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

[Whodathunkit]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Why should they take care of themselves? There will always be someone else there to pay for their mistakes. This "little help" infringes on the rights of everyone else. This includes the businesses (big and small) that use trans fats, and those of us that eat them on occasion and are not fat or unhealthy.
I can follow this train of thought out and its not pretty:
1. Pay for healthcare
2. Make everyone eat healthier by law to save money on healthcare
3. Make everyone stop participating in risky activity to save money on healthcare (Sorry to all the skiers and snowboarders)
4. Make everyone wear a helmet all the time to save money on healthcare (Atleast here in Miami, pedestrians get hit a lot. Wouldn't they be safer if they were always wearing helmets).
5. Ban soda
6. Fine people for eating badly and then tax other people to pay for the healthcare of the people who are now broke because you fined them.
7. No one is ever allowed to commercially fish, do construction, or work in the emergency department because these jobs might be dangerous.


Wait, no ED!!! Who is going to provide healthcare for free?!!!! Oh my god, we better really push these rules.

The slippery slope concept is not only unfair to use in this argument, it's also unrealistic. People use it for everything. And in the meantime, while everyone is arguing, nothing gets done.

Are our patients smart enough to make their own decisions? Is all they need education? From my experience, no.

 

[Whodathunkit]

Why assume others should pay? Let them pay, then they can make decisions about the tradeoffs they make and bear the costs of their decisions.

Otherwise the government will need to control everything to reduce risk and cost and there will be no freedom to choose how one lives.

The government does it now. But rather poorly might I add.

No one has banned alchohol, and I constantly see
1. cirrhotic liver patients that need a transplant
2. peripheral neuropathy secondary to chronic alcohol abuse
3. car accidents directly attributable to ETOH
4. spousal/child abuse where more than likely ETOH was involved

but yet it's marijuana that the government feels that it needs to protect us from. 🙄

The let them pay scenario will never work. Poor people will always be poor people, it doesn't matter how much you bill them. And rich people will pay enough lawyers to hide their money so the government will never get a dime of it. It will be the "riding along the edge" middle class where a small change in financial circumstances has great consequences(as most are living above their means anyway...and is a whole other entire thread in itself).

The only way things can improve is in prevention. Not after the fact. My opinion anyway.

 

[southerndoc]

Alcohol was banned, but there were more problems from moonshining and illegal alcohol trade than when it was legal. The public demanded that it be legalized again, and that's what occurred. Some of our prominent politicians can attribute their family wealth to illegal alcohol sales.

I agree that marijuana causes less health effects than alcohol, but there is a public outcry to legalize it. Quite frankly, most Americans are still misinformed about the "dangers" of marijuana and think that it is as bad as cocaine (i.e., addictive, risk of sudden death, etc.). Until marijuana use becomes more widespread and people learn of its true harmful effects (cancer being the primary one), it won't be legalized.

 

[Miami_med]

Please keep in mind that PLENTY of businesses have eliminated trans fats without affecting their sales or spending billions of dollars on research. Some of you guys act like banning TFA's will make McDonald's and KFC go broke. Local restaurants can ban TFA's just as easily: just stop buying products that contain TFA's. There are plenty of TFA-free foods and cooking oils available. They aren't double or triple the price, despite what some people on here will lead you to believe.

Banning something like TFA's that has a simple substitute (regular cooking oil) cannot be compared to banning a lifestyle choice such as skiing or skydiving as these have no good alternatives.

If it matters to you, skydiving accidents usually are NOT covered by most healthcare insurance policies. Skydivers must take out separate life and healthcare insurance policies to cover them for accidents that happen.

So you are saying that there are plenty of alternatives available and that trans fat use is a personal choice? The question is not whether people can afford to ban them. That is irrelevant to the question of whether the government should impose mandatory nutritional requirements on the masses who have chosen to forego alternatives.

P.S. There are plenty of alternatives to skydiving, and I don't have a problem with a private insurance company excluding individuals who are overindulging in trans fats. That is a business choice.

 

[somemaybedoc]

The government does it now. But rather poorly might I add.

