Banning Trans-Fatty Acids and Requiring Menus to List Caloric Content of Foods

[somemaybedoc]

Marlboro doesn't have the statistics to show that it kills you faster than Camel. If it did, then the world would be advocating a ban on Marlboro.

They both kill you faster than air.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DragonWell]

I see where you're coming from, and its a point well taken with validity. But, the analogy you made was quite exaggerated.

The main difference between trans-fats and saturated fats are simply this: Both raise LDL. Trans raises LDL slightly less than saturated making saturated fats effect on LDL worse. However, trans fats also reduce HDL where saturated fats usually have no effect to even a slight positive effect on HDL. So yes, trans fats are worse for you that saturated fats because they skew the LDL/HDL ratio more. Replacing 10% of oleic acids from ones diet with trans fats resulted in a 2.58 ldl/hdl ratio, with saturated it was 2.34, and with oleic left as is it was 2.02. Worse, yes, nobody is denying that, but my analogy (while not perfect) is more realistic than crack v cigarettes which is almost apples and oranges.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/reviews/transfats.html

From the reference you provided, "As a result, the net effect of trans fat on the LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio is approximately double that of saturated fat. "

As bad as crack...probably not, but definitely significantly worse from a health standpoint than saturated fat.

 

[tncekm]

Yes, I'm not going to argue with you too much there, but significant enough to warrant an outright ban? Sat'd fats and trans fats are both going to contribute significantly to CHD. Banning trans fats from foods and replacing them with sat'd fats may reduce LDL/HDL ratio by what? 8% or so? Well, what if you banned Sat'd fats?

Removing both Sat'd and Trans will result in a 20% decrease in hdl/ldl ratio (based on the numbers in the study) and removing trans only will result in about an 8% decrease. See what I'm getting at here? Dont' read the authors discussion and commentary, read the statistics and the study so you can draw your own conclusions!

 

[southerndoc]

Yes, I'm not going to argue with you too much there, but significant enough to warrant an outright ban? Sat'd fats and trans fats are both going to contribute significantly to CHD. Banning trans fats from foods and replacing them with sat'd fats may reduce LDL/HDL ratio by what? 8% or so? Well, what if you banned Sat'd fats?

Removing both Sat'd and Trans will result in a 20% decrease in hdl/ldl ratio (based on the numbers in the study) and removing trans only will result in about an 8% decrease. See what I'm getting at here? Dont' read the authors discussion and commentary, read the statistics and the study so you can draw your own conclusions!

The difference is banning saturated fats v. trans fats is like trying to ban air instead of chlorine gas.

Saturated fats are all throughout nature. You can't regulate those. TFA's are man-made and can easily be banned because they are unnatural. Specifically created to prolong shelf lives. If you remove a TFA and replace it with non-hydrogenated vegetable oil, most people can't tell the difference and it has significant benefits to health by doing so. You can't really remove saturated fats from naturally occuring foods.

 

[DragonWell]

Yes, I'm not going to argue with you too much there, but significant enough to warrant an outright ban? Sat'd fats and trans fats are both going to contribute significantly to CHD. Banning trans fats from foods and replacing them with sat'd fats may reduce LDL/HDL ratio by what? 8% or so? Well, what if you banned Sat'd fats?

Removing both Sat'd and Trans will result in a 20% decrease in hdl/ldl ratio (based on the numbers in the study) and removing trans only will result in about an 8% decrease. See what I'm getting at here? Dont' read the authors discussion and commentary, read the statistics and the study so you can draw your own conclusions!

It appears that a negative effect on serum lipids is only one harmful effect of TFAs. TFAs also appear to increase inflammation, affect endothelial-cell function, and have other harmful effects. So focusing on TFA effects on serum lipids only doesn't provide an accurate assessment of potential risk to health.

 

[Miami_med]

Using your own citation from the Harvard School of Public Health:

HSPH: "Based on the available metabolic studies, we estimated in a 1994 report that approximately 30,000 premature coronary heart disease deaths annually could be attributable to consumption of trans fatty acids."

HSPH: "The combined results of metabolic and epidemiologic studies strongly support an adverse effect of trans fat on risk of CHD. Furthermore, two independent methods of estimation indicate that the adverse effect of trans fat is stronger than that of saturated fat. By our most conservative estimate, replacement of partially hydrogenated fat in the U.S. diet with natural unhydrogenated vegetable oils would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,0000 premature deaths annually. These reductions are higher than what could be achieved with realistic reductions in saturated fat intake."

HSPH: "many products including most baked goods and fried fast foods still are made with partially hydrogenated fat both in Europe and in the U.S. and are high in trans fatty acids. It is unlikely that this situation will change without strong federal regulations."

You'll just have to read the rest. Thanks for the evidence supporting regulation of TFA's. Undoubtedly, many naysayers to regulations will view this HSPH with a blind eye.

I haven't turned a blind eye. I AGREE that trans-fats are nutritionally bad. I just don't believe that the government has the right to prevent free individuals from knowingly doing things that are bad for them. You can repeat and quote every bad statistic in existance. I won't argue that. It is completely NOT the point.

By the way, to the person who argued about minimal economic woes associated with a ban. A quick search through the Heritage Foundation will point to the fact that most individuals in the EU pay almost 2x as much for food as is necessary due to government regulations on food growth, food subsidies, and regulations on food service. There really is a consequence. Only the market can determine whether the risks outweigh the benefits. We should really leave this choice to individuals.

