And local governments continue to play nanny.

Do people REALLY want the government deciding what's okay to eat and what's unhealthy? This doesn't strike anybody else as more dangerous precedent?

Would it be great if people ate fewer trans fats? Absolutely! But is it the government's place to tell us that it's ILLEGAL for us to do so? This isn't isolated idiocy... this is a national trend that has to stop before it gains even more momentum.

Reply

They should allow options at restaurants. If I want food with trans fat, let me eat it. So will there soon be underground restaurants serving food with trans fat.

Reply

In a restaurant, though, there's typically no good way to know if you are eating trans fats or not. The law does not prohibit you from eating all the Oreos you want, for example, as there is a label on the bag and you are an informed consumer.

Reply

Amen DMNKLY. Can't legislate common sense. Shouldn't they have started with cholesterol, sodium, any of a number of contributors? This country's going NUTS and dragging us ALL along.

True, it's hard to know what's really in your restaurant meal. Wouldn't a law demanding content revelation be MORE to the point? Then we would still be FREE to CHOOSE instead of being "taken care of" by the state.

If we're to be cared for by the state, where's the health care? Where's the fraud protection? Where's the man looking out for the little guy? This is just fashionable "look-at-me" political maneuvering to make "news".

Nicole:
Sure would have been nice if these sentences actually made sense:
"but since the change would be city-wide, it would at least apply evenly and is unlikely to actually change the dining habits of most New Yorkers."
If it's not legal to serve up trans-fats, how would that NOT change dining habits?

"Board members say that such New York could set an example"

I can only roll my eyes at your total lack.

Reply

Another ban????????????????? not good! My choice!!

Reply

ThatHollie...

I appreciate and agree with the desire to have more information available. But at most, then, they should simply be mandating that restaurants disclose the use of trans fats, just as the makers of Oreos are required to do. It's a move that would strike me as somewhat excessive given the incredible number of ingredients that are unhealthy when consumed in large enough quantities, but it wouldn't bother me.

Ideally, however, shouldn't demand drive the change rather than legislation? If people want to avoid trans fats, there's incentive for restaurants to go trans fat free of their own volition... and many do! The problem isn't that trans fats are out there, the problem is that people are too lazy to take personal responsibility for what they eat. Eating a three-scoop ice cream sundae with every meal is, I suspect, a lot less healthy than consuming some amount of trans fats at every meal, but ice cream shouldn't be banned, not is it the ice cream shop's responsibility to tell you how much ice cream you should or shouldn't be eating... that's YOUR responsibility.

Reply

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one against government intervention in the kitchen.
I, for one, would miss trans fats, if only because their loss would be another blow to freedom in this country.

Reply

I have no problem with a ban, and I really don't see why anyone is standing up for trans fats. A ban won't affect the taste of food.

This isn't like banning smoking or drinking. There are substitutes for trans fats which are better than trans fats and are undetectable in food stuffs.

A. Trans-fats have no specific taste, so they cannot bring any specific flavor to foods.
B. Trans fats do bring a certain texture to foods, but it's exactly the same texture that is provided any other fat.
C. Hydrogenated oils are artificially manipulated fats that our body doesn't deal with well. Our bodies seem to process animal fats and natural saturated fats much better than these manufactured trans fats.
D. The only reason Trans-fats are used today is because they're cheaper and keep longer.

So the only people against a ban should be large-scale food producers who want a longer shelf life for their goods. If you're not one of them, I really can't understand why you'd be against a ban.

Bottom Line: The only reason they're even available today is because the hydrogenation process was designed about 100 years ago and the products have been grand-fathered into modern use. If these fats had been submitted to the FDA any time in the past 20 or 30 years, most think they would have been rejected for human consumption.

Some studies suggest that it's trans fats, not animal fat, is the major cause of artery clogging heart disease in the US. Take away those fats and make American healthier with Zero impact on the actually taste or texture of food. That's a win / win to in my book.

Reply

"I have no problem with a ban, and I really don't see why anyone is standing up for trans fats."