No one has banned alchohol, and I constantly see
1. cirrhotic liver patients that need a transplant
2. peripheral neuropathy secondary to chronic alcohol abuse
3. car accidents directly attributable to ETOH
4. spousal/child abuse where more than likely ETOH was involved

but yet it's marijuana that the government feels that it needs to protect us from. 🙄

The let them pay scenario will never work. Poor people will always be poor people, it doesn't matter how much you bill them. And rich people will pay enough lawyers to hide their money so the government will never get a dime of it. It will be the "riding along the edge" middle class where a small change in financial circumstances has great consequences(as most are living above their means anyway...and is a whole other entire thread in itself).

The only way things can improve is in prevention. Not after the fact. My opinion anyway.

Banning alcohol was a stunning success the last time.

Let them pay. You still see everything in terms of the current system.

No more free service, no more medical debt being wiped by bankruptcy. If you care about being nice to the poor give them an earned income tax credit (not my opinion, but a way around that issue). The middle class will give up some of their spending beyond their means to save themselves from bad credit, if they fail to have insurance sell their assets and collect on the debt (they'll buy the insurance if this is the risk), and the rich, they'll bear the cost of insurance without much sacrifice.

It'll be this:

Bad job? F*ck you, pay me.
Lot's of kids? F*ck you, pay me.
Would rather buy a TV? F*ck you, pay me.

Let's stop treating healthcare like it's special. People sacrifice to pay for other things they need like heating oil and food; if it reduces your disposable income, it's because of your own choices since you will be saved from paying taxes to cover the average risk as everyone is forced to do now.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

The slippery slope concept is not only unfair to use in this argument, it's also unrealistic. People use it for everything. And in the meantime, while everyone is arguing, nothing gets done.

Not at all unrealistic. Do you think that our founding fathers thought that one of the roles of the Federal Government was to tell us which cooking oil was OK to use? Yet, that's what we are here debating: Whether the Federal Government should ban one type of cooking oil/fat.

Are our patients smart enough to make their own decisions? Is all they need education? From my experience, no.

Yes, but I am. When you legislate things like this, you reduce everybody to the lowest common denominator, and that's not right.

 

[southerndoc]

I don't think our founding fathers imagined that we would be hydrogenating oils and creating trans-fatty acids, nor did they imagine that we would have a life expectancy that so long that we would be suffering from the consequences of TFA's. Nor did they imagine that there would be large fast-food joints that extensively use TFA's because it prolongs the shelf lives of their foods.

Quite frankly, had our founding fathers known about TFA's, it might have been included in the Constitution. This along with many other things that have become law since this country was founded.

 

[Whodathunkit]

So basically it comes down to

Should the goverment have any say into how I choose to live my life?

The fact that

1. Most drugs are outlawed
2. Gay marriage is illegal
3. You can't marry your first cousin
4. If you are employed, you must pay taxes.
and
5. You can't visit Cuba

are just a few examples of how the government already claims sovereign rights over us anyway.

 

[erichaj]

So basically it comes down to

Should the goverment have any say into how I choose to live my life?

The fact that

1. Most drugs are outlawed
2. Gay marriage is illegal
3. You can't marry your first cousin
4. If you are employed, you must pay taxes.
and
5. You can't visit Cuba

are just a few examples of how the government already claims sovereign rights over us anyway.

You want to marry your first cousin?😉

 

[dilated]

At first I was pretty strongly against the government banning TFAs looking at it as the government interfering with businesses to take away a personal choice. But if the research against TFAs really is strong that they're really bad I'd be OK with banning them on the grounds that they're not safe for human consumption, just like the USDA regulates food quality and OSHA tends to frown on asbestos laden work environments. But that's only if they're shown to be actually deadly, not just causing more people to blimp up.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

are just a few examples of how the government already claims sovereign rights over us anyway.

No doubt. But, while you say, "Thank you sir, may I have another," I feel that things have gone too far and the government should, at least, stop this nonsense (should've stopped a while ago) if not take some steps to reverse some of those actions that you list.

 

[Miami_med]

I don't think our founding fathers imagined that we would be hydrogenating oils and creating trans-fatty acids, nor did they imagine that we would have a life expectancy that so long that we would be suffering from the consequences of TFA's. Nor did they imagine that there would be large fast-food joints that extensively use TFA's because it prolongs the shelf lives of their foods.