 

[southerndoc]

I haven't turned a blind eye. I AGREE that trans-fats are nutritionally bad. I just don't believe that the government has the right to prevent free individuals from knowingly doing things that are bad for them. You can repeat and quote every bad statistic in existance. I won't argue that. It is completely NOT the point.

By the way, to the person who argued about minimal economic woes associated with a ban. A quick search through the Heritage Foundation will point to the fact that most individuals in the EU pay almost 2x as much for food as is necessary due to government regulations on food growth, food subsidies, and regulations on food service. There really is a consequence. Only the market can determine whether the risks outweigh the benefits. We should really leave this choice to individuals.

This isn't a proposed regulation on how it's grown, or how much pesticide goes into the food, but is rather a proposed regulation on one artificial substance. The data available in the US does not support the argument that eliminating TFA's will significantly increase production costs, at least here in the US.

I don't think TFA's is a lifestyle choice. People make a conscious decision to consume fatty products, but most do not say "I'm going to enjoy this nice piece of trans fat today." People make conscious decisions to inhale cannibis, but do not make conscious decisions to inhale the contaminants that the drug dealers place in the marijuana.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

This isn't a proposed regulation on how it's grown, or how much pesticide goes into the food, but is rather a proposed regulation on one artificial substance. The data available in the US does not support the argument that eliminating TFA's will significantly increase production costs, at least here in the US.

I don't think TFA's is a lifestyle choice. People make a conscious decision to consume fatty products, but most do not say "I'm going to enjoy this nice piece of trans fat today." People make conscious decisions to inhale cannibis, but do not make conscious decisions to inhale the contaminants that the drug dealers place in the marijuana.

That's why it is now required to label the trans-fat content of food on food labels. The consumer can be more educated about which foods contain trans-fats and can make their own assessment of the risks, and their own ultimate decision.

Another point to consider is that some places are voluntarily switching over from trans-fat containing oils to those not containing them. I'm sure you're aware that KFC announced this last week. Whatever you think their motives for doing so are, the fact remains that at least some places are making the switch voluntarily. The more educated the people are, the more they will patronize trans-fat free places and the market will solve the problem. Certainly, there will be some that will continue to eat trans-fat containing crap, but, hopefully, the problem can be reduced without taking the drastic step of banning them altogether (opening the pandora's box of directly regulating what Americans can and cannot eat, IMHO.)

You response may be something like "Even 1 trans-fat caused MI is too much." To that, I respond with, what price freedom? I'm off to do some math, but I don't think that the cost of treating the estimated 30,000 trans-fat caused MI's per year (which is 82 per day, or less than 2 per state per day, and assuming that that study that was presented was 100% correct -- which I question automatically because it was a meta-analysis) is a major piece of the healthcare cost pie. If that number is reduced due to education and corporate "peer pressure" (now that KFC is not using trans-fats, other fast food joints will likely follow) it will obviously become even less significant.

I don't think that those who say education is not effective are grounded in reality. I consider myself an educated person, but had never even heard of trans-fats until, perhaps 3 years ago, give or take. Since then, I have drammatically reduced my consumption of trans-fats (I still enjoy the occasional Krispy Kreme ) upon hearing how harmful they were to my health. I didn't need the government to tell me to do so.

 

[tncekm]

The difference is banning saturated fats v. trans fats is like trying to ban air instead of chlorine gas.

Saturated fats are all throughout nature. You can't regulate those. TFA's are man-made and can easily be banned because they are unnatural. Specifically created to prolong shelf lives. If you remove a TFA and replace it with non-hydrogenated vegetable oil, most people can't tell the difference and it has significant benefits to health by doing so. You can't really remove saturated fats from naturally occuring foods.

No, there are high naturally occuring instances of trans fats in milk and other foods, but overall they make up a relatively small portion of fatty acids in general.

Your analogy's are just too much, man. Way overboard.

I agree there is a problem, however, with the fact that people just can't tell the difference. That's why I suggest educating people on nutrition (start in middle/high school) and require labeling. I'd also like to suggest that a "warning" about trans/saturated fats but put on foods, much like cigarettes and alcohol have.

 

[southerndoc]

Another point to consider is that some places are voluntarily switching over from trans-fat containing oils to those not containing them. I'm sure you're aware that KFC announced this last week. Whatever you think their motives for doing so are, the fact remains that at least some places are making the switch voluntarily. The more educated the people are, the more they will patronize trans-fat free places and the market will solve the problem. Certainly, there will be some that will continue to eat trans-fat containing crap, but, hopefully, the problem can be reduced without taking the drastic step of banning them altogether (opening the pandora's box of directly regulating what Americans can and cannot eat, IMHO.)

Right. Just like McDonald's announced 3 years ago that it was eliminating TFA's. Hasn't done so yet. We'll see if KFC follows through. At least Wendy's was concerned enough to do it.

You response may be something like "Even 1 trans-fat caused MI is too much." To that, I respond with, what price freedom? I'm off to do some math, but I don't think that the cost of treating the estimated 30,000 trans-fat caused MI's per year (which is 82 per day, or less than 2 per state per day, and assuming that that study that was presented was 100% correct -- which I question automatically because it was a meta-analysis) is a major piece of the healthcare cost pie. If that number is reduced due to education and corporate "peer pressure" (now that KFC is not using trans-fats, other fast food joints will likely follow) it will obviously become even less significant.

