 |
|
Topic started on 27-9-2006 @ 05:21 AM by dawnstar
|
NYC Mulls Ban on Trans Fats in Eateries
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 city's 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 city's 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.
hosted.ap.org...
dependancy=servitude!! when the cost of healthcare is so high that a large portion of the population is depending on another (either health insurance
company or government) to pay the bills.....the next logical conclusion is that those paying the tab should have a say as to what you may and man not
eat!!!
another logical conclusion.....NY City doesn't want any resturants, matter of fact, NY State doesn't want any residents anyways, so well, what do
they need resturants for?
[edit on 27-9-2006 by dawnstar]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 10:27 AM by HarpStrings
|
I have two views on this issue:
1. Fantastic! Finally there are people amongst us that actually "care" about our health, or lack there of, and are willing to go to extremes to get
us healthier. (Since apparantly, educating us isn't really working.)
and
2. This is a great experiment of control. Hmmm, let's see what happens if we take away this...... 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 11:15 AM by closettrekkie
|
I'm torn on this article. I am never one for a nanny government telling us what we can and can't eat, however transfats are bad for us and it
certainly won't hurt to curtail it's use.
The representative says he can understand labeling, but doesn't agree with the ban. Well, how often have you ever looked at a menu that had
ingredient labels? How do we know what they're putting in their food? But then, why stop there? Why not ban MSG or genetically altered food? Why
not require all restaurants to go organic? I'm sure the pesticides used on their veggies can cause cancer too!
And really, how are they going to police this law? They can't even keep up with all of the real health issues like cockroaches, rats, e-coli,
unwashed hands, broken freezers, etc. Now they're saying they have the staff to police food labels?
This is just yet another example of a useless law made to make our nanny government feel better about themselves when they could better use our tax
dollars to go out there and do their jobs the way they are supposed to. 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 11:20 AM by rich23
|
I'd LOVE to see the day when they say to, oh, I don't know, maybe Proctor & Gamble, "you can't put transfats in your products anymore".
Don't anybody hold your breath.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 11:23 AM by HarpStrings
|
Pampers, Tide, Bounty, Folgers, Iams, and Clairol. Need I say more
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 11:39 AM by closettrekkie
|
Yes, I was a bit confused by the Proctor & Gamble response also. Maybe you're thinking of another big, bad corporation? I also don't think they
were talking about food corporations not using transfats - they're talking about restaurants and food services being banned from using them, which
makes sense. Like I commented before, you don't know what they are putting in your food.
Food corporations shouldn't be banned at all in my personal opinion. We are all (or for the most part) productive human beings and are able to read
food labels on cans and boxes. If you don't want to eat products with transfats, then don't buy them. If enough of us stop buying their products
they will be forced to change their production habits.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 06:26 PM by marg6043
|
Well proctor & gamble are makers of many snacks like springles and deli foods that are very hight on trans fat.
Even when they have their own healthy type.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 06:33 PM by dawnstar
|
like tobacco, if transfats are so dangerous that they need to be addresses legally, well, they need to be banned outright.....so, well, if the
resturants shouldn't be selling foods with it in them, no food producer should be selling products with them in it. otherwise, leave the poor
resturants alone. why just target one industry?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 06:51 PM by iori_komei
|
I don't see what the big deal is, so restaurants and those kind of places
can't have transfat in their food, if you really want to be unhealthy and
consume transfats, than make your won food with them at home.
I mean it's not like the governments coming into our homes and telling
us what we can and can't eat.
If a measure like this was put to vote where I live, I'd vote for it.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 06:55 PM by dgtempe
|
Some of you dont find it peculiar that there's so much "worry" about our health?
I beg to differ. I dont see why the government should care if you're fat or not or what you eat.
They'd love to do away with most of us, anyway.
IMO, this government is involved in too many things!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 07:33 PM by dawnstar
|
 Originally posted by iori_komei
I don't see what the big deal is, so restaurants and those kind of places
can't have transfat in their food, if you really want to be unhealthy and
consume transfats, than make your won food with them at home.
I mean it's not like the governments coming into our homes and telling
us what we can and can't eat.
If a measure like this was put to vote where I live, I'd vote for it. 
Why?? I'm seriously curious about this, why would you support such a law?
Originally posted by dgtempe
Some of you dont find it peculiar that there's so much "worry" about our health?
I beg to differ. I dont see why the government should care if you're fat or not or what you eat.
They'd love to do away with most of us, anyway.