Quite frankly, had our founding fathers known about TFA's, it might have been included in the Constitution. This along with many other things that have become law since this country was founded.

Our founding fathers would have been stunned that the market had managed to make food so plentiful that people would live to be old enough to die of heart disease. This whole argument is a triumph of the free market. Our founding fathers pushed everyone to own guns in the name of patriotism, and George Washington marched his troops barefoot in the snow for miles. I think they would have been okay with people choosing to consume TFAs 🙄.

I'm also pretty sure that the whole 10th Amendment thing would have precluded the government from getting involved in this sort of thing. I'm sure they will find some way to make this qualify as falling under the regulation of "interstate commerce." We don't worry about petty things like the 10th Amendment anymore. However, I don't see an explicit right given to the federal government to regulate fat or nutritional content. Therefore, these rights go the people or the states under the actual constitution. Pointing out other abuses of the Fed doesn't make the words of the constitution change.

 

[southerndoc]

However, I don't see an explicit right given to the federal government to regulate fat or nutritional content.

As someone suggested, it's food that's not fit for human consumption. There is nothing but bad healthy effects that come from eating TFA's. Just as the federal government bans cyanide, it can also ban TFA's.

TFA's are trafficked from state to state, thereby making it a federal jurisdiction. McDonald's operates in all states.

 

[Wackie]

We're entitled to make choices as to whether or not we want to eat healthy.
I think it's reasonable to be able to access the information about the food should we be trying to watch our diets, or watch our food allergies.

Occasionally I want to eat something unhealthy. Who doesn't like the occasional chicken fried steak? But usually, I want to eat healthy and I like it when they have a seperate healthy menu or list the content under the description of the food.

I thought it was already required to be able to present the caloric content of foods? A lot of employees are unable to produce such things, so I guess not?

If the government can ban trans-fatt acids, then tobacco products should have been banned a long time ago.

 

[beetlerum]

I'll point out again that the treatment only costs us any money because the government pays or forces you to pay through EMTALA. W/out the government, these choices of other people cost you NOTHING.

Exactly. We've already decided we're going to pay for it. Unless we let people die in the streets, we've already made the decision to pick up the costs. So it's just a question of how to minimize them. Unless you think we should start letting people die in the street.

You are wrong that without the government these decisions cost nothing. Decisions often carry big externalities that affect other people. In fact, one major reason for government regulation is to force agents to internalize their externalities so they can't just pass on the cost.

 

[dpmd]

As someone suggested, it's food that's not fit for human consumption. There is nothing but bad healthy effects that come from eating TFA's. Just as the federal government bans cyanide, it can also ban TFA's.

TFA's are trafficked from state to state, thereby making it a federal jurisdiction. McDonald's operates in all states.

No, No, No. Please educate yourself before making comments like this. There is no cyanide ban. People in various industries use cyanide containing preparations frequently. There is a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization recommendation for the maximum amount of cyanide present in foods, because there are natural food sources of cyanide. You can however, still purchase cassava root in the US (a source of cyanide).

Consumption or exposure to excess quantities of cyanide causes seizures, weakness, fainting, and DEATH. Long term low level excess MAY cause weakness of the fingers and toes, difficulty walking, dimness of vision, deafness, and decreased thyroid gland function. It is not certain these symptoms aren't due to other factors.

Consumption of excess quantities of TFA'a may raise LDL and lower HDL (merely one risk factor in stroke and heart disease). Low level consumption is OK in the context of a healthy lifestyle. An unhealthy lifestyle free of TFA's doesn't mean you won't die of stroke or a heart attack.

TFA's have good qualities in addition to their bad health effect, otherwise no one would use them. The are used by food processors because they allow longer shelf-life and give food desirable taste, shape, and texture. Longer shelf life=easier maintenance of supply=lower prices. If people are willing to pay more to avoid the trans fats, manufacturers will cater to this market. However, forcing the issue will raise prices which will hurt those of us who would rather have a cheap snack occasionally than pay extra for the "healthy" version that might not even taste as good (McDonald's fries aren't as good as they used to be and their apple pie now sucks).

 

[Miami_med]

As someone suggested, it's food that's not fit for human consumption. There is nothing but bad healthy effects that come from eating TFA's. Just as the federal government bans cyanide, it can also ban TFA's.