It would be one thing if the elimanation of 30,000 deaths per year is prohibitively costly, but eliminating TFA's can be done without significant costs to the consumer and will not be prohibitive to businesses either. You can break it down all you want, but 30,000 people dying in the US every year is a lot of people.

 

[DragonWell]

I haven't turned a blind eye. I AGREE that trans-fats are nutritionally bad. I just don't believe that the government has the right to prevent free individuals from knowingly doing things that are bad for them. You can repeat and quote every bad statistic in existance. I won't argue that. It is completely NOT the point.

By the way, to the person who argued about minimal economic woes associated with a ban. A quick search through the Heritage Foundation will point to the fact that most individuals in the EU pay almost 2x as much for food as is necessary due to government regulations on food growth, food subsidies, and regulations on food service. There really is a consequence. Only the market can determine whether the risks outweigh the benefits. We should really leave this choice to individuals.

I don't see this as a case of limiting consumer's food choices, good, bad or otherwise. I would argue that the situation with TFAs is akin to the banning of lead as an additive in gasoline. Lead was added to gasoline to prevent engine knocking, but after many years of evidence of the harmful effects of lead, and staunch opposition by the lead industry, eventually a movement arose to ban it. Healthier alternatives to lead existed for many years before the ban, however, market forces alone were ineffective in forcing the removal of lead from gasoline. It took a government ban to force the hand of industry to make the switch. Did this manipulation of the market cause irreparable harm to the fuel industry? Judging from the recent profits posted by oil companies, I think it's safe to say that they survived the change. Likewise, TFA ban or not, America's insatiable appetite for junk food will ensure that the processed foods industry will remain very successful.

In terms of choice, did eliminating lead from gasoline have any effect whatsoever on people's freedom to use gas? One can still drive a huge gas-guzzling SUV and still operate a ridiculously inefficient gas powered appliance of your choosing. I have yet to hear anyone opining about the good old days when they could buy leaded gas. Similarly, eliminating TFAs will be a transparent change - consumers will still be able to binge on oreos, doritos and cheetos, they will just have less negative health impacts as a result.

Sure, you can argue, theoretically people have a choice about whether or not to eat TFAs, as I'm sure one could argue that people had a choice whether or not to drive and thus spread lead throughout the country. However, for most people, particularly lower income people, these choices are largely already made for you. For example, children are still being poisoned by leaded gas in third world countries. Given a choice, I'm sure that people in these countries would opt not to poison their children, however, economic necessity dictates that they use the fuel which is available. Similarly, if given the option, many people living in the US might choose to not eat TFAs. However, given that TFAs are found abundantly in inexpensive foods, for many people this is not an economically viable choice.

 

[dpmd]

Sure, you can argue, theoretically people have a choice about whether or not to eat TFAs, as I'm sure one could argue that people had a choice whether or not to drive and thus spread lead throughout the country. However, for most people, particularly lower income people, these choices are largely already made for you. For example, children are still being poisoned by leaded gas in third world countries. Given a choice, I'm sure that people in these countries would opt not to poison their children, however, economic necessity dictates that they use the fuel which is available. Similarly, if given the option, many people living in the US might choose to not eat TFAs. However, given that TFAs are found abundantly in inexpensive foods, for many people this is not an economically viable choice.

TFA's are found abundantly in inexpensive foods, because the properties of TFA's allow food to be less expensive. Longer shelf life means mass production without a lot of waste. It also means that I can get cheap baked goods at the outlet that is older, but still tastes good. It also means I can get the big bag and ration out my snacking without it going to waste. You will be eliminating this choice for people. I have a problem with that.

I also have a problem with targeting one thing in a sea of substances that are bad for you. Especially when science seems to change its mind on what is bad for you and what is worse all the time. Who is to say they won't discover later that TFA's are bad for your heart, but they protect you from some cancer or alzheimer's or something?

 

[somemaybedoc]

Air is a common property resource, you get to buy cheap lead gas, but everyone gets sick, and even if you stop using it and pay more for unleaded you still get sick.

Food is not a CPR, if you eat it, you get sick, you can avoid it if you are willing to pay the cost to avoid it.

Not exactly the same economic concept.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

It would be one thing if the elimanation of 30,000 deaths per year is prohibitively costly, but eliminating TFA's can be done without significant costs to the consumer and will not be prohibitive to businesses either. You can break it down all you want, but 30,000 people dying in the US every year is a lot of people.

Not really. According to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crude_death_rate

There were 696,447 total deaths caused by heart disease in 2002 (best statistics that I could come up with on short notice.) 30000/696447 = 4.31% So, while the number of deaths presumably caused solely by trans-fats (again, assuming that that study was 100% correct) is not negligible, I wouldn't consider that to be "a lot" or a significant percentage of the total deaths caused by heart disease.

 

[southerndoc]

Not really. According to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crude_death_rate

There were 696,447 total deaths caused by heart disease in 2002 (best statistics that I could come up with on short notice.) 30000/696447 = 4.31% So, while the number of deaths presumably caused solely by trans-fats (again, assuming that that study was 100% correct) is not negligible, I wouldn't consider that to be "a lot" or a significant percentage of the total deaths caused by heart disease.