Michelle, I think this grossly mischaracterizes most of the comments here (and almost without exception, all of the comments I've seen condemning this ban)... this isn't standing up for trans fats... it's standing AGAINST governmental intrusion into what should be personal responsible eating practices. When the people decide that it's okay for government to make unhealthy foods illegal, that creates precedent that is ripe for abuse. There is a growing sentiment that it's okay for government to tell people what they can and cannot eat, and while I agree that trans fats are incredibly unhealthy, I'll decide how much or little I should eat, and I don't need the government making that decision for me. And what makes this especially silly is that food and nutrition science is a constantly moving target, and one that most scientists agree is, on the whole, very poorly understood. Do I agree that trans fats are very unhealthy? Absolutely. But remember when the switch from beef fat to hydrogenated vegetable oils was supposedly a health-conscious move by McDonald's? Soy products have been a health food staple for decades, but now to read many health-conscious message boards, they're the next evil that is killing us and should be banned.

Bottom line, let people make their OWN decisions. Government as babysitter is insulting, a waste of resources and an infringement upon personal freedoms.

Reply

Dmnkly:

Making our OWN decisions is great. But right now, we can't make our OWN decisions if we eat in restaurants. We simply don't know whether trans fats are in restaurant food or not. This ban would not restrict people from using or eating trans fats at home. It would just stop the product from being used in restaurants, where food labels are neither available or practicable.

I judge trans fats on the basis of current FDA guidelines. If trans fats were submitted for approval today, there is absolutely no doubt that they would be denied. Current FDA guidelines suggest a recommended daily allowance of trans fats is ZERO. In other words, trans fats would not seem fit for human consumption.

It may be surprising to you, but I am also against most bans on most products, including cigarettes and alcohol. However, trans fats are a unique and special case. Unlike any other product-ban I can think of, there are safer replacements for trans fats which are not only inexpensive, but undetectable in flavor, texture, and taste.

If a safer, cheap, effective, and undetectable replacement is available, there is simply no reason to keep poisoning ourselves with artificially hydrogenated oils.

Reply

"Making our OWN decisions is great. But right now, we can't make our OWN decisions if we eat in restaurants."

So, you're arguing that you need better information to make a choice, so instead of advocating more information, you're simply advocating that the choice be taken away from you? Wouldn't the more logical solution be to require restaurants to disclose the use of trans fats? Those who want to use and eat them can, those who don't have the information they need, and no freedoms are restricted. Also, there are two other problems.

First, you suggest that trans fats are completely and undetectably replaceable, and this is NOT the case. That's your subjective opinion, but there are plenty who disagree and they aren't all on the board of directors of fast food chains. In fact, if you read the article, even the health officials who advocate the ban do not suggest that there is no difference in flavor and texture (though they suggest that difference is small). You've never heard pie enthusiasts who swear that Crisco makes the tastiest, flakiest pie crust? Maybe YOU don't taste or feel a difference, but there are plenty who do. So if somebody wants to, in a responsible and healthy fashion as a once-in-a-while treat, have a slice of pie with some trans fats in the crust, you feel that should be an ILLEGAL activity?

Secondly, by supporting this ban, you're supporting the idea that it's okay to make foods illegal if the health risks outweigh a completely subjective difference in taste, and that it's okay for the government to make that determination and decide which foods should be illegal. Do you really think this stops at trans fats?

To be clear, in terms of how much trans fats should be used, I suspect we're almost totally in agreement. Ideally, I think they should be almost totally eliminated. Many of the major chains already are, not because of government regulation, but because of CONSUMER DEMAND... an educated public that is making its own decision and collectively pressuring companies to change. But this ban is a classic case of government busying itself trying to protect people from themselves... assuming we're all idiots who don't know it isn't a good idea to have a double cheeseburger and fries seven times a week... when what it should be doing is helping to give people the information they need to make their own decisions.

Reply

I think this ban is a good idea. It's not a matter of the government deciding what I healthy for me or not, or infringement of my freedom or anything....but when you dine out, you never REALLY know what you're eating. Packages in grocery stores have a standard of quality they must hold up to, so why would food at a restaraunt be any different?

I, for one, would love to know that my meal out in a restaurant would not contain something that I scour labels in the supermarket for.

Reply

Sera, I'm sorry, but your comment doesn't make any sense.