TFA's are trafficked from state to state, thereby making it a federal jurisdiction. McDonald's operates in all states.

So you are saying that the use of trans fat within states should be ok? TFA do not = cyanide. I have consumed them in my life, and I am not dead. Oh yeah, I can buy cyanide. It is in my bug spray.

 

[Miami_med]

Exactly. We've already decided we're going to pay for it. Unless we let people die in the streets, we've already made the decision to pick up the costs. So it's just a question of how to minimize them. Unless you think we should start letting people die in the street.

You are wrong that without the government these decisions cost nothing. Decisions often carry big externalities that affect other people. In fact, one major reason for government regulation is to force agents to internalize their externalities so they can't just pass on the cost.

You have made this decision. I would love to overturn EMTALA. I believe in charity, and I believe that the government should stay out of it. People were not dying en masse in the streets before EMTALA or even Medicaid. The WHOLE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM is turned on its head with the logic that the govenment should pay for everyone and then minimize risk through regulation. YOU are responsible for your actions, and I am responsible for mine.

We have a legal system that is supposed to determine damages when someone's externalities affect other people. The fact that it doesn't work very well is not an argument for more regulation.

 

[southerndoc]

Occasionally I want to eat something unhealthy. Who doesn't like the occasional chicken fried steak? But usually, I want to eat healthy and I like it when they have a seperate healthy menu or list the content under the description of the food.

This isn't about changing the lifestyle of those eating unhealthy. Those that frequent fast food joints will continue to do so. Those that want chicken fried steak will continue to do so.

The difference is in eating a natural fat v. an artificially hydrogenated fat (TFA) that serves NO healthy purpose and in fact causes extreme harm by increasing LDL, decreasing HDL, and significantly increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease more so than natural saturated fats.

The ONLY purpose of TFA's and their use in the fast food and baking industry is that it prolongs the shelf life of food. McDonald's can keep their Big Macs and fries ready to serve all day as opposed to throwing them out in 4-6 hours.

The interesting part is that they normally sell their products much quicker anyhow, so the whole shelf life argument by the fast food industry is a moot point.

 

[southerndoc]

So you are saying that the use of trans fat within states should be ok? TFA do not = cyanide. I have consumed them in my life, and I am not dead. Oh yeah, I can buy cyanide. It is in my bug spray.

Is it in your food supply? The use of TFA's within states is not ok. Businesses that operate in many states can be regulated by the federal government.

 

[71263]

As a libertarian, Ive seen plenty of debates concerning the Govt's 'right' to control our lives. It never gets tiring. 🙂

However, in the hopes of staying out of it, my answers were 'no' to the first question, and 'yes' to the second.

I do not believe that it is up to the govt to tell people what they can or cannot eat, or decide for you how to live your life in any way. However, I do think that restaurants have the responsibility to inform their customers if they are selling a product containing patently unhealthy components so that the people can appropriately decide for themselves.

 

[DragonWell]

It's shocking to me that so many people are defending TFAs.

A number of countries have already banned them without experiencing economic collapse or changes in food availability. They're convenient for the processed foods industry, but they could be banned tommorow and no one would even notice...you can still eat all the junk food you want, you just might have a slightly lower risk of an MI from doing it. 👍

 

[71263]

It's shocking to me that so many people are defending TFAs.

A number of countries have already banned them without experiencing economic collapse or changes in food availability. They're convenient for the processed foods industry, but they could be banned tommorow and no one would even notice...you can still eat all the junk food you want, you just might have a slightly lower risk of an MI from doing it. 👍

None of us are 'defending' TFAs themselves. Its well known that they are unhealty in excess. What we are arguing is that the govt. has no right to regulate their use in foods. If an individual is fully informed of the fatty content of food and chooses to eat that food anyway, that's THEIR decision. Nobody has the right to tell them what they can/cant consume.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Duplicate post deleted 🙂

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

As someone suggested, it's food that's not fit for human consumption. There is nothing but bad healthy effects that come from eating TFA's. Just as the federal government bans cyanide, it can also ban TFA's.