30,000 deaths attributed to TFA's is a lot, no matter how you look at it. $1 million dollars is still a lot of money even to a billionaire.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

RE: Leaded gas. I agree that the two situations are similar, but I also agree with somemaybedoc that the problems caused by leaded gas were largely due to air pollution and not avoidable like those caused by consuming trans fats are. The major difference between these two situations is that when TEL is released into the environment, it is inherently dangerous. Not so with trans-fats. They are only dangerous when [voluntarily] consumed. I can just see it now, people in biohazard suits and neighborhood evacuations from a Crisco spill.

Regardless, while oil company profits are fine, the regulation of gasoline DID cause a slippery slope of unnecessary gasoline regulation. Need I remind everyone about the oxygenated gasoline (using MTBE) fiasco of the mid-90s, where it was Federally mandated that gas stations in certain parts of the country sell oxygenated gasoline during certain parts of the year. Well, MTBE, as it turns out, is toxic. If there hadn't been a history of regulation of gasoline, PERHAPS, that whole fiasco may not have occurred.

 

[Whodathunkit]

That's why I suggest educating people on nutrition (start in middle/high school) and require labeling. I'd also like to suggest that a "warning" about trans/saturated fats but put on foods, much like cigarettes and alcohol have.

Yeah, that seems to have worked pretty well so far.

Slim Goodbody has been around since 1975, and I don't see kids getting any slimmer.

And can we make the cigarette and alcohol warnings any bigger???

How about we label them like this?

 

[DragonWell]

Air is a common property resource, you get to buy cheap lead gas, but everyone gets sick, and even if you stop using it and pay more for unleaded you still get sick.

Food is not a CPR, if you eat it, you get sick, you can avoid it if you are willing to pay the cost to avoid it.

Not exactly the same economic concept.

RE: Leaded gas. I agree that the two situations are similar, but I also agree with somemaybedoc that the problems caused by leaded gas were largely due to air pollution and not avoidable like those caused by consuming trans fats are. The major difference between these two situations is that when TEL is released into the environment, it is inherently dangerous. Not so with trans-fats. They are only dangerous when [voluntarily] consumed. I can just see it now, people in biohazard suits and neighborhood evacuations from a Crisco spill.

Eating food and breathing are things everyone must do. Isn't it a choice to live in a city where one is exposed to pollution? If people don't want to breathe pollution, they could move to Alaska and avoid it. The question is, is this economically realistic for a normal person? The same question applies to TFAs. Avoiding TFAs not only requires a willingness to pay, but also an ability to pay, and that is where most people will run into problems. When TFAs are ubiquitous in the food supply and are served to unsuspecting consumers in restaurants, how sucessful will the average person be in avoiding them?

Regardless, while oil company profits are fine, the regulation of gasoline DID cause a slippery slope of unnecessary gasoline regulation. Need I remind everyone about the oxygenated gasoline (using MTBE) fiasco of the mid-90s, where it was Federally mandated that gas stations in certain parts of the country sell oxygenated gasoline during certain parts of the year. Well, MTBE, as it turns out, is toxic. If there hadn't been a history of regulation of gasoline, PERHAPS, that whole fiasco may not have occurred.

MTBE is indeed an unfortunate situation. Would it have been preferable to keep the lead in gasoline in order to avoid MTBE, or are these occasional mistakes the price which sometimes must be paid for progress?

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Eating food and breathing are things everyone must do. Isn't it a choice to live in a city where one is exposed to pollution? If people don't want to breathe pollution, they could move to Alaska and avoid it. The question is, is this economically realistic for a normal person? The same question applies to TFAs. Avoiding TFAs not only requires a willingness to pay, but also an ability to pay, and that is where most people will run into problems. When TFAs are ubiquitous in the food supply and are served to unsuspecting consumers in restaurants, how sucessful will the average person be in avoiding them?

First off, trans fats are not ubiquitous in the food supply. If you are talking about economically underprivileged people, they generally don't eat out a lot, and things like meat (all types), fruits and vegetables, breads, and dairy products, to name a few, do not contain trans-fats. I don't buy it for a minute that people are forced to consume trans-fats because of their economic situation. Trans-fats may be present in PROCESSED foods (but I don't think ubiquitous is the correct word.) Everybody has a choice.

The previous poster used cigarettes and alcohol as examples of how education has not helped in curbing the demand for other unhealthy products. The problem with that analogy is that cigarettes and alcohol are two products that have highly inelastic demand, and no real substitutes. Many trans-fat products already do (butter can substitute for margarine, etc) and few people are truly addicted to Ho-Hos.

Heck, if you are so against people having the choice to eat trans-fats, why not just lobby to tax them more to give economic incentives for companies to not use them. Use the tax revenues to offset their [slight] effect of increasing public healthcare costs. Shelf life is unimportant for fast-food restaurants -- it's all about cost for them. Lower ingredient cost might offset lower shelf life for baked goods.

MTBE is indeed an unfortunate situation. Would it have been preferable to keep the lead in gasoline in order to avoid MTBE, or are these occasional mistakes the price which sometimes must be paid for progress?

Point taken. I can't answer that, but I think your question was rhetorical anyway.

