NYC Mulls Ban on Trans Fats in Eateries

[homesick_american 1]

You seem to have some biases against people that are overweight, don't know what to say about that. So what is your stance? Is it the fat people's fault or the government/corporations fault for them being fat? By saying they are lazy you imply the reason they are fat is because they do not exercise, not because they eat trans fats. Fat people come from all political spectrums. I proposed multiple solutions and there are many more.

No, I'm not biased against fat people. I myself am still overweight despite having lost forty pounds recently. I put on forty pounds due to a medication I was taking, but the rest of it is all my fault. I'm basically right back where I was before I started the medication which is 'has a few pounds to lose.' I don't hate myself, so obviously I don't hate overweight people because that would mean hating myself. I guess the difference between me and some other people is I'm not making excuses for it and I'm changing myself.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that banning transfats and/or HFCs will affect the obesity problem in any way or is it more of a question of human behaviors? If something is legal, such as smoking or drinking I accept that people have the right to do it. If I disagree with it, I let people, markets, and the government know about it through purchasing power and the voting booth.

If people clogging their arteries, destroying their pancreases, and otherwise destroying themselves had no effect on anyone except themselves, I'd accept that argument. Unfortunately, people destroying themselves by overeating cost the rest of us hundreds of millions of dollars every year in higher insurance premiums. It's not fair to the rest of us. There is a difference between occasionally indulging in something that isn't good for you and eating a steady diet of garbage. I'm fed up with it. I get it now. Hell, if *I* can change then anyone can. I'm just glad I turned my habits around before I permanently damaged myself.

It would be interesting to see how many anti-trans fats people deal with this upcoming Halloween. Will they allow their children trans fats or support corporations by buying or consuming trans fats products? I believe they will. Markets do change according to consumers demands, many companies have actually changed the ingredients and portion sizes in response, which I think is great. For me it's not a political issue at all, it's all about behavior.

We don't have children but when we do have kids, we don't plan to cram McDonald's and candy down their throats. Halloween is not a big thing in the UK and we rarely get trick or treaters, so we're not even bothering with candy this year. We'd hand out apples or dried fruit but parents are so paranoid and the kids probably wouldn't eat them anyway; kids nowadays don't even seem to realize that apples grow on trees.

Since scare tactics and economic penalties haven't worked, I think maybe it's time to try outright bans on trans fats and HFCS.

"You might think twice about asking a Starbucks barista to make you a venti Caffè Mocha with breve milk and whipped cream if you knew it contained 770 calories, one-third of the daily calories needed by an average adult."

Whoa, had no idea! good article

You'd be surprised how many calories are in things like that. Of course Starbucks doesn't want you to know that their venti Caffe Mochas have as many calories as a Big Mac. It's disgusting isn't it...they don't give a sh!t if we eat ourselves to death as long as they get our money first.

[Lewis 0]

Since scare tactics and economic penalties haven't worked, I think maybe it's time to try outright bans on trans fats and HFCS.

"You might think twice about asking a Starbucks barista to make you a venti Caffè Mocha with breve milk and whipped cream if you knew it contained 770 calories, one-third of the daily calories needed by an average adult."

Whoa, had no idea! good article

You'd be surprised how many calories are in things like that. Of course Starbucks doesn't want you to know that their venti Caffe Mochas have as many calories as a Big Mac. It's disgusting isn't it...they don't give a sh!t if we eat ourselves to death as long as they get our money first.

Thank you for the explanation on your viewpoint, it was very enlightening. I apologize for implying you were biased. However, I'm still on the fence on the outright ban, although I do support labeling of foods.

Yeah, it's crazy that a cup of coffee could have so many calories. It's possible many people would actually change their eating habits if they knew the calorie content of what they were eating/drinking.

Scare tactics rarely work when it comes to health issues, you are right!

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=34756

Eat healthy!

[Caladan 19]

It's just not true that everyone who is overweight is there because of a moral failing. There's tons of factors -- sedentary jobs, driving rather than walking, empty calorie-rich foods, obsession with weight loss -- and quite a lot of it hits poorer people harder. It's very easy to say 'Everyone should be thin!' when you can eat organic and go to a gym, but it's a lot harder when fatty foods are cheap and easy to prepare and you're working 14-hour days in a job you need to drive an hour each way to get to.

I don't think it leads to a slippery slope if trans fats are as bad as Steven says; they're not regulating how many calories, or how much can be sold, but whether a harmful chemical can be put it. It's not in the same class as just banning french fries or cookies.