I understand that you are trying to make a point by comparing TFAs to cyanide, but you DO realize that there is a big difference between an unhealthy food/food ingredient and a poison, don't you? Just because bad things CAN happen as a result of eating TFA-containing foods doesn't necessarily mean that they WILL. I really like this country because it lets me make the CHOICE about whether I want to subject myself to that risk.

Oh, but there's the cost to society through higher medical and health insurance costs. Answer me this: Do you honestly think that TFAs contribute significantly to our currently out-of-control healthcare costs? You brought up seat belt and helmet laws before. No doubt that part of the rationale for adopting them was to help control healthcare costs. Look how well they worked. Now we have out-of-control healthcare costs AND less freedom. Wonderful. If healthcare costs are the problem, then fix the most significant causes of that problem (HINT: Not trans-fats or people not wearing their seat belts or helmets.) Perhaps I'll be more receptive to this cost-cutting argument once we have fixed the REAL problems causing healthcare costs to spiral upwards out of control.

 

[t33sg1rl]

So... I find it HIGHLY unlikely that the government will ever require restaurants to put nutritional information on the menu. In my opinion, the farthest they would EVER go is requiring large chains to make the info available 'somehow'-and most chains already have nutrition info available on the Internet (Just visit the sites BEFORE you order... if you check the damage after, it can cause emotional distress). And, the government will never require small businesses to bother with nutritional info. Chefs create new recipes all the time and don't necessarily even measure ingredients, and small restaurants don't have nutritionists on hand anyway.

So, if you believe what I believe-that nutritional info will NEVER be available to you while you're ordering at sit-down restaurants-then you have no possible way of avoiding trans fats. Chances are nobody in the kitchen even knows if there are trans fats in the cooking oils. So, if there's no possible way for the average consumer to steer clear, would banning their use be more palatable?

p.s. I like chicken fried steak too. I make it at home, in my personal deep fryer, in canola oil, and I don't see why Cracker Barrel couldn't do the same.

 

[southerndoc]

None of us are 'defending' TFAs themselves. Its well known that they are unhealty in excess. What we are arguing is that the govt. has no right to regulate their use in foods. If an individual is fully informed of the fatty content of food and chooses to eat that food anyway, that's THEIR decision. Nobody has the right to tell them what they can/cant consume.

Just as the government has no right to regulate the quality of air or water. You can always move. It's your choice to live in an area close to a factory that contaminates the water/air.

 

[71263]

Just as the government has no right to regulate the quality of air or water. You can always move. It's your choice to live in an area close to a factory that contaminates the water/air.

Is that supposed to be an analogy?

First of all, NOT everyone has the choice to simply pick everything up and move. People may be stuck in an industrial area due to outside circumstances for whatever reason. What if you are too poor to live in a 'nicer' area? What if that city is the only place you can find a reasonable job?

Second, pollution isnt localized. Air and water are both diffuse. You pollute the Mississippi river, you affect most of the midwest. And those people who are 4-5 states away didnt 'choose' to live near factories.

Furthermore, the effects of pollution arent immediate. What if a certain toxin in drinking water affects gonads, and then you have mentally ******ed kids later?

The government exists to protect individual rights ONLY, and to prevent infringement on those rights by any other person. Eating fatty foods doesnt hurt anyone else. Serving fatty foods without providing some sort of nutritional breakdown does. As long as the customer understands what they are doing, they have every right to order what they want, regardless of how unhealthy it is.

Pollution on the other hand harms others, whether they like it or not. It could happen in areas far from the site affected, or it could happen years from initial exposure.

 

[Wackie]

This isn't about changing the lifestyle of those eating unhealthy. Those that frequent fast food joints will continue to do so. Those that want chicken fried steak will continue to do so.

The difference is in eating a natural fat v. an artificially hydrogenated fat (TFA) that serves NO healthy purpose and in fact causes extreme harm by increasing LDL, decreasing HDL, and significantly increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease more so than natural saturated fats.

The ONLY purpose of TFA's and their use in the fast food and baking industry is that it prolongs the shelf life of food. McDonald's can keep their Big Macs and fries ready to serve all day as opposed to throwing them out in 4-6 hours.

Hmm...learning has occured.

Still, I oppose anything that keeps stupid people from killing themselves.

Okay, I'm not actually that mean.