 

[DragonWell]

First off, trans fats are not ubiquitous in the food supply. If you are talking about economically underprivileged people, they generally don't eat out a lot, and things like meat (all types), fruits and vegetables, breads, and dairy products, to name a few, do not contain trans-fats. I don't buy it for a minute that people are forced to consume trans-fats because of their economic situation. Trans-fats may be present in PROCESSED foods (but I don't think ubiquitous is the correct word.) Everybody has a choice.

Since we're trading anecdotes, while I have no concrete proof to back it up, my observation from working and shopping in discount grocery stores is that it is very rare to see economically underpriveleged folks buying fruits and vegetables. My observation is that when folks are strapped at the grocery store (myself included) they tend to go for food items that provide the greatest amount of calories/$. Unfortunately, these usually end up being things like tubs of nacho cheese, margarine, potato chips, and ramen noodles, all of which are loaded with TFAs. TFAs are perhaps not ubiquitous, but are extremely widely distributed, including foods such as:

1. Margarine.
2. Packaged foods.
3. Soups.
4. Fast food.
5. Frozen food.
6. Baked goods.
7. Candy and cookies.
8. Chips and crackers.
9. Breakfast food.
10. Toppings, dips, and condiments.

Anectdotally, having worked at McD's and spent some time in large cities, it would appear that fast food is actually quite popular with the economically underpriveleged - a couple bucks gets you filled up for a good long time.

BTW, I don't think I would have recognized your avatar if I hadn't just watched Scarface...great flick..."Say hello to my little friend!"

 

[undertow]

werd, us do you think us poor peeps eat as healthy as ya rich folks?nope. healthier foods are more expensive. We be poor, nahmean. We gotta eat wuteva to make due..

 

[Miami_med]

Avoiding TFAs not only requires a willingness to pay, but also an ability to pay, and that is where most people will run into problems. When TFAs are ubiquitous in the food supply and are served to unsuspecting consumers in restaurants, how sucessful will the average person be in avoiding them?



MTBE is indeed an unfortunate situation. Would it have been preferable to keep the lead in gasoline in order to avoid MTBE, or are these occasional mistakes the price which sometimes must be paid for progress?

Dude!!! The reason the food is cheap is BECAUSE it has trans fats. The argument for reporting will solve your other problem with the uninformed consumer.

I also mind the MTBE opinion amusing. Let's all cheer for government regulation when we think it's a good idea. When they kill a few people, who do NOT have choice, unlike in a free market system, we claim that it is the price of progress

 

[dpmd]

Yeah, that seems to have worked pretty well so far.

Slim Goodbody has been around since 1975, and I don't see kids getting any slimmer.

And can we make the cigarette and alcohol warnings any bigger???

How about we label them like this?

Ah, yes. The european version of the cigarette warning. They still smoke though.

 

[Jejton]

For me an even more debatable question is:

Should government money(ie food stamps, etc), be used to buy such foods?

I sometimes see shopping carts full of ice cream, heavy sugared cereals, cookies, bacon. Not a veggie or fruit in the bunch.

How do you know that food stamps were being used to pay for them ? As far as I am aware food stamps and/or WIC are only allowed to be used for preapproved foods. These foods are approved by the FDA for nutritional purposes. I know that it applies to WIC for sure but I could be wrong about food stamps.

 

[Jejton]

I would. If someone want to end up in a wheel chair for the rest of their life, How is that my business?

If costs me to keep them there, then its now my business. That is the reality of it.

Even if we assume for arguments sake that taxpayers money does not go to pay for anything ( medical care or other ) related to the car accident, we all still do pay for it in the end because premiums will be higher for everyone, not just the bad drivers.

 

[Jejton]

deleted

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Since we're trading anecdotes, while I have no concrete proof to back it up, my observation from working and shopping in discount grocery stores is that it is very rare to see economically underpriveleged folks buying fruits and vegetables. My observation is that when folks are strapped at the grocery store (myself included) they tend to go for food items that provide the greatest amount of calories/$. Unfortunately, these usually end up being things like tubs of nacho cheese, margarine, potato chips, and ramen noodles, all of which are loaded with TFAs. TFAs are perhaps not ubiquitous, but are extremely widely distributed, including foods such as:

<list snipped>

Anectdotally, having worked at McD's and spent some time in large cities, it would appear that fast food is actually quite popular with the economically underpriveleged - a couple bucks gets you filled up for a good long time.

What people DO DO, and CAN DO are two totally different things. You're surely not arguing that the cost of the food items that I listed in my previous post (meat, fruits and vetetables, breads, dairy) is so prohibitively high that poor people CAN'T afford them, and CAN ONLY afford trans-fat containing processed foods, are you? What people, when left to their own devices, choose to do is their business, and it's not the Government's job to legislate the "proper" behavior, when the "correct" choices are right there, in plain sight, at everybody's neighborhood grocery store/market.

BTW, I don't think I would have recognized your avatar if I hadn't just watched Scarface...great flick..."Say hello to my little friend!"

Although we obviously disagree about trans-fat legislation, you DO have excellent taste in movies! Scarface is a classic!

 

[Jejton]

I voted no to banning trans-fat and yes to requiring nutritional information be posted.

Right now there is evidence that trans fat are bad but there are other things the government should focus on when it comes to health care and people should be able to make their own decisions as long as others are not directly affected.

