I'm sick and tired of hearing these whining modern day health nuts crying about what's bad for everyone else. Yes, trans fats can't be that good for anyone, skinny or fat. The problem isn't the trans fats, it's the people out there who can't raise their arms/hands without it having some kind of junk food shoveling into tehir mouths. If you eat at McDonalds 3 times a day, then that's just plain stupid and everyone should know, in this day and age of total media saturation, that it's not healthy for you. I was too overweight 4 years ago. I lost 20 pounds and kept it off for 2 years. It slowly crept up 5 pounds, so I just cut out some of my Cokes and cut back on what I was shoveling into my face. As a result, I lost that 5 pounds and kept that off for another 6 months. During the past 4 months, I've slowly taken off another 18 pounds. As a result of this 38 pound weight loss, I eat less and feel hungry less often. I eat better and I'm not shoveling too much of anything into my mouth and I feel so much better. I have a 1st goal of 5 or 10 more pounds over the next 4 to 6 weeks. After that, I'd like to maintain that loss for about 6 months and then lose about 20 more pounds and I will then be only about 5 pounds more than I was when I was married 32 years ago. I've finally had enough of the fat me and have decided, for health reasons, to get slimmer and to eat better - that way I won't gain the weight back and if I gain 5 or 6 pounds, it will be easier to lose it. I will still eat things that have trans fats if I choose, but I won't be eating enough for 5 people. As it is now, I can only eat about 8 or 10 french fries from anyplace like McDonalds or Burger King because the fries taste like crap - 20 years ago their french fries were great tasting. Remember, it's quantity more than quality that's important in this obesity issue.

Hello boys,and girls, Welcome to the one problem that none of you can handle ! Trans fats aren't the problem here . It's the consumption rate that does the damage . Trans fats make that fast food you eat taste that much better. It's cheaper to use as appose to healthier ingreds . This whole health kick Bloomberg is trying to push is a farce. Mainly because people like to eat foods that they know are bad for them . The attitude towards health has to change inorder for this farce to be sucessful .

Again, and then I'm totally bailing on this conversation, NO ONE is saying ANYTHING about banning the fats.

First of all, I misspelled 'cholesterol' and I knew that the minute I hit the "post" button (lest I be called out for it).

Secondly, Tom - taxing these foods has multiple benefits as I see it - one being the monetary angle to offset soaring health care costs (and if mishandling/misappropriation of taxes is your main point of contention then you have a lot more to be concerned about than taxes on single digit goods and services).

The second is that, while a tax is not a ban, it does make doing things that are unhealthy or downright dangerous for you economically prohibitive. Which is exactly why I like to see high taxes on tobacco. If/when we ever come to our senses and legalize marijuana, I similarly hope (expect) to see exorbitant taxes levied on its usage.

Let's summarize: banning bad, influencing good behavior good.

Some people read my earlier comment, but for those who didn't:

For the love of god you can replace hydrogenated oil with regular oil and the food WILL TASTE EXACTLY THE SAME. The fight about rights and consumer choice is irrelevant because this is purely about cost-cutting by way of feeding us poison.

This, my friends, has nothing to do with the issue of whether government should intervene in our health habits. This is a poison-control issue. We wouldn't be arguing about asbestos, mercury or lead, right?

Hopefully this will lead to better and fresher food. Making things last longer benefits the companies that make the products, since it makes them last longer and that enhances shareholder value. Maybe this will get them to change their products making them better for you.

Although, I don't see how you can really make french fries healthy.

second-hand fat, it might not be danergous, per say, but it can lead to esthetic terrorism.

I should add:

*- poor writing on Gothamist posts (using the word "please" twice in a sentence). So I can charge s with three counts: poor copyediting, ill-informed posts, and poor writing.

Actually, I think anonymass has the right idea. The answer to every problem is not to pass a law. If it were, I'd try to pass a law against people ticking me off.

When someone writes a report on the dangers of second-hand fat, come talk to me.

Trans fats are not delicious. They make you feel unsatisfied and don't really have any falvor.

People like to just stuff as much in their mouths as possible. They're not so much concerned about quality.

2) Taxing the living hell out of those who choose to ignore those warnings and imperil their own health. You want to eat like a pig? Fine. You pay for what will be the extra expense to keep your cholestoral-laden ventricles functional.

Yes, because the government manages money so well that when the bill for the person's eating habits come due, the money will certainly be left in the coffers and certainly won't have been spent on building an Amtrak station in Smalltown, Kansas during an election year.