Alright, being serious though...
Perhaps a warning should be put on the packaging alerting those to the risks of inhaling such foods instead of banning? The government isn't for acting like our parents and taking away our candy. We're adults and should be able to make informed choices. The key word being "informed". We have a right to know what the product is made out of if it could cause potential harm.

 

[southerndoc]

Second, pollution isnt localized. Air and water are both diffuse. You pollute the Mississippi river, you affect most of the midwest. And those people who are 4-5 states away didnt 'choose' to live near factories.

Neither are TFA's. They affect all of America.

Furthermore, the effects of pollution arent immediate. What if a certain toxin in drinking water affects gonads, and then you have mentally ******ed kids later?

TFA's also aren't immediate. It takes many years for it to occur, but with repeated consumption, just like with air or water pollution, persons will be affected.

Those that eat them will have MI's.

Those that do not eat them will help pay for the treatment of their MI's.

I'm more concerned about my wallet than the wallet of McDonald's, KFC, or other fast food joints. Changing their TFA's to non-hydrogenated oils is not a costly thing for them to do, and without regulations, they have no incentive to do it.

TFA's are all bad and no good. I can't believe people are so strongly against banning TFA's.

 

[71263]

Neither are TFA's. They affect all of America.

TFA's also aren't immediate. It takes many years for it to occur, but with repeated consumption, just like with air or water pollution, persons will be affected.

Those that eat them will have MI's.

Those that do not eat them will help pay for the treatment of their MI's.

I'm more concerned about my wallet than the wallet of McDonald's, KFC, or other fast food joints. Changing their TFA's to non-hydrogenated oils is not a costly thing for them to do, and without regulations, they have no incentive to do it.

TFA's are all bad and no good. I can't believe people are so strongly against banning TFA's.

Youre missing the point. You can control EXACTLY how much TFA you eat. Air and water are all around you, and are a necessity. You have to breathe and drink, and if there is contamination, you get screwed in some way.

You do need to eat too, of course, but there are plenty of places that have foods free of TFAs. This is the beauty of it. The fact that there are alternatives. If the people are educated and realize that eating too much TFA is not good, they will not eat at places that use TFAs. If they want to stay in business, the restuarants will stop using TFAs and the problem will solve itself. I dont advocate eating TFAs in excess, either. I simply think that educating the people against it and letting them make their own decision is more practical AND ethical than using the govt to force people not to eat it.

 

[71263]

Those that eat them will have MI's.

Those that do not eat them will help pay for the treatment of their MI's.

This is simply a blanket assumption.

First of all, statements like 'Food X is unhealthy' are meaningless. By that logic, I can argue that bananas are unhealthy as well. We all know bananas are rich in potassium. If you have too much potassium in your body, what happens? Renal failure, hypertension, risk of sudden Cardiac arrest, disrupted action potentials, to name a few. Therefore, bananas are dangerous and should be banned as well.

 

[Miami_med]

Is it in your food supply? The use of TFA's within states is not ok. Businesses that operate in many states can be regulated by the federal government.

Can is a funny term. They do. I dare you to find a constitutional argument that actually allows them to do so.

 

[Miami_med]

It's shocking to me that so many people are defending TFAs.

A number of countries have already banned them without experiencing economic collapse or changes in food availability. They're convenient for the processed foods industry, but they could be banned tommorow and no one would even notice...you can still eat all the junk food you want, you just might have a slightly lower risk of an MI from doing it. 👍

My argument has nothing to do with economic collapse. I could make that argument, but it would require a thesis and bring in many subtleties. The real point is whether the government has the right to decide what I eat. I am also not worried about McDonalds per se. I am worried about the free market and the rights of individuals and businesses to make agreements for self determined mutual benefit without ridiculous regulations made by power hungry beauracrats and health zealots.

Maybe TFAs are worth the risk to me. Why should you decide this for me?

 

[somemaybedoc]

My argument has nothing to do with economic collapse. I could make that argument, but it would require a thesis and bring in many subtleties. The real point is whether the government has the right to decide what I eat. I am also not worried about McDonalds per se. I am worried about the free market and the rights of individuals and businesses to make agreements for self determined mutual benefit without ridiculous regulations made by power hungry beauracrats and health zealots.

