Legislating healthy eating?

[hotcbr]

From AP. What's your thoughts on this story? I'm all for eating healthy, but I don't think it's any of the government's business...they have bigger fish to fry (pardon the pun)...

Kim Walker / AP file
New York City health officials have proposed a ban on artificial trans fats that can be found in foods like doughnuts and french fries.



NEW YORK - 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.
The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald’s french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin’ Donuts.
Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy.
“It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient,” Frieden said. “No one will miss it when it’s gone.”
Same ban in Chicago?
A similar ban on trans fats in restaurant food has been proposed in Chicago and is still under consideration, although it has been ridiculed by some as unnecessary government meddling.
The latest version of the Chicago plan would only apply to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million, a provision aimed exclusively at fast-food giants.
A few companies have moved to eliminate trans fats on their own.
Wendy’s announced in August that it had switched to a new cooking oil that contains no trans fatty acids. Crisco now sells a shortening that contains zero trans fats. Frito-Lay removed trans fats from its Doritos and Cheetos. Kraft’s took trans fats out of Oreos.
McDonald’s began using a trans fat-free cooking oil in Denmark after that country banned artificial trans fats in processed food, but it has yet to do so in the United States.
Walt Riker, vice president of corporate communications at McDonald’s, said in a statement Tuesday that the company would review New York’s proposal.

“McDonald’s knows this is an important issue, which is why we continue to test in earnest to find ways to further reduce (trans fatty acid) levels,” he said.
July deadline proposed
Under the New York proposal, restaurants would need to get artificial trans fats out of cooking oils, margarine and shortening by July 1, 2007, and all other foodstuffs by July 1, 2008. It would not affect grocery stores. It also would not apply to naturally occurring trans fats, which are found in some meats and dairy.
The Board of Health has yet to approve the proposal and will not do so until at least December, Frieden said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration began requiring food labels to list trans fats in January.
Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives.
“Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year,” he said. “The federal government should have done this long ago.”
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[tbonez]

The is fucking absurd, apparently all we are to this fucking 'Government' are lab rats to be tested on. Our so called 'Freedom' is fucking dwindling quicker every day. This is going too further and further anymore.

This is such bullshit.

How about restrictions on smoking? What does that say about freedom and personal choice? If a parent wants to let their 11 year old smoke, who is the government to stick their noses in? Are "they" raising our children now?


We are talking about TRANS-fats, not all fats. BIG difference. If it's toxic, a carcinogen or a major contributor to heart disease and stroke isn't the government obligated to regulate it's use? Many trans-fats are hidden BTW.

I think it's all good...Not a ban, but that the notion is sparking debate and awareness.

 

[AndrewH]

I'm for it. The only trans-fat ingredient found in most American homes is vegetable shortening. As far as cooking is concerned, there are plenty of healthy alternatives such as butter, lard, tallow, coconut oil, etc.

If this passes we'll still have McDonalds fries, KFC and Dunkin Donuts. They just won't be quite as toxic as before.

 

[pjlikesporn]

Banning smoking in public places has nothing to do with health--well, at least nothing to do with the smokers' health. The smoking bans are there to protect the non-smokers because smoking cannot be contained. When someone decides to smoke, everyone around them also smokes.

The use of trans fatty acid has no such "leakage" effect. If one person decides to eat them, no one else has to. Legislating their intake would be ridiculous. But I'm all for keeping the smoke out of restaurants and bars--public streets are bad enough.

 

[metta]

Really, artificial trans fats are not necessary. There are healthier alternatives. The health costs from obesity problems in this country are way out of control. Food manufactures just use it because it is a little cheaper. The government also bans certain pesticides and when too many bits of bugs are in food. And I'm glad that they do.

I don't see how banning ARTIFICIAL trans fats is a bad thing? But then again, I don't want to eat anything that is artificial unless that is all that is offered. If they did not offer it at all, then it would not even be an issue.

I can control what I buy in the grocery store but I don't have much control of what ingredients are used when I go to a restaurant.