You know, like how tolls are supposed to pay for road repairs yet we passed a transportation act to pay for road repairs last year.

Thank you, Mihow. I was just about to say that the Reuter's article is rather misleading. (And everyone is having a BIRD over this presumed

"ban.") It is titled "U.S. Gov't to Ban Trans Fats...", yet the article only sites a REDUCTION that the gov't is calling for, (a limit of 0.5 g per food item, as I understand), NOT an actual ban. So McDonald's food will basically have to have the same trans fat level that their cheeseburger already has. (0.5 g)

Big deal. And it wont help those who already eat at McDonald's as I assume they are not terribly nutrionally savy in other areas of their diet.

Personally I might want to kill myself eventually w/drugs, alcohol and other fun no-no's over McDonald's. McDonalds is horrendous. Movies like "Supersize Me" are only the tip of the iceberg and portrayed from an extremist point of view anyway, i.e., eating ONLY McDonald's EVERY day. Read the tried and true "Diet for a New America," by John Robbins (heir to the Baskin Robbins fortune)

It's not a matter of flavor. The trans-fat hydrogenated oils simply last a lot longer than regular oil, cutting costs to restaurants because the doctored oils can be changed much less often. Regular oils and fats taste just fine. So the trans-fat question has absolutely NOTHING to do with flavor or recipes. This only has to do with the bottom-line (money) vs. health.

With trans fat, we're literally getting fed poison yet nobody warns us. This is likely due to the millions of dollars at stake.

I couldn't have said it better.

"Freedom" and "personal responsibility" aren't the issues here. If you already feed this crap to your kids every day, it's not going to make a huge difference, but trans fats simply enable said crap to sit around longer before they are stuffed into their faces.

It's one of those unnatural substances that have absolutely no value to the consumer, so yeah, it would be nice if restaurants would post a sign saying, "we use a dangerous substance so our food doesn't have to be as fresh." I don't think that would go over well, so banning is the only option.

Don't even get me started on margarine...why people still buy this shit is beyond me.

This makes me think of that scene in Supersize Me when the McDonald's french fries never mold or break down ... even weeks later. Disgusting.

To be consistent, this kind of thing should be handled just as smoking has been:

1) Warn people as to the dangers (maybe a big sticker on the door of every fast food joint with a skull and crossbones warning about transfats)

while

2) Taxing the living hell out of those who choose to ignore those warnings and imperil their own health. You want to eat like a pig? Fine. You pay for what will be the extra expense to keep your cholestoral-laden ventricles functional.

As a consumer it is up to me to make informative decisions about what I buy. But if I am not plainly given this information at restaurants, either on the menu or posted openly, then I am perfectly fine with the government putting up regulations in the interest of public health since the consumers are usually not privy to this information.

I'm also skeptical if this would result in any change in taste...even more so why I think it's fine.

I can't wait until Transfats are sold on the black market!

Everyone keeps using words like "ban" and "outlaw". From what I read, neither are happening. They are calling to reduce the levels. Just had to make that clear before we get too carried away.

Unless, of course, I missed something. I haven't seen any mention of outlawing SFs or banning them, either.

It's not just about fat people. Even if you are thin trans fats are bad for you. Duh.

#18 and #19 put the issue to rest. It has nothing to do with "freedom". It's a public health issue, and the city, if not the feds, have a duty to regulate the unnecessary use of a toxic substance. And Tim, please try to curtail your alarmist ranting please and refer to your own list, re: ill-informed posting.

It's a well-acknowledged point of communitariasm that aid to the community entails control of a community. If a community wants to sport the cost of healthcare, it has the right to regulate the healthfare of its community. One can't expect to not wear a seatbelt or stuff yourself with fatty foods if you want the community to pay for your healthcare. So the axiomatic problem is that the increased healthcare welfare of the people by the people = decreased personal freedom for the people. Otherwise it becomes a simple economic moral hazard, in which people take advantage of a system to no end and it ends in eventual destruction of the economic system or the society. This is all fairly well-hashed-out stuff.

I think ballots should have either/or choices on them. I.e. "does one want an increase in healthcare coverage, with dietary restrictions and exercise requirements?" or "Would your prefer to ingest whatever you want and have no government health blanket to cover you if you become ill?

It's a difficult decision, of course. But we can't continue to want our cake and want our coronary bypass when we need it too. Community support. Personal freedom. Unfortunately, they're at odds. One just has to decide which way one wants to go.