In order for consumers to make properly informed decisions, though, they need the appropriate information, which is why nutritional facts should be available on the menus. There is a precedent for this - foods sold in supermarkets for instance have to be labeled with their nutritional information. Even labels that dont show all the facts ( such as calories, vitamins, etc ) still must state their ingredients. This is so people can make informed decisions as to whether it is safe for them to eat that food (i.e. for people with food allergies, diabetics, etc. ) There is enough evidence that TFA cause health problems, so people should be able to avoid them should they choose to do so but just as we dont legislate bans against diabetics consuming sugar, we cant legislate bans on consumption of TFA.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

How do you know that food stamps were being used to pay for them ? As far as I am aware food stamps and/or WIC are only allowed to be used for preapproved foods. These foods are approved by the FDA for nutritional purposes. I know that it applies to WIC for sure but I could be wrong about food stamps.

Nah, I, too, have seen people pay for shopping carts filled with "Big Red" soda with the TX version of food stamps (Lone Star or something like that....or maybe it was WIC)

 

[Jejton]

The analogy to banning alcohol and cigarrettes, especially in the marijuana debate, has become cliche. The fact is that if cigarrettes or alcohol were only invented now, and the information about their effects was known before they became popular, they probably would be banned. The fact is, though, that alcohol has been consumed for thousands of years and is ingrained in most cultures. Smoking tobacco has been around for hundreds of years ( longer in some Native American cultures ) and only relatively recently have the health concerns come about. Therefore it just isnt practical to ban these items anymore but we do regulate them.

 

[Whodathunkit]

How do you know that food stamps were being used to pay for them ? As far as I am aware food stamps and/or WIC are only allowed to be used for preapproved foods. These foods are approved by the FDA for nutritional purposes. I know that it applies to WIC for sure but I could be wrong about food stamps.

But it's pretty standard across the board. And in Arizona for example:

Some of the items you can buy with food stamps include food products for human consumption; food producing plants, health foods such as wheat germ, brewers yeast, sunflower seeds, and enriched or fortified foods; infant formula; diabetic foods; distilled water; ice labeled for human consumption; items used in the preparation or preservation of food such as spices and herbs, pectin, lard, and shortening; meals prepared for and delivered or served to elderly or handicapped Food Stamp participants; snack foods such as candy, potato and tortilla chips, chewing gum, and soft drinks.

The following items may not be purchased with Food Stamps: alcoholic beverages; tobacco; non-food items such as soap, paper products, cleaning supplies, and cooking utensils; items used for gardening such as fertilizer, peat moss; items not intended for human consumption such as laundry starch, dog and cat food, seeds packaged as bird seed, or decorative dye used to color hard cooked eggs; vitamins and minerals; health aids, such as aspirin, cough drops or syrups, cold remedies, antacids, and all prescription medicines; hot foods and hot food products sold in grocery stores, hot at the time of sale and ready for immediate eating; all foods marketed to be heated and served on the premises, and any prepared food sold to be eaten on the premises.

So you can use it to buy chips but not for toilet paper or soap.


Minn.: Stamp Out Junk Food Buys

(AP) The state of Minnesota is asking federal permission to bar people from using food stamps to buy candy bars, soda and other junk food.

If the U.S. Department of Agriculture approves, Minnesota would be the first state to impose such restrictions.

The change would still need the approval of the Legislature, where some anti-poverty activists call it a mean-spirited intrusion into the cupboards of the poor.

In a letter sent Monday, the state Department of Human Services described the ban as part of a broader state effort to improve eating habits.

"It is inconsistent to encourage healthy nutrition and simultaneously allow the purchase of candy and soft drinks with food stamps," assistant commissioner Maria Gomez wrote.

Lawrence Rudman, spokesman for the USDA regional office in Chicago, said that the agency had not seen the letter as of Friday and that officials will have 60 days to respond once they do.

The federal government already restricts the use of food stamps somewhat. Recipients cannot use food stamps to buy liquor or tobacco, or hot foods such as rotisserie chicken.

Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty first proposed the junk-food ban more than a year ago.

As for the tricky task of deciding which foods are healthy and which aren't, Minnesota would simply apply the definitions already in the state's tax code. Minnesota taxes candy and soda but exempts most other store-bought foods.

However, the tax code is full of inconsistencies. The state, for example, taxes Hershey's bars but not Kit Kat bars, because anything made with flour is not considered a candy. It taxes gum but not licorice. It taxes marshmallows but not ice cream bars. Also, potato chips would not be banned.

Colleen Moriarty, executive director of Hunger Solutions, which represents Minnesota food banks, said it would be better to simply try to educate food stamp recipients about nutrition.

"I think it's a bad idea to regulate people instead of empowering them," she said.

This was back in 2004. Sadly, I've looked on the net and haven't found any information regarding the outcome. Maybe it was just a politican gesture around election time.

 

[Jejton]

Nah, I, too, have seen people pay for shopping carts filled with "Big Red" soda with the TX version of food stamps (Lone Star or something like that....or maybe it was WIC)

It couldnt have been WIC. If they were paying for it with WIC then the merchant was illegaly accepting the WIC payments because there is a very specific list of items for which WIC may be accepted as payment. I am not saying fraud doesnt happen but that is not a reason to harp on the WIC program.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgregs.HTM


With food stamps there is more leniency though it still cannot be used for certain items, such as alcohol.

