another party at their home two months later where apple pie was served. His wife said "my mom made the pie. She always bakes with Splenda, so you can all keep to those New Year's resolutions". NOW I had a good idea where those weird symptoms had come from. I passed on the pie but weeks later was offered a sip of Jones diet soda with Splenda. I took a sip and felt a headache within an hour (I don't normally get headaches), so that confirmed it for me.

I generally don't put any artificial crap into my system, period. In fact, I generally only eat organic foods, avoid red meat, and don't eat processed anything. I usually avoid all sweets as well, but during the holidays I do make an exception if my host offer me something that they made themselves. I don't normally drink soda-bit I took a sip as an experiment. Years ago I had a diet coke habit that I believe contributed significantly to my developing Fibromyalgia, so I'm extremely careful now.

[Sugar Smack]

77. Well, I think it's also an economic issue.

I think cheap food is loaded with trans-fats. I don't even need my tinfoil hat for that one.

[The Backlash Cometh]

81. I wish my mom had known about trans fats fifteen years ago.

And I wish that there were options for all foods, so those that want to eat trans fats can do so, and those who want to live wiser lives, can do so, as well.

[Stuart G]

98. I know a group that likes them a lot,...and it is not producers....

The group that really likes them is not just the companies that make this shit..

..a second group that loves these trans fats is...........................................................
................................................are you ready???????????????????????????????????
............................................................................................................
................................CARDIOLOGISTS........


They are much richer with them than without them...............

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

[Stuart G]

99. and just think of when you need a cardiologist....

Yep, when do you need one?????????????????

..I will leave it up to you......been there, done that, no fun at all..................

[IronLionZion]

105. You have a choice for most of those things

while the knee-jerk response is that you have a choice on eating trans fats too, Do you really? Do you know which restaurants use trans fats? Do you know which foods contain it? Do you check all the labels? What do you do when there are no labels?

Chances are you don't spend much time thinking about trans fats every time you eat. Mayor Mike cares deeply about the health of his city. There's nothing good about trans fats. There's no reason they can't use oils that aren't hydrogenated. I support this ban and the mandatory posting of nutrition info in the restaurant. It helps people to make informed decisions.

My favorite part is the fears that some restaurants will switch to high-saturated fat oil like coconut, palm, or peanut. Oh no! The horror! I happen to think that some saturated fats from plants are good for you. And plants don't have cholesterol.

[mondo joe]

108. It's disheartening to see so many on DU promoting corporate interests over consumers.

It's like the WORST form of Libertarianism.

[KaptBunnyPants]

109. I get it, lead is bad for you.

So is a whole bunch of other stuff which is impossible to legislate against. I don't see why we should ban poisonous compounds from the food supply when we can't ban every other bad thing.

[mondo joe]

111. But we already do ban some poisonous compounds.

Why some and not others?

[lightningandsnow]

112. OK. I should never have posted this.

A lot of you have good points. I was just trying to prove a point, myself, and it got out of hand.

Sorry.

*Crawls in a hole*

[mondo joe]

113. I'm glad you posted it. I disagree with your premise, but it's a good conversation.

[zorahopkins]

131. Come Out Of That Hole!

Come out of that hole!

Don't be sorry that you posted this.

If nothing else, it gave people the opportunity to see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FAuJod1XmY

Leave Britney Alone!!

[lightningandsnow]

139. That is hilarious.

[killbotfactory]

125. Trans fats offer nothing but health problems

There is no reason to use them other than cheapness.

[RedCappedBandit]

126. Some people like living in a nanny state

apparently. Its apparent enough with the war on drugs..

[mondo joe]

129. Do you consider a responsible FDA to be part of a nanny state?

Do you consider freedom to feed an uninformed consumer unhealth material a basic freedom?

[RedCappedBandit]

135. So inform the general public about proper health habits

Education is the key. We need to help eachother to be able to take care of ourselves. The proper way is not appropriating what we may and may not put into our bodies legally.

[appal_jack]

141. Mr. Bandit, there is a difference

It would be a real stretch to call me a nanny-stater. I am a firm proponent of all Constitutional liberties, including the idea (in the ninth and tenth amendments) that we the people can enjoy rights and liberties above and beyond what the earlier (and subsequent) amendments enumerate. My beliefs naturally lead me to conclude that the entire war on drugs is an unconstitutional crock, a practice round for eventual martial law.

But just because I believe someone at a proper age of consent (16? 18? 21? - I'd favor 16, but many here would argue that point) has the right to fire up a joint (or even a crack pipe, since we are on the topic of people harming themselves), I would have a real problem with someone baking some ganja brownies and feeding them (with a side of secretly LSD-spiked punch) to unsuspecting children (or even unknowing adults). Restaurants using hydrog. oil because it's cheaper, and serving it to customers who just want a veggie omelet is much more akin to this latter example. OK, my drug example may be a bit extreme, but it fits the pattern of feeding people something they do not want, do not know is there, and can't easily find out about.

Now, if you instead want to defend the right of Entenmann's do use hydrog. in their donuts (where the ingredients are clearly presented on the side of the box), I can live with that. Education about health generally works pretty well when information available to the consumer is complete and accurate. Regulation becomes more necessary when information (like the ingredients of a restaurant meal) is incomplete or unknowable.

-app

[lightningandsnow]

143. Where I live, they're looking at banning them altogether

Even though nutrion labelling here is pretty complete (they have to list ANY amount of trans fats). So, I guess, in that case, it's "Buyer Beware", in my opinion.

[mondo joe]

146. I'm sorry but you did not answer the question: do you consider the FDA part of a nanny state?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

144. trans fat can be much more easily slipped into your food than heels can on your feet

its a consumer awareness issue. i always know when i work too much or wear heels, however i have no fucking clue which restaurant uses transfat

[zorahopkins]

145. Ask

If you have no fucking clue which restaurants use transfats, you can always do what I do:

ASK.

If the restaurant cannot or will not tell you whether it uses transfats or not, and in what dishes it uses transfats, then leave.

It's your choice.

After all, you are the one who is going to be eating the food.