Maybe TFAs are worth the risk to me. Why should you decide this for me?

Exactly, I know the other side doesn't want to buy the slippery slope argument, but that's exactly what it is, where do we stop in the quest to preserve health? How about fried food? How about butter? Perhaps we should all have standardized meal plans and ration cards to make sure we do not deviate. 😱

 

[southerndoc]

If the people are educated and realize that eating too much TFA is not good, they will not eat at places that use TFAs. If they want to stay in business, the restuarants will stop using TFAs and the problem will solve itself. I dont advocate eating TFAs in excess, either. I simply think that educating the people against it and letting them make their own decision is more practical AND ethical than using the govt to force people not to eat it.

I'm not missing your point, I am holding by my point.

Unfortunately most restaurants do not advertise the fact that they use TFA's. Not only big chain fast food restaurants, but local mom & pop restaurants too. It's not as easy as simply refraining from eating it. The problem is that you don't know what contains it.

As I've said numerous times, the restaurant industry will not go broke by such regulations banning TFA's.

 

[southerndoc]

I am worried about the free market and the rights of individuals and businesses to make agreements for self determined mutual benefit without ridiculous regulations made by power hungry beauracrats and health zealots.

The rights of businesses? Give me a break. Businesses will rape Americans in every orifice just to make a profit. If a product prolongs the shelf life of their food products, you better believe they will use it no matter how bad its health effects.

Automakers didn't start placing seat belts, air bags, third brake lights, or other safety features on their own. The government required them. Why? The automakers said that these things would make them go broke.

 

[71263]

I'm not missing your point, I am holding by my point.

Unfortunately most restaurants do not advertise the fact that they use TFA's. Not only big chain fast food restaurants, but local mom & pop restaurants too. It's not as easy as simply refraining from eating it. The problem is that you don't know what contains it.

As I've said numerous times, the restaurant industry will not go broke by such regulations banning TFA's.

I completely agree, which is why I said we should require restaurants to tell customers what their food contains. Lets say, hypothetically, that all restaurants did truthfully show whether or not their food contains TFAs, and customers, knowing that their food contains TFAs, chose to eat the food anyway. Would you still be in favor of banning their use?

And cost is irrelevent when discussing the ethics of a situation. Regardless of whether or not there is profit, the question is whether or not what theyre doing is right.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Neither are TFA's. They affect all of America.



TFA's also aren't immediate. It takes many years for it to occur, but with repeated consumption, just like with air or water pollution, persons will be affected.

Those that eat them will have MI's.

Those that do not eat them will help pay for the treatment of their MI's.

I'm more concerned about my wallet than the wallet of McDonald's, KFC, or other fast food joints. Changing their TFA's to non-hydrogenated oils is not a costly thing for them to do, and without regulations, they have no incentive to do it.

TFA's are all bad and no good. I can't believe people are so strongly against banning TFA's.

Holy crap, you know with 100% certainty that I will have an MI because I ate some Krispy Kremes. Also, you're implying that someone who subs saturated fats for trans fats will live an MI free life, also with 100% certainty. Hoo-boy -- Life is not all black and white. It was my understanding that BOTH saturated and trans-fatty acids were pretty bad. I'll bet you think that we should ban them (all saturated fats) too?

 

[undertow]

You people think you know so much about this, but you know nothing. What the hell do u know about trans fat. i bet you wanna stuff your face with it huh.

 

[southerndoc]

Holy crap, you know with 100% certainty that I will have an MI because I ate some Krispy Kremes. Also, you're implying that someone who subs saturated fats for trans fats will live an MI free life, also with 100% certainty. Hoo-boy -- Life is not all black and white. It was my understanding that BOTH saturated and trans-fatty acids were pretty bad. I'll bet you think that we should ban them (all saturated fats) too?

The only thing I know with 100% certainty is that you will never be in favor of the government regulating TFA's.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

You people think you know so much about this, but you know nothing. What the hell do u know about trans fat. i bet you wanna stuff your face with it huh.

Yes, raw trans-fat, like vegetable shortening. Bring it on, right now. When I was in college we would eat tubs of it to show just how cool we were. Sometimes, one of us would instantly get an MI and have to go to the ER. One time, Bob even had to get jolted by the defib. Mmmm, mmmm -- Love that raw trans-fat.