 

[Whodathunkit]

The analogy to banning alcohol and cigarrettes, especially in the marijuana debate, has become cliche. The fact is that if cigarrettes or alcohol were only invented now, and the information about their effects was known before they became popular, they probably would be banned. The fact is, though, that alcohol has been consumed for thousands of years and is ingrained in most cultures. Smoking tobacco has been around for hundreds of years ( longer in some Native American cultures ) and only relatively recently have the health concerns come about. Therefore it just isnt practical to ban these items anymore but we do regulate them.

Marijuana

Biologists generally agree that the cannabis plant first grew somewhere in the Himalayas. Evidence of the smoking of cannabis can be found as far back as the Neolithic age, where charred hemp seeds were found in a ritual brazier at a burial site in present day Romania . The most famous users of cannabis were the ancient Hindus. It was called ganjika in Sanskrit (ganja in modern Indian languages).According to legend, Shiva, the destroyer of evil in the Hindu trinity, told his disciples to revere the plant. The ancient drug soma, mentioned in the Vedas as a sacred intoxicating hallucinogen, was sometimes associated with cannabis. It has also been identified with a number of other plants and a mushroom, Amanita muscaria, so the involvement of cannabis cannot be definitively quantified.

The citizens of the Persian Empire would partake in the ceremonial burning of massive cannabis bonfires, directly exposing themselves and neighboring tribes to the billowing fumes, oftentimes for over 24 hours

Cannabis was also well known to the Assyrians, who discovered it from the Aryans. Using it in some religious ceremonies, they called it qunubu, or the drug for sadness. Also introduced by the Aryans, the Scythians as well as the Thracians/Dacians used it, whose shamans (the kapnobatai - "those who walk on smoke/clouds") burned cannabis flowers in order to induce trances. The cult of Dionysus, which is believed to have originated in Thrace, is also believed to have inhaled cannabis smoke.


And yes, of course, if it's on wikipedia it has to be true.

 

[erichaj]

Marijuana

Biologists generally agree that the cannabis plant first grew somewhere in the Himalayas. Evidence of the smoking of cannabis can be found as far back as the Neolithic age, where charred hemp seeds were found in a ritual brazier at a burial site in present day Romania . The most famous users of cannabis were the ancient Hindus. It was called ganjika in Sanskrit (ganja in modern Indian languages).According to legend, Shiva, the destroyer of evil in the Hindu trinity, told his disciples to revere the plant. The ancient drug soma, mentioned in the Vedas as a sacred intoxicating hallucinogen, was sometimes associated with cannabis. It has also been identified with a number of other plants and a mushroom, Amanita muscaria, so the involvement of cannabis cannot be definitively quantified.

The citizens of the Persian Empire would partake in the ceremonial burning of massive cannabis bonfires, directly exposing themselves and neighboring tribes to the billowing fumes, oftentimes for over 24 hours

Cannabis was also well known to the Assyrians, who discovered it from the Aryans. Using it in some religious ceremonies, they called it qunubu, or the drug for sadness. Also introduced by the Aryans, the Scythians as well as the Thracians/Dacians used it, whose shamans (the kapnobatai - "those who walk on smoke/clouds") burned cannabis flowers in order to induce trances. The cult of Dionysus, which is believed to have originated in Thrace, is also believed to have inhaled cannabis smoke.


And yes, of course, if it's on wikipedia it has to be true.

Since most of civilization migrated to other regions from that area that would explain some of the screwed up gene pool in this area.

 

[Whodathunkit]

Like people that think that they can ingest whatever they want whenever they want, but feel that when the rooster comes to crow they can drain our health care system trying to prolong a life they never really appreciated in the first place.

 

[Miami_med]

Like people that think that they can ingest whatever they want whenever they want, but feel that when the rooster comes to crow they can drain our health care system trying to prolong a life they never really appreciated in the first place.

And that is the problem. I have heard it states something like: "privatize the profit while socializing the cost." People have to be responsible for their actions too. That is how a free society should work.

 

[somemaybedoc]

And that is the problem. I have heard it states something like: "privatize the profit while socializing the cost." People have to be responsible for their actions too. That is how a free society should work.

I view it as an artificially created externality.

 

[Whodathunkit]

ok...I'm eating a PBnJ sandwich for lunch today. I recently went to the supermarket and skipped the Nutella(my favorite ) and Jif in favor of the all natural "PB" that was made with no trans fats




Ok..maybe it isn't that bad. But it will take some getting used to. After a few more sandwiches, I'll probably hardly notice.

It was just like 15 yrs ago, while growing up on whole milk, I couldn't imagine eating cereal with skim milk. Now I can't even think about drinking whole milk. Even 2% makes my face frown.

 

[southerndoc]

ok...I'm eating a PBnJ sandwich for lunch today. I recently went to the supermarket and skipped the Nutella(my favorite ) and Jif in favor of the all natural "PB" that was made with no trans fats




Ok..maybe it isn't that bad. But it will take some getting used to. After a few more sandwiches, I'll probably hardly notice.

It was just like 15 yrs ago, while growing up on whole milk, I couldn't imagine eating cereal with skim milk. Now I can't even think about drinking whole milk. Even 2% makes my face frown.