IMO, this government is involved in too many things!
I can see why the government would care about your lifestyle. Between them and their buddies, the health insurance companies, they are dishing out
alot of money to treat the illnesses your lifestyles have caused. I don't like it, I think it's the beginning of any illlusion of freedom we have
fading away. but I will still contend that the person who foots the bill for you has a say in how you incur the expense!
[edit on 27-9-2006 by dawnstar]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 08:24 PM by iori_komei
|
Originally posted by dawnstar
Why?? I'm seriously curious about this, why would you support such a law?
Because it would help make people healthier, and it only applies to restaurants.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 08:29 PM by dawnstar
|
how often do you go out to resturants? seems to me, that once or twice a week modification in your diet ain't gonna be making much difference if
your loading up on crap at home.
and considering that lack of health insurance/healthcare is a leading cause of death in this country....seems to me that we, the people would be
better served as far as making people healthier if they government got off their butts and did their jobs and tried to do something with that system,
instead of trying to control us!
[edit on 27-9-2006 by dawnstar]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2006 @ 08:32 PM by dgtempe
|
I think some of us resent so much interference by the government all the time.
What if tomorrow "they" decided that coffee should be done away with and took out all the coffee shoppes?
One thing leads to another and another lately.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-10-2006 @ 03:51 PM by closettrekkie
|
No way! They're not getting my coffee! They'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands. 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-10-2006 @ 03:57 PM by darkbluesky
|
Originally posted by dgtempe
Some of you dont find it peculiar that there's so much "worry" about our health?
I beg to differ. I dont see why the government should care if you're fat or not or what you eat.
They'd love to do away with most of us, anyway.
IMO, this government is involved in too many things!
DG, I agree the govt is too involved in our lives and choices, but why do you think the govt wants to do away with most of us? And I dont mean what
evidence makes you think this, I'm wondering what the govt would have to gain?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-10-2006 @ 05:30 PM by Nygdan
|
Theres a lot of silly rhetoric out there about this.
First, they're not trying to take away your ice cream and hot dogs.
They're talking about eliminating a chemical additive that is produced in the lab (trans fats). They're not saying you can't eat fried food.
Trans-fats do not make food taste better. Trans-fats were invented because they needed a more stable at room temperature. They tend to not
melt.
Understand?
They were invented so that you could store fats at higher temperatures and not have them melt. Some peopel felt that they were also more healthy than
some natural fats, but that was an error.
Trans-fats are a major contributor to heart disease. In New York City, where this ban on use in restaurants is being proposed, heart
disease is the number one cause of death.
So, agian, lets review:
This chemical doesn't make food taste any better than it already does.
It only exists to make fake butter not melt.
It contributes to the #1 cause of death in the city.
You can still eat as unhealthily as you want, but when you order french fries at Mcdonalds or a regular restaurant, when they fry it, the oil isn't
allowed to contain trans-fats (which, again, are a laboratory chemical additive that contributes to the #1 cause of death in the city).
There is absolutely no arguement for not eliminating it from restaurants, short of saying that the government isn't permited to do outlaw anything,
like crack-cocaine.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-10-2006 @ 07:06 PM by zman
|
My body needs fat , as it burns it very fast. According to my wife that will make American apple pie illegal as it is made up om those
fatty sunstances,. I have a condition that my body needs these fatty foods for survival.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-10-2006 @ 02:00 PM by Nygdan
|
No one's body needs trans-fats for survival. Trans-fats aren't 'normal' fats.
And no, this does not mean that they will take away your apple pie. It means when you go to a restaurant, they won't make it with trans-fats,
they'll use regular fats instead, it will still taste just as good. AND, when you go to the supermarket or store to buy apple pie, it can
still have transfats. These cities (at least NYC) are only talking about what is being made and produced inside of their restaurants.
So instead of ordering shipments of vats of trans-fats from chemical plants, they will order regular fats.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-10-2006 @ 03:06 PM by dawnstar
|
so, let's see, factories and stores can still use the transfats and sell you the goods....and sell them to resturants if the resturants want to buy
them...
but, the resturants cann't us them in their food preparation, or use anything the factories or stores have added them to....
how often do people go to a resturant? once a week? twice, maybe three times?? most of the food that is eaten is in the home...so just how
effective will this be in making anyone healthier? I don't think it's that much. it would seem that making the factories and stores eliminate it
from their products would be much more effective, wouldn't it? it will hurt the resturant business with very little benefit whatsoever.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