[Lewis 0]

It's just not true that everyone who is overweight is there because of a moral failing. There's tons of factors -- sedentary jobs, driving rather than walking, empty calorie-rich foods, obsession with weight loss -- and quite a lot of it hits poorer people harder. It's very easy to say 'Everyone should be thin!' when you can eat organic and go to a gym, but it's a lot harder when fatty foods are cheap and easy to prepare and you're working 14-hour days in a job you need to drive an hour each way to get to.

I don't think it leads to a slippery slope if trans fats are as bad as Steven says; they're not regulating how many calories, or how much can be sold, but whether a harmful chemical can be put it. It's not in the same class as just banning french fries or cookies.

Totally agree with that first statement, weight problems are not one dimensional. Banning one food additive will not make a dent on the obesity problem, IMO. Poorer people do need more healthy choices but IMO that is a very complex side issue that may have much to do with education, economic opportunity and accessibility. Unfortunately, that first one is a big weak spot in the US at this point.

Everyone should be thin? Maybe in the make believe world of Glamour magazine that's a prevalent thought. I don't know many thin people and I have never advocated that idea.

Ok, what is more "harmful"?

Alcohol, caffeine, pseudoephedrine, potassium benzoate, nicotine, PCBs, mercury, transfats, HFCs, nitrites, nitrates, sulfites, chlorine, fluoride, aluminum, magnesium, artificial sweeteners, carcinogens produced through grilling of meats...... all of which are found in our consumable products. C'mon, add to the list if you want. I just find it crazy that people think that by banning transfats it will somehow change things, that's all.

Banning trans fats is the same as banning cookies or fries because the composition and/or taste of the product changes, which essentially means the product may be no longer is palatable to the consumer who once enjoyed the product. Snickers bars will never be the same.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Snickers bars will never be the same.

Actually, snicker bars will finally taste normal again. If you've had snickers in recent years outside the U.S. you would have noticed that the chocolate tastes better with real cocoa oil than with trans-fat.

[homesick_american 1]

It's just not true that everyone who is overweight is there because of a moral failing. There's tons of factors -- sedentary jobs, driving rather than walking, empty calorie-rich foods, obsession with weight loss -- and quite a lot of it hits poorer people harder. It's very easy to say 'Everyone should be thin!' when you can eat organic and go to a gym, but it's a lot harder when fatty foods are cheap and easy to prepare and you're working 14-hour days in a job you need to drive an hour each way to get to.

I don't think it leads to a slippery slope if trans fats are as bad as Steven says; they're not regulating how many calories, or how much can be sold, but whether a harmful chemical can be put it. It's not in the same class as just banning french fries or cookies.

Totally agree with that first statement, weight problems are not one dimensional. Banning one food additive will not make a dent on the obesity problem, IMO. Poorer people do need more healthy choices but IMO that is a very complex side issue that may have much to do with education, economic opportunity and accessibility. Unfortunately, that first one is a big weak spot in the US at this point.

Everyone should be thin? Maybe in the make believe world of Glamour magazine that's a prevalent thought. I don't know many thin people and I have never advocated that idea.

Ok, what is more "harmful"?

Alcohol, caffeine, pseudoephedrine, potassium benzoate, nicotine, PCBs, mercury, transfats, HFCs, nitrites, nitrates, sulfites, chlorine, fluoride, aluminum, magnesium, artificial sweeteners, carcinogens produced through grilling of meats...... all of which are found in our consumable products. C'mon, add to the list if you want. I just find it crazy that people think that by banning transfats it will somehow change things, that's all.

Banning trans fats is the same as banning cookies or fries because the composition and/or taste of the product changes, which essentially means the product may be no longer is palatable to the consumer who once enjoyed the product. Snickers bars will never be the same.

LOL....ridiculous.

Because we can't ban all harmful substances at once from the food chain, we shouldn't ban ANY? That is a preposterous argument. Banning trans fats will prevent people from eating them, hence the cardiac health of the population *should* improve as trans fats have been associated with much higher risks of heart attack and stroke.

And the German (can't remember how to spell their name) is correct, Snickers will taste normal again. I can't eat most US junk food now that I'm used to UK junk food which contains less trans fats and hardly any HFCS. That stuff is tasteless and disgusting, I can't believe anyone would eat it voluntarily anyway.

[Lewis 0]

Snickers bars will never be the same.

Actually, snicker bars will finally taste normal again. If you've had snickers in recent years outside the U.S. you would have noticed that the chocolate tastes better with real cocoa oil than with trans-fat.

Wow, did not know that. Maybe they should ban that junk after all!

I have had chocolate from Switzerland and France, it is quite superior to the stuff here.