 

[tncekm]

Banning trans fats would not make sense unless you ban saturated fats, too. And, as we can imagine, that's totally unlikely.

To me that's like banning Marlboro cigarettes but leaving Camel legal.

edit: I have a more efficient solution. Start with the kids. Instead of making our kids take some of the stupid classes they have to take in high school these days (separate topic) I suggest we make nutrition a requirement in both high school and a GE requirement in colleges.

 

[DragonWell]

Banning trans fats would not make sense unless you ban saturated fats, too. And, as we can imagine, that's totally unlikely.

To me that's like banning Marlboro cigarettes but leaving Camel legal.

edit: I have a more efficient solution. Start with the kids. Instead of making our kids take some of the stupid classes they have to take in high school these days (separate topic) I suggest we make nutrition a requirement in both high school and a GE requirement in colleges.

I find these arguments quite underwhelming and (like most discussions of this type) seemingly disconnected from the basic science involved in the issue.

First off, in comparing synthetically produced TFAs to saturated fats, you are comparing something which is widely distributed in many different foods with something that is found exclusively in processed foods. Banning saturated fats would require eliminating most meats, dairy products, nuts, etc. that would not as you say be unlikely, it would be impossible. Banning TFAs will also not completely eliminate them from the diet, as they are found in small amounts in dairy products. (Interestingly, TFAs from dairy products do not seem to be associated with the same negative health effects as synthetic TFAs). However, in the case of synthetic TFAs, banning these ingredients from prepared foods is very possible indeed, requiring only a simple substitution of ingredients.

In terms of your second point, by comparing Camels to Marlboros, you assume that TFAs and saturated fats pose the same risk to health. In terms of health consequences, a more accurate comparison might be Camels and crack cocaine. Even when found in the diet in very small amounts, TFAs greatly increase the of coronary heart disease. Just to be absolutely clear about the biology, these effects are not due to the fact that TFAs are fats, but rather due to the specific inflammatory effects they cause in tissues. So, in simply comparing TFAs to other fats, you are missing a great deal of the argument in favor of banning them. Just a 2% increase in intake of energy from TFA results in a whopping 23% increase in CHD. The reference below is from NEJM, April 13, 2006.

"On a per-calorie basis, trans fats appear to increase
the risk of CHD more than any other macronutrient,
conferring a substantially increased risk at
low levels of consumption (1 to 3 percent of total
energy intake). 22,53-55 In a meta-analysis of four
prospective cohort studies involving nearly 140,000 subjects,53-56 including updated analyses from the
two largest studies, a 2 percent increase in energy
intake from trans fatty acids was associated
with a 23 percent increase in the incidence of CHD
(pooled relative risk, 1.23; 95 percent confidence
interval, 1.11 to 1.37; P<0.001)"

 

[undertow]

im gonna out and eat a big ass double quater-pounder.MMM, mm, mmmm

 

[southerndoc]

im gonna out and eat a big ass double quater-pounder.MMM, mm, mmmm

Just take an aspirin beforehand.

 

[tncekm]

I find these arguments quite underwhelming and (like most discussions of this type) seemingly disconnected from the basic science involved in the issue.

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

 

[southerndoc]

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

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.

 

[tncekm]

You didn't read my post did you? My God, read and THEN respond.

I CLEARLY stated I understand trans fats ARE worse than saturated, and it is clearly understood. I even referenced their effects on the very important HDL/LDL ratio. I wasn't arguing that point.

I was arguing the point that the degree to which trans fats are more dangerous than saturated fats is not significant enough to warrant their ban and to ban them and not to bad saturated fats would be ALMOST as ridiculous as banning marlboro and not camel.

 

[southerndoc]

You didn't read my post did you? My God, read and THEN respond.

I CLEARLY stated I understand trans fats ARE worse than saturated, and it is clearly understood. I even referenced their effects on the very important HDL/LDL ratio. I wasn't arguing that point.

I was arguing the point that the degree to which trans fats are more dangerous than saturated fats is not significant enough to warrant their ban and to ban them and not to bad saturated fats would be ALMOST as ridiculous as banning marlboro and not camel.

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.