After New York City officials announced a plan to ban trans fats from restaurants, there has been some debate among scientists as to whether the ban will have a beneficial effect on the population. Virtually all experts agree that trans fats are not good for you, but the question about how bad they are has not actually been answered. Trans fats seem to raise the bad levels of cholesterol and lowering the good, which can increase the risk of heart attack and other heart problems. The problem is that while they do increase the bad, the amount that the good is reduced by is not great, so some scientists don't think that the ban will "save lives," as some of the officials behind the ban suggest.
So, the answer seems to be that banning trans fat might be beneficial. And if they change isn't a radical one in terms of health - although it could be - it certainly won't be bad for people to replace trans fats with fats from other sources. Even saturated fat "is at least a natural constituent of our diets," and not a "chemical abomination," as trans fat is.
Second Helping of Slashfood - June 19
Competitive-Eating Contest to Pit Humans Against Elephants
The Backyard Boom - The Hungry Bride
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-11-2006 @ 3:03PM
Punisher2k said...
It's about time. I wish it would be national. Trans fat is like eating a time bomb.
Reply
10-11-2006 @ 3:31PM
John said...
I thought the opinion on trans fats was overwhelmingly negative? Weren't they able to make lab rats die of cancer thanks to trans fats? Is this article for keeping food prices lower by using trans fats?
As far as I know, trans fats aren't even that hard to get around. The only thing about you have to change is the oil used in cooking. Change your hydrogenated oil.. to slightly more expensive? non-hydrogenated oil. A couple dimes more per gallon of oil vs increasing your risk for cancer... seems like an easy choice for me.
Reply
10-11-2006 @ 6:02PM
Peter said...
If we can't even get cigarettes baned, how do we expect to do this?
The best solution is to let the market decide. If people really want foods without trans-fats they should buy them, stop buying ones with trans-fats and manufacturers will follow the money.
And from a privacy and rights issue, where does it stop? There are lots of things that aren't good for you, (not just food) will we begin to outlaw those too? It's a very slippery slope.
Reply
10-12-2006 @ 7:57AM
Hank Cazorp said...
Well, as of 7:52 EST, fascism has trumped freedom a by a 7-2 margin. But hey, what are little things like property rights and an individual's freedom to choose, when compared to the stark horror of a pie crust made with CRISCO?
Reply
10-12-2006 @ 12:18PM
james b said...
I'm with Hank on this one. This is way outside the role of governemnt: federal, state, local, or otherwise. Freedom comes with responsibility.
Reply
10-12-2006 @ 12:46PM
MJ said...
No not another ban...........Taking the fun and enjoyement out of dinning!
Reply
10-12-2006 @ 1:44PM
Punisher2K said...
So everything should be ok to eat, poison or no? It has nothing to do with freedom. I guess that since I can't eat uranium I should say the goverment is facist and riot?
If you're going to complain about something, complain about illegal wiretaps and the Patriot Act. Complaining because the 100% unhealthy trans-fat is being banned is ridiculous.
If you say that trans-fat should not be banned because with freedom comes responsibility then we should also get rid of the FDA and health inspectors right? I should be able to eat tainted spinach if I want shouldn't I? I mean, if a few kids and elderly die because they are uninformed and eat it, so what?
Again, ridiculous.
Reply
10-12-2006 @ 3:18PM
james b said...
Gee, I guess you are right mr punisher. I never realized how ridiculous my idea of freedom was. By this logic we should also ban the cigarettes, sugar, alcohol, and most anything that isn't totally pure healthy whole food. And, hey how about this: exercise should be mandated, causing stress should be illegal, as should anything that doesn't contribute to the health of the populace. People like you and me know what is best for everyone else, so we need to pass laws to help the other unfortunate souls eat and live right.
Reply
10-13-2006 @ 11:06AM
Punisher2k said...
We aren't talking about cigarettes, we are talking about trans-fats. This isn't slashsmoke.
Sugar has benefits, so does alcohol. Trans-Fat has zero redememing qualities.
Do you not get the point they are baning trans fats from restaurants? RESTRAURANTS?
If you want to walk down the street, eat a stick of trans-fat and wave your flag you are perfectly free to do so. Restraurants are regulated for the protection of the consumer. They have been for a long, long time. You can't walk into a restraurant and order cat for the same reason but I don't see anyone rallying for that to change.
Reply
10-13-2006 @ 4:41PM
Mike said...
I'm very anti trans fat and think this ban makes sense, even though I'm a little uncomfortable with government banning things left and right. I cook everything with olive and sunflower oil (the HEALTHY fats, baby!), so no trans fat for me. No sirree.
Reply
10-18-2006 @ 9:32AM
Lisa said...
Are trans fats bad and unnatural? Of course they are! No one is arguing that transfats are good for you. The problem is that recent media (books, movies, newspapers) have brought a lot of bad press to the fast food industry, for good reason!
This negative energy COULD be put towards rearranging the food subsidy system, so bad food is no longer cheaper than good food. (that 99 cent burger doesn't actually cost so little to produce!) It could go towards demanding healthiest school lunch programs, perhaps even school lunch programs than are connected to science classes, so help teach kids where their food comes from and give them a role in the process.
Instead, we're arguing over transfats. Is this the most productive use of our time, or is it a distraction from more important health issues? We could take the current attitudes and energy towards fast food and direct it towards something larger, and we could demand more 'bang' for our (time-spending) 'buck,' but we're not. We're celebrating the "no duh" victory, and not talking about the REAL PROBLEMS, which would a LOT more complicated to solve!
Reply