It's just not true that everyone who is overweight is there because of a moral failing. There's tons of factors -- sedentary jobs, driving rather than walking, empty calorie-rich foods, obsession with weight loss -- and quite a lot of it hits poorer people harder. It's very easy to say 'Everyone should be thin!' when you can eat organic and go to a gym, but it's a lot harder when fatty foods are cheap and easy to prepare and you're working 14-hour days in a job you need to drive an hour each way to get to.

I don't think it leads to a slippery slope if trans fats are as bad as Steven says; they're not regulating how many calories, or how much can be sold, but whether a harmful chemical can be put it. It's not in the same class as just banning french fries or cookies.

Totally agree with that first statement, weight problems are not one dimensional. Banning one food additive will not make a dent on the obesity problem, IMO. Poorer people do need more healthy choices but IMO that is a very complex side issue that may have much to do with education, economic opportunity and accessibility. Unfortunately, that first one is a big weak spot in the US at this point.

Everyone should be thin? Maybe in the make believe world of Glamour magazine that's a prevalent thought. I don't know many thin people and I have never advocated that idea.

Ok, what is more "harmful"?

Alcohol, caffeine, pseudoephedrine, potassium benzoate, nicotine, PCBs, mercury, transfats, HFCs, nitrites, nitrates, sulfites, chlorine, fluoride, aluminum, magnesium, artificial sweeteners, carcinogens produced through grilling of meats...... all of which are found in our consumable products. C'mon, add to the list if you want. I just find it crazy that people think that by banning transfats it will somehow change things, that's all.

Banning trans fats is the same as banning cookies or fries because the composition and/or taste of the product changes, which essentially means the product may be no longer is palatable to the consumer who once enjoyed the product. Snickers bars will never be the same.

LOL....ridiculous.

Because we can't ban all harmful substances at once from the food chain, we shouldn't ban ANY? That is a preposterous argument. Banning trans fats will prevent people from eating them, hence the cardiac health of the population *should* improve as trans fats have been associated with much higher risks of heart attack and stroke.

And the German (can't remember how to spell their name) is correct, Snickers will taste normal again. I can't eat most US junk food now that I'm used to UK junk food which contains less trans fats and hardly any HFCS. That stuff is tasteless and disgusting, I can't believe anyone would eat it voluntarily anyway.

Never suggested banning all harmful substances, I was just inviting a comparison of all of them. Personally, I can't say which one in the list is more harmful, I'm not a chemist. But I do know many of those substances are very harmful to the human body.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Lewis

[Caladan 19]

It won't make everyone thin and healthy; banning trans fats isn't a miracle cure.

But I'm not getting the argument; we don't argue that we shouldn't tell pregnant women about the mercury in tuna and swordfish, or that we shouldn't worry about it because other toxins could harm their babies, too, and that telling them might mean they cut back and not enjoy tuna.

And Fischköpfin's right; chances are upgrading to cocoa oil will make the chocolate taste better, not worse.

[no name 1]

It's personal responsibilty (as far as obesity). Americans don't know what it is anymore.

Yes, chemicals in food is bad, but no one is making you eat #######, are they?

Edited October 2, 2006 by devilette

[Lewis 0]

It won't make everyone thin and healthy; banning trans fats isn't a miracle cure.

But I'm not getting the argument; we don't argue that we shouldn't tell pregnant women about the mercury in tuna and swordfish, or that we shouldn't worry about it because other toxins could harm their babies, too, and that telling them might mean they cut back and not enjoy tuna.

And Fischköpfin's right; chances are upgrading to cocoa oil will make the chocolate taste better, not worse.

In my earlier post about harmful substances, I was pointing out that we have many other harmful substances that are deliberately put into our food supplies daily. I never suggested don't worry about any of these substances, in fact I mentioned earlier the best way to stay healthy is to be educated about what you eat, not by banning additives. It has been suggested transfats and HFCs are two of the most harmful food ingredients ever devised by humankind, I'm just not positive that is true.

I'm not arguing pro trans fats here. I'm arguing for a choice. The fish example- we warn people about it, they make a choice. Trans fats are bad yes, but they are still legal at this point and consumed (therefore demanded) daily by millions of Americans. Warn them about it- they make a choice. Markets have responded to peoples demands, some companies have removed trans fats from their products. Do we really need the government to dictate which type of fat we consume? Maybe so, but until transfats are banned outright, people have a choice and actual demand to consume them.

[homesick_american 1]

It won't make everyone thin and healthy; banning trans fats isn't a miracle cure.