"so why would food at a restaraunt be any different?"

That's EXACTLY the point, Sera. With this ban it IS different. Packaged foods can contain trans fats. Restaurant food cannot. If what you're concerned with is applying standards evenly, you can advocate one of two things: ban trans fats from all packaged foods, or require restaurants to provide nutritional information. One of these options gives consumers information and puts the choice in consumers' hands. The other takes the choice away and makes consumers' decisions for them. So please explain, how is that "not a matter of the government deciding what I healthy for [you] or not" when that's EXACTLY what's happening?

"I, for one, would love to know that my meal out in a restaurant would not contain something that I scour labels in the supermarket for."

There are also many people who would love to know that there are no animal products in their restaurant foods, which they scan labels in supermarkets for. Does this mean all animal product should be banned as well? What you're suggesting is that whether a food should be legal or not depends on whether or not YOU want to eat it. It doesn't strike you as a little self-centered to suggest that since YOU don't want to eat something, that it should be illegal for EVERYBODY?

Reply

"Making our OWN decisions is great. But right now, we can't make our OWN decisions if we eat in restaurants."

Sorry to backtrack, Michelle, but I have to take issue with this. You absolutely CAN make your own decision. You can choose not to eat at restaurants that don't provide nutritional information. Or you can choose not to eat out altogether. When you eat out, you're not entitled to have your food prepared however you want. If you don't like how a restaurant prepares their food, or don't like that they won't reveal how their food is prepared, you absolutely have a choice... DON'T EAT THERE.

Reply

Dmkly

Firstly, I defy anyone to detect hydrogenated oils in a blind taste-test of baked goods. Human tongues are simply not equipped to taste fat. As for mouth feel, there are non-hydrogenated fats with identical mouth feel. Those who claim there is no identical replacement for hydrogenated oils are (I believe) hiding their true agendas. Your agenda is I believe, a resistance to government interference. While the commercial food producer's agenda is simply longer shelf lives for their products (AKA Money).

But the major point I think you're missing is that there is no functional difference between a "ban" and a "non-approval". The FDA disapproves of engineered food stuffs all the time. Look at the regulatory hurdles that engineered food stuffs like aspartame, sucralose, and olestra had to go through before being approved.

Well, hydrogenated oils are a thoroughly engineered food stuff. I'm not against engineered food stuffs, In fact, I eat aspartame, sucralose, and olestra. However, I do want engineered food stuffs to be tested prior to approval for human consumption?

As I posted above, the only reason hydrogenated oils are in use today is because their development pre-dates the FDA approval process. Even though those oils didn't require approval when first introduced into the marketplace, studies were eventually performed on hydrogenated oils. The verdict is clear, hydrogenated oils are horrible for humans, they are not a safe engineered food stuff.

From your posts above, I gather you would agree that were hydrogenated oils to be submitted to the FDA today, there is no chance in hell they would be approved. So since they are clearly an unsafe food stuff. Since the testing is in. Since there is no functional difference between a ban and a non-approval, and most importantly, since indistinguishable replacements exist, why keep them around?

I don't think you care about trans fats, I think you simply don't like government interference. Well, the FDA interferes in our food decisions all the time. You call it nannying, I call it keeping people safe. Are you suggesting we shut down the food safety division of the government? Are you against testing and approval? Do you believe food manufacturers should be able to sell anything they cook up in the lab without testing?

Because that is exactly what happened with hydrogenated oils, they were cooked up in a lab and released to the public without safety testing.

Reply

If anyone is still reading these comments, I have something to add. I work in the healthcare industry and I am also a private wellness consultant, so I have some knowledge in this area.

I think the key to this issue, as with all health issues, is education to empower people to make healthy choices if they desire. What about requiring restaurants to disclose ingredients? This could be a hassle for them, but if enough consumers demand it, they might listen.

To Dmnkly - good points, and the ban would not only be infringing on freedom of choice, it would start a slipery slope. It is also entirely hypocritical.