I can't even drink skim milk anymore after getting accustomed to soymilk.

 

[Whodathunkit]

I can't even drink skim milk anymore after getting accustomed to soymilk.

Soymilk is a little too high falutin for me. I already get the looks when I tell people I only use skim.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

"Drink the soy milk, is good for yiuuuuuuuuu." Reminded me of one of Margaret Cho's best bits, back when she was actually funny.

 

[emidesu]

there is no safe level of TFA's, a point a lot of people seem to miss. the calorie issue is relative, and no one thinks their chocolate cream pie is low-cal. But I once ate a KFC meal and immediately afterward learned that Kfc loads on the TFA's. I will never eat there again but the damage is done. Therefore, I think TFA's should be banned just as cyclamates were.

 

[Miami_med]

there is no safe level of TFA's, a point a lot of people seem to miss. the calorie issue is relative, and no one thinks their chocolate cream pie is low-cal. But I once ate a KFC meal and immediately afterward learned that Kfc loads on the TFA's. I will never eat there again but the damage is done. Therefore, I think TFA's should be banned just as cyclamates were.

And if enough people agree with you, they will stop frequenting KFC. KFC will either go out of business, or they will stop using TFAs. If a large number of people are actually worrying about this, and it is not your self-rightous crusade to save people from themselves, then the market will correct this without ANY intervention.

P.S. If you are so worried about sporadic trans fat exposure, perhaps you should take some responsibility and do some research before you eat things. I don't think that TFA use at KFC is a secret that an internet search wouldn't have let out of the bag.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

there is no safe level of TFA's, a point a lot of people seem to miss. the calorie issue is relative, and no one thinks their chocolate cream pie is low-cal. But I once ate a KFC meal and immediately afterward learned that Kfc loads on the TFA's. I will never eat there again but the damage is done. Therefore, I think TFA's should be banned just as cyclamates were.

You must be kidding me. I think your [perhaps contrived] example illustrates the ridiculousness of this argument. You went to KFC and thought that you were getting a healthy meal? It's only because you found out that KFC used TFAs that you determined that eating at KFC was unhealthy?

If you represent the typical American diner, we have much bigger diet-based problems than TFAs. MUCH, MUCH bigger.

 

[southerndoc]

You went to KFC and thought that you were getting a healthy meal? It's only because you found out that KFC used TFAs that you determined that eating at KFC was unhealthy?

If you represent the typical American diner, we have much bigger diet-based problems than TFAs. MUCH, MUCH bigger.

Several years ago KFC was sued because it represented its fried chicken as healthy. Many Americans who were polled thought KFC was healthy.

 

[Whodathunkit]

Many Americans who were polled thought KFC was healthy.

I think most of us have established by the first few years of residency just how knowledgeable Americans are. I've been sadly disappointed. I'm dealing with it by just lowering my expectations.

 

[southerndoc]

I think most of us have established by the first few years of residency just how knowledgeable Americans are. I've been sadly disappointed. I'm dealing with it by just lowering my expectations.

Right. Most of us are knowledgeable about trans-fatty acids, but most Americans are not. We take for granted a lot of things because we have learned a lot of advanced medicine.

The ins and outs of trading on margin, principles of option trading, etc. might be basic knowledge to someone who holds an MBA, but it's not common knowledge with most Americans. The same can be said of TFA's with regard to physicians and most Americans.

 

[eleventh]

People will always have choices. Processed isn't always the cheapest either. Most fruits and vegetables to satisfy you for the week usually end up being cheaper than getting pizza and frozen food and cheeze its. I think the problem is that our palate is too "refined" for our own good. Most can't even stand the idea of a raw fruit or veggie as a snack and most people I know don't even know how to cook them, expect for maybe mashed potatoes.

Although I think we could probably engineer something better than TFAs in the future, they have a purpose to their existance and shouldn't be banned IMHO. They should just be used as a last resort in processing if they're so horrible for your health. Listing caloric content is a good idea to me, most people take in far too many, in this nation of riches anyway...

Personally I think agriculture itself is a new magic and I doubt we evolved on grains (and potatoes and corn)... lol They're tasty drugs... the evolution of our biochemistry did NOT involve Cheetoes and BigMacs, people just need to be more educated.

 

[Faebinder]

People will always have choices. Processed isn't always the cheapest either. Most fruits and vegetables to satisfy you for the week usually end up being cheaper than getting pizza and frozen food and cheeze its. I think the problem is that our palate is too "refined" for our own good. Most can't even stand the idea of a raw fruit or veggie as a snack and most people I know don't even know how to cook them, expect for maybe mashed potatoes.

Umm... I must not be living in the US because you just claimed that fruits and veggies for a weak are cheaper than frozen food and pizza. Which state is this true in cause boy every time I have ever ordered a salad I would get a plate of lettuce with a smattering of something on it and a bill higher than any value meal I have seen.

Thank God for subway.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Several years ago KFC was sued because it represented its fried chicken as healthy. Many Americans who were polled thought KFC was healthy.

My point exactly. The lack of knowledge about what is and isn't healthy is a far, far, bigger problem than TFAs, in and of "themselves." If we ban TFAs, people will eat the saturated fatty acid substitute(s), thinking that they are perfectly healthy because they are not TFAs. Then, what have we really solved by banning TFAs?