But I'm not getting the argument; we don't argue that we shouldn't tell pregnant women about the mercury in tuna and swordfish, or that we shouldn't worry about it because other toxins could harm their babies, too, and that telling them might mean they cut back and not enjoy tuna.

And Fischköpfin's right; chances are upgrading to cocoa oil will make the chocolate taste better, not worse.

In my earlier post about harmful substances, I was pointing out that we have many other harmful substances that are deliberately put into our food supplies daily. I never suggested don't worry about any of these substances, in fact I mentioned earlier the best way to stay healthy is to be educated about what you eat, not by banning additives. It has been suggested transfats and HFCs are two of the most harmful food ingredients ever devised by humankind, I'm just not positive that is true.

I'm not arguing pro trans fats here. I'm arguing for a choice. The fish example- we warn people about it, they make a choice. Trans fats are bad yes, but they are still legal at this point and consumed (therefore demanded) daily by millions of Americans. Warn them about it- they make a choice. Markets have responded to peoples demands, some companies have removed trans fats from their products. Do we really need the government to dictate which type of fat we consume? Maybe so, but until transfats are banned outright, people have a choice and actual demand to consume them.

I dunno, normally when people want to deliberately poison themselves we make them see a psychiatrist.

[Lewis 0]

It won't make everyone thin and healthy; banning trans fats isn't a miracle cure.

But I'm not getting the argument; we don't argue that we shouldn't tell pregnant women about the mercury in tuna and swordfish, or that we shouldn't worry about it because other toxins could harm their babies, too, and that telling them might mean they cut back and not enjoy tuna.

And Fischköpfin's right; chances are upgrading to cocoa oil will make the chocolate taste better, not worse.

In my earlier post about harmful substances, I was pointing out that we have many other harmful substances that are deliberately put into our food supplies daily. I never suggested don't worry about any of these substances, in fact I mentioned earlier the best way to stay healthy is to be educated about what you eat, not by banning additives. It has been suggested transfats and HFCs are two of the most harmful food ingredients ever devised by humankind, I'm just not positive that is true.

I'm not arguing pro trans fats here. I'm arguing for a choice. The fish example- we warn people about it, they make a choice. Trans fats are bad yes, but they are still legal at this point and consumed (therefore demanded) daily by millions of Americans. Warn them about it- they make a choice. Markets have responded to peoples demands, some companies have removed trans fats from their products. Do we really need the government to dictate which type of fat we consume? Maybe so, but until transfats are banned outright, people have a choice and actual demand to consume them.

I dunno, normally when people want to deliberately poison themselves we make them see a psychiatrist.

That's cool. I understand your point.

[homesick_american 1]

I dunno, normally when people want to deliberately poison themselves we make them see a psychiatrist.

That's cool. I understand your point.

And I yours, though I doubt we'll ever agree on this issue. B)

[pedroh 21]

It's personal responsibilty (as far as obesity). Americans don't know what it is anymore.

Yes, chemicals in food is bad, but no one is making you eat #######, are they?

bingo, and then u see the chubbies suing mcdonalds cuz they didnt know 'burgers would make them fat'..

and i don't think there's a real excuse, the grocery store next to my store sells organic and lean stuff.. the price difference is not a big gap, its usually cents.. so I don't think price is a real issue here..

even with hormonal problems, people who want to stay obese, they will stay obese, people who wants to shed some pounds, will shed those pounds.. blaming the body is obsolete now.. how i know? well I have a friend with lupus, and recently she gained a lot of pounts because chimio and cortisone shots.. well in a couple of months she lost most of those extra pounds.. and she knew the hormones were causing this weight increase, but, didn't blame her body and just cried and ate 2 pounds of ben and jerrys

[homesick_american 1]

It's personal responsibilty (as far as obesity). Americans don't know what it is anymore.

Yes, chemicals in food is bad, but no one is making you eat #######, are they?

bingo, and then u see the chubbies suing mcdonalds cuz they didnt know 'burgers would make them fat'..

and i don't think there's a real excuse, the grocery store next to my store sells organic and lean stuff.. the price difference is not a big gap, its usually cents.. so I don't think price is a real issue here..

even with hormonal problems, people who want to stay obese, they will stay obese, people who wants to shed some pounds, will shed those pounds.. blaming the body is obsolete now.. how i know? well I have a friend with lupus, and recently she gained a lot of pounts because chimio and cortisone shots.. well in a couple of months she lost most of those extra pounds.. and she knew the hormones were causing this weight increase, but, didn't blame her body and just cried and ate 2 pounds of ben and jerrys

People with metabolic syndrome and diabetes sometimes find it very difficult to lose weight.