Gothamist: Trans America

Fed Up With Whining People Wanting to Ban Everything

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:31:17 -0500

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.

Not Amused

Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:55:42 -0500

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 .

mihow

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:33:57 -0500

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

anonymass

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:31:31 -0500

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.

REALITY CHECK

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:18:04 -0500

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?

Toby

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:07:49 -0500

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.

mihow

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:39:40 -0500

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

Tim N.

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:31:16 -0500

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.

irina

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:42:07 -0500

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.

Tom

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:20:11 -0500

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.

La Leone

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:04:17 -0500

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)

so there

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:46:31 -0500

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.

m

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:29:48 -0500

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.

anonymass

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:16:43 -0500

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.

Daveed

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:09:37 -0500

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.

lani

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:08:44 -0500

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

mihow

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:05:33 -0500

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.

kristin

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:02:33 -0500

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

s

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:59:15 -0500

#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.

Dave H.

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:52:33 -0500

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.

liberal

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:15:56 -0500

I think that most of the people getting fat, getting diabetes, and getting their limbs amputated would find a way to do it without transfats. A cheeseburger without the transfat is still not a health food. We could ban cornsyrup, but I doubt that would do little to curb the gallons of soda many kids drink each week. Ben & Jerry's doesn't use transfats, but that doesn't make eating a pint of it much healthier than having just a scoop. And banning transfats will do little to expand physical education in schools, reduce automobile dependency, and get kids away from the TV, all things that are probably bigger factors in today's obesity crisis. I believe healthy eating has more to do with access to healthy food. People eat crappy food because it's easier and cheaper to find than fresh produce and natural ingredients, especially in poor areas. That's why the city is encouraging the expansion of greenmarkets. That's a way for the government to get involved that doesn't reek of nanny-style politics. I'm all for limiting trans fats and eat very little myself, but I have a question for the people in favor of the ban: what else that is currently allowed in foods would you ban in the name of fighting obestity?

Tim N.

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:15:50 -0500

Since we're into regulating behavior (i.e. smoking and eating), I could think of a few other behaviors I'd like to see punishible by jail time: *- leaning against the pole on the subway *- walking the wrong way on the subway stairs *- double-parking in bike lanes *- cab-swiping *- SUV driving *- ill-informed posts on Gothamist *- rude, racist posts on Gothamist *- trolling on Gothamist *- poor copyediting (sorry, Jen) It seems to be a difficult subject for folks to absorb, but just because something ticks you off or offends you or is a bad idea healthwise, that doesn't necessarily means it should be outlawed. While it is encouraging to see the national obesity epidemic being seriously addressed, maybe we would go farther by focusing our attentions on exercise, our sedentary lifestyle, and why in a country that makes so much more food than it can consume do portions continue to get larger and larger and larger. Of course, next thing you know they'll be a law mandating exercise (at the same time outlawing biking).

extra butter please

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:08:26 -0500

i really do not care. People know how bad it is to be too fat or too skinny. This isn't a 3rd world nation where the education is not in our faces on a daily basis. People who watch too much TV whether it be DR. Phil or Fox News, all know and hear that obeseity and anorexia are bad for your health. What I find hilarious is that these very people bitch and moan that the world around them does not cater to fat people. FUCKING EXERCISE, ASSHOLES! Transfats are not the problem, it's those pesky High-Fructose Corn Syrups in everything!

REALITY CHECK

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:05:52 -0500

durr

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:04:23 -0500

What does decreasing the use of trans fat have to do with limiting one's freedoms? Do you think health inspections of restaurants are freedom limiting? I want dead cockroaches in my food, if the government doesn't let a restaurant do it then I don't feel free.

mihow

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:03:47 -0500

Now, now, pedestrian, make the right parallel if you're going to go there. The Bush Administration would have changed the amount per serving without letting anyone know. Once people found out about said change and called them on it they would have denied having done so. And eventually, after all the smoke cleared, they’d release a primetime drama and rewrite history by blaming it on somebody else.