 

[Fire]

When the reality is, if you eat in moderation, sticking to a certain Calory limit a day, you can stay perfectly healthy just the same.

No, sorry. Eating in moderation may keep you at a healthy weight, but a healthy weight does not mean you are healthy. Being healthy requires more than calorie counting--fat people aren't the only ones who have heart attacks, you know.

That said, the government has no right to say that corporations can't use transfats in their foods, and likewise they have no right to criminalize psychoactive substances and other "illegal drugs." Corporations should be able to put whatever the hell they want in their food, cigarettes, soft drinks, etc. and leave it up to the consumer to figure out what butylparaben is, or monosodium glutamate, or ammonium lauryl sulfate, and whether it's safe to put on your hair.

 

[NameTaken]

Fuck that. The gov is MUCH too ban happy nowadays. I mean really, first drugs, now fat? Fuck that.

 

[Yves]

The is fucking absurd, apparently all we are to this fucking 'Government' are lab rats to be tested on. Our so called 'Freedom' is fucking dwindling quicker every day. This is going too further and further anymore.
This is such bullshit.

What about companies? Do companies have the right to test carcinogenetics or unhealthy food? What about some social responsibility? According to this line of thinking we shouldn´t have regulations on safe belt use or pesticides or access to guns......
Some companies are doing the opposite and moving away from trans fat. A couple of months ago, Wendys announced that they would switch to non-hydrogenated cooking oil to reduce trans fat. Other companies are following this trend.

Government, companies, health experts and the public are some of the key actors here and health restrictions on food are not new (food labeling, ban on carcinogenetics, etc.) Are we supposed to allow companies to do whatever they want, with no guidelines? What about prevention of diseases?

Freedom of choice is not the major principle here. Most trans fats consumed today are industrially created but unlike other fats, trans fats are neither required nor beneficial for health. Health authorities worldwide have recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts: "Trans fatty acids are not essential and provide no known benefit to human health" (National Academy of Science, 2005). Because of the overwhelming scientific evidence, the NAS has concluded there is no safe level of trans fat consumption. The NAS has therefore "recommended that trans fatty acid consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet"
Why should we encourage the consumption of a product that is universally labeled as a health risk? Are we willing to add carcinogenetics to food just to test our freedom of choice?
Some basic health regulation is needed to protect the public and decrease the overall intake. New York City health officials have proposed a ban on artificial trans fats at food service establishments. There are not restrictions on home use.

I feel the same way about smoking, it's all bullshit.
It doesn't matter to me what kind of fat it is, they're basically forcing people to eat more healthy. When the reality is, if you eat in moderation, sticking to a certain Calory limit a day, you can stay perfectly healthy just the same. But, something like that is never advertised, just short term diets that will work (if it does) for a couple weeks until you get the weight back..

Not really. Caloric intake is just one component. Food composition and exercise are equally important. Socioeconomic status is another factor to consider. Unhealthy foods are usually cheaper. People have limited choice in terms of food alternatives.

That said, the government has no right to say that corporations can't use transfats in their foods, and likewise they have no right to criminalize psychoactive substances and other "illegal drugs." Corporations should be able to put whatever the hell they want in their food, cigarettes, soft drinks, etc. and leave it up to the consumer to figure out what butylparaben is, or monosodium glutamate, or ammonium lauryl sulfate, and whether it's safe to put on your hair.

I disagree. The government and public health health officials have the obligation to protect the public and prevent diseases. Health costs is another factor to consider. Companies do not have the right to do whatever they want with the public. This is not Nazi Germany or "1984".
The public is not supposed to have a lab at home to test food safety. That information is already available and it has to be provided to the public.

 

[rotary]

Trans fats should be totally banned.

We should also place heavy taxes on unhealthy foods, and use that extra revenue to subsidize healthy food.

 

[dolphwasser]

Lesiglation has taken hold where I live. No more soda machines in the schools or crap food in vending machines or candy sales for fund raisers.