To Michelle - I think I understand your feelings, but your knowledge is incomplete. I agree that we need to know what we are eating. Frankly, hydrogenated oils WOULD probably get through FDA testing today, just as so many other harmful ingredients do. You eat Aspartame?? Bad, bad choice and it should be outlawed!! What do you think of that?? Read the book, "Excitotoxins - The Taste That Kills," and you will never want Aspartame again. MSG is incredibly toxic, but not only did the FDA allow the food companies to continue to use it, they are allowed to hide it in words like 'spice.' Again, read the book, written by a neurosurgeon, and you will understand more.

Both of these compounds destroy brain neurons, interfere with hormone activity, and our GOVERNMENT does nothing to warn people. These compounds, like hydrogenated oils, affect everyone and are used purely for profit. Honestly, I would rather consume a little trans fat than any MSG or Aspartame. Hydrogenated oil is 'toxic' but mostly increases bad cholesterol - dangerous if you eat a lot of it.

So you see, your argument is like telling the big energy companies to be in charge of mercury levels in water, and also not to worry about arsenic or lead. As a wellness consultant, I wish for nothing more than a complete removal of hydrogenated oils and other toxic ingredients, but it must come from consumer education. Do you really want a government body that lives in the pockets of the food manufacturers, including hydrogentated oil, Aspartame, and MSG manufacturers, to decide what you can eat and what you cannot?

When did you become aware of the harmful effects of hydrogenated oils? I'm sure you ate some before you learned the truth. Now you have been empowered with better information, and I hope you continue to learn about other important items.

People need to get information, be responsible for their choices, and be accountable for their health. If you go to a restaurant, ask what's in the food you are ordering - I do. I ask if they use margarine, MSG, etc. If they use the items I don't want, I can choose to order it or not. Hope that makes sense.

ps - Although taste is not the issue, I can detect the aftertaste of hydrogenated oil - so can my husband.

Reply

I am working on an essay for my class and my topic is obesity.

My opinion is that the ban is a positive thing, I would of like an actual nutrition label also for my meals when I visit restaurant, but perhaps that will happen eventually. I know obesity attributed to many factors but the fact is, that american keep getting bigger and bigger and we have to foot the bill for medical bills..and many other things...anyway...read below....I mean I understand what some people say about the right to choose, but since we have had all these freedom of speach...and so on...its like we never stop...its not a big deal...I think we are just to used to debates. Its not a big deal...the ban should be a positive thing...



Did you know that obesity is the fastest growing major health problem in the United States? Approximately two thirds of the American adults are overweight or obese. In addition 15% of the children are overweight.

Obesity is a serious health epidemic that affects one in four Americans. It is estimated that more than 93 million Americans are obese, with that number predicted to climb to 120 million in the next five years. (Obesity Action Coalition)

Obesity and sedentary lifestyles accounted for approximately 400,000 deaths in 2000 compared to 435,000 from cigarette smoking, 100,000 from alcohol abuse, and 20,000 from illegal drug use. Obesity cost more in annual medical care expenditures than cigarette smoking-around $75 billion in 2003 because of long and costly treatments for its complications. (Grossman)

Being obese is definitely not a good thing and it has no benefits, yet we continue to get bigger. Have you ever really paid attention, perhaps at your job, on the amount of people that are affected by obesity? The receptionist is diabetic, the accounting clerk has high blood pressure, the payroll assistant has heart disease and the maintenance guy has high cholesterol. These are just example on the many ways obesity can affect anyone and with different related diseases. There are more than 30 medical conditions that are associated with obesity.

Despite the increased need for prevention and treatment, no large-scale effort has been taken place to institute preventative and therapeutic measures. (Thompson 1) In fact, no one wants to take responsibility for the problem. The food industry blames those who do not make proper choices in what foods they eat. Likewise, those blamed for not making proper choices accuse the food industry of facilitating their addiction to its fatty and unhealthy food. Not ever the government, which may have the greatest ability to effectuate positive change, can say it has taken sufficient steps to fight this problem. (Thompson)

Reply

No city council is qualified to make decisions on another's eating habits. look for more cities to make decisions, more often, that interfere in your personal decisions. Local councils are ordinary people, not experts. Their city wide bans are arbitrary and in my mind, unconstitutional. Would you put up with your neighbor telling you what
you could and couldn't eat,, or wear or listen. What's next the Food Nazis checking your home refrigerator for contraband?

Reply