Samantha T

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:02:05 -0500

Liberal - if people eat too much transfat, have their limbs amputated, are obese, etc., who do you think will ultimately pick up the tab? Yes, you and me. So, in a sense, these kinds of laws protect all of us from the physical and resulting economic harm of transfat.

liberal

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:59:21 -0500

Actually, Samantha, we are protected from other people by the goverment all the time. Drunk driving laws protect innocent drivers. Environmental laws protect people from polluters. Smoking bans protect people from second-hand smoke. Typically, it's only in cases where the people in mind are may not be able to safely make their own choices that the goverment intervenes, such as laws preventing teenagers from drinking or laws that prevent people from marrying at age 10. But a law against something that is your choice? If I don't want to eat transfats, I won't eat things that contain them. I have no problem with the government encouraging healthy eating, but making laws against them? Trans fat is horrible for you, but so area lot of chemicals and other preservatives put in food. In moderation, however, most of what is in food these days is okay. Where will we draw the line? Leave it to the people to decide what they want to eat. Let the goverment educate its people, not babysit them.

pedestrian

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:43:46 -0500

Just don't complain when people like Bush take away your freedoms. You didn't deserve them in the first place.

Samantha T

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:41:33 -0500

We are protected from ourselves by the government all the time. I don't know why people freak out all of a sudden when it's food-related.

toby

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:39:28 -0500

McDonalds already took the transfat out of it's food stuff in Denmark and no one seemed to notice. (Do people in Denmark care about McDonalds fries??) If it's bad for us to eat why not avoid cooking with it. I think it's just as much the responsibility of the establishment producing the food as it the consumer who is eating it. Everyone knows that arsenic is poison and no one cooks with it. Should be the same for trans fats.

mihow

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:01:22 -0500

It drives me completely bonkers that there are so many people who scream personal freedom up until the point in which they start seeing dollar signs. How many times have we seen individuals sue the pants off a corporation because they can't keep the big Macs and French fries out of their chubby faces? Sure, people can take responsibility for their actions but they don't. And when it backfires they look for monetary compensation. Until people actually DO start to take responsibility for their actions, we apparently need a parental figure to help us out. We're just not grown up enough to handle all this personal freedom on our own. I think it’s a good idea. And when everyone starts to freak out because they discover they have type two diabetes and they start losing limbs because of it and then start suing every fast food chain in order to get some cash back, then maybe this will make more sense. Diabetes is a HUGE killer and it’s on the rise. Health insurance rates will climb, deaths will too all because we simply do not have the self-control to stop eating shitty foods. I think we need a little help.

Dave H.

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:49:08 -0500

Wait, that testosterone story gets better and better: "Next time a muscle-bound guy in a sports car cuts you off on the highway, don't get mad -- just take a deep breath and realize that it might not be his fault," Ehrlich said in a statement. And the next time you're date-raped or punched in the face by an abusive husband, cut the guy some slack.

s

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:44:05 -0500

Yes, ban trans fats, gmo's and high fructose corn syrups. That would be a good start.

Dave H.

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:41:23 -0500

Regarding the testosterone story: "Too little testosterone is bad, too much is bad but the right amount is perfect," When did Yogi Berra join the faculty of Yale University again?

Meredith

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:39:58 -0500

I support the concept, but this really is infringing upon some freedoms in a way I find distasteful. I'd be perfectly happy if restaurants simply had to prominently display whether or not they use trans fats to prepare their foods; then I can make the decision whether or not to eat there.

k

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:33:45 -0500

I'm for big bright warning labels that spell out ingredients and risks but banning ingredients is just dumb. The government and industry have a responsibility to be transparent with citizens and consumers when it comes to food - admittedly this is difficult to enforce. But if they did, citizens and consumers would then clearly have the responsibility to act on that info, and if they don't act, hold themselves responsible. it would also help if as a nation we weren't car-dependent slothlike lardasses who balk at walking more than 10 feet to run errands. ban cars, not transfats!

hr

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:29:17 -0500

can I catch 'fat'? Is there such thing as second hand fat? fattie pig fattie@ ona party rock

another hater

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:23:33 -0500

Yes, because fat people need to be stopped!

not fat

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:23:29 -0500

Can't wait to hear the ignorant comments today about how horrible fat people are! On your mark...get set...go!

Vanessa

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:20:27 -0500

It's important to mention that trans fats are often used instead of healthier oils because trans fats are a PRESERVATIVE; they prolong the shelf life of foods. To answer your question, yes, personally, I am glad that lead paint and trans fats are being banned from my foods. At the very least, food manufacturers should be legally required to have mandatory warnings when their foods contain trans fats or genetically modified ingredients - that way at least consumers have the information needed to make health decisions for themselves.

s

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:08:31 -0500

I understand the smoking ban, since secondhand smoke is not something that a non-smoker has a choice about inhaling most of the time. But banning transfats? What about personal responsibility? Maybe instead of being a nanny, the government could invest in programs like education, so people can read and do math, two skills that might help people understand nutrition information. Is it McDonald's fault that people can't read?