New York bans "trans" fats

The BBQ Pit
1

New York bans trans fats from restaurants.

This is just so WRONG!

Even if there were evidence that elimination of trans fats from the diet led to a decease in heart attacks (and I don’t think there is - see below), where does a state government come off playing ‘mama’ to its inhibitants? Really, do we really need the state to make (or to take away) our choice for something as basic as meal preference? What’s next?

More specifically, though. I am not aware of any trial that demonstrates that a reduction in trans fats leads to fewer heart attacks, strokes, etc. So, what we have is a state banning trans fats on the basis of its assumption or belief that doing so is a good thing. My God.

Some of you will challenge my assertion that a reduction of trans fats doesn’t prevent heart attacks. Please note that studies looking at low trans fats diets may well have shown improvement in coronary risk factors. But, they did not show a reduction in heart attacks (or didn’t even check).

Note as well, that improvement in risk factors cannot be assumed to lead to a reduction in heart attacks. It’s very much like the evidence and subsequent rationale that estrogen replacement in post-meopausal women led to reduced heart attacks. Indeed, many, many studies showed that women on estrogen had about half the risk of heart attacks compared to women who weren’t on them. Problem was, that when you actually did a double blind study and gave women estrogen or placebo, the estrogen group had far more heart attakcs.

Another example - vitamin E. Many observational studies showed that people taking vitamin E had less chance of heart attacks. Again, though, when a study was actually done comparing vitamin E to placebo, lo and behold, there was no difference (and the vitamin E group may have actually done worse).

The closest evidence, and best research study, there is to guide us regarding dietary fat changes and subsequent chance of heart attacks actually showed that reducing dietary fat and increasing fruits, veggies, etc. led to no change in heart attacks.

So, wrong on at least two levels! And in America no less (I thought there was less government meddling there than here in Canada - looks like I was wrong).

2

Why is that article considered the “closest evidence” and “best research study”? From your link, it seems that the study considered only postmenopausal women aged 50–79, and (according to a couple of the Related Letters linked in the article) may not have adequately accounted for factors like magnitude of dietary changes and self-selection among the participants.

3

If trans fats do not play a role in heart attacks, do they have other health effects?

4

I don’t understand why people get so up in arms in defense of trans fats. It’s not like they’re regulating how much fat food can have, or how much of it can be saturated, or any of the things that affect how food actually tastes. They’re regulating the artificial hydrogenation of fats to make them last longer and cost less. Which is all well and good, unless it turns out they cause heart disease and/or make people fat faster than the same number of calories from non-trans fat sources. While I’m all for saving money, I’d rather it not come at the expense of people’s health.

Why the outrage? Do you think trans fats taste better than non-hydrogenated fats? Are you equally upset that the mean government won’t let companies put more than a certain amount of lead or rat hair in your food either?

5

The ban applies only to New York City. Come upstate; you can get all the trans fat you want.

6

Kimstu, I don’t think there’s a great deal of validity in your critique. The study authors can’t force feed anyone soybeans and lentil, but the intervention group did have significantly less fat in their diet (28% of total diet vs. 37%) and it basically didn’t do squat for them in terms of cardiovascular incidents.

It made them thinner, it made them more active, and it gave them better blood pressure and lowered their bad cholesterol levels, but they still had heart attacks just as often.

If you can point to another study with 50,000 participants that has some different results, please indulge us.

There’s no data of this scale that suggests that trans fats could play any larger role. Instead, I think it’s up to the people pushing to ban trans fats to demonstrate their negative impact upon health.

7

You do realize that this is a totally fallacious chain of reasoning, don’t you?

You are not aware, so what we have is only an “assumption or belief”?

Do you even comprehend that you are not the only monad of consciousness in the Universe, and that despite your personal lack of awareness, many others ARE aware of the facts that led to this decision?

Do you really function under the umbrella of “whatever you personally don’t know isn’t true”?

Are you even remotely aware that you’re not the only “you” out here?

I am aware of solipsism as a philosophical construct, but I wasn’t aware that you (and you alone) had proven it as a Universal Truth…but only about YOU. How lucky you must be to be the Only One Who Is Right.

I stand totally corrected in my misunderstanding that the rest of us matter.

[sub]I’m sorry; I don’t know why I’m so snarky tonight. Don’t take it personally, but I’m not a big fan of your logic, either. Not trying to pick a fight, etc…[/sub]

8

Like I said, people will challenge me. Sigh. And they’ll even quote articles vindicating my point that there are no randomized trials proving benefit. But, do they read those some articles? Sigh again.

9

Total Hijack:

I stuffed 20,000 envelopes in Boston for the initial recruitment for the WHI, during the fall of 1993. I find it heartening that my most annoying temp-job ever was not in vain. :smiley:

10

I don’t. I’m on your side. I find it horrifying that the State needs to step in and tell the Citizens how to live For Their Own Good.

Will they ban trans fat in grocery stores now too? What happens if you go across to NJ and eat trans fat in a restaurant over there? Will you be fined?

Yes, I know, hyperbole. But where does it stop?

Are the restaurants suing to stop the ban?

11

I don’t understand how people often don’t understand what trans-fat is. On another message board someone complained “You can take my steak away from me when you pry it from my cold dead hands!” Um, dude? You do understand that you are still allowed to deep fry your steak in Crisco at home, right? And if your favorite restaurant now only serves freedom fries made with canola oil, you can always make them at home fried in margarine instead.

The amount of ignorance surrounding this topic is astounding.

12

You are still allowed to buy Crisco at the supermarket.

13

Yes, exactly. The defense of trans-fats is just bizarre. Your grandparents lived perfects tasty lives without ever touching a trans-fat. This isn’t an attempt to enforce healthy eating, it’s about banning a harmful food additive.

I have no problem with the government banning a product if its loss wouldn’t significantly harm or inconvenience the people, and if its effects are significantly dire. You can make any food you want without trans-fats, and the evidence against it is mounting.

It’s like lead paint. There was paint before there was lead paint, and you can still paint all you want, but the use of lead is now restricted after its health affects became clear. Why was that correct and the banning of trans-fats wrong?

14

I think some of it may be a misunderstanding of the law, as well. The NYC ban applies only to man-made trans fats. Beef tallow and mutton grease are still acceptable frying media under the law. (Trans fats only compose a small fraction of animal fats anyway.)

15

I commented on the ignorance surrounding this topic, but maybe it’s my own that needs to be fought.

Animal fat is trans fat? I thought that the only trans fats were hydrogenated vegetable fats – that is, liquid vegetable fats turned solid.

16

Trans fats occur naturally in the fats of ruminants (cows, sheep, deer etc.) It’s not really a health issue because beef tallow, for example, might contain 6 or 7 percent trans fats, whereas a hydrogenated shortening certainly contains 100% trans fat.

I mentioned it only because some people have got it in their heads that beef fat is loaded with trans fats, and that would have explained the “I <3 my steak” guy’s comment.

17

Ah. Thanks for the edumacation.

As for the “Where does it stop?” thing, I myself have opposed suggestions to ban smoking, for my own selfish reasons. But I would not oppose a ban on cigarette additives. As it is, neither restaurants nor tobacco companies are required to list what they put in their products. I’ll resist any effort to force me into good health, but I’m all for informed consent.

I still think that a better alternative to a trans fat ban would be to require restaurants to list which dishes contain that particular poison. Like a little skull and crossbones next to the fries.

18

I think this conspiracy is much deeper than people realize. NYC is clear anti-trans, as they are now refusing to allow people to switch the sex on their birth cirtificate unless they undergo sex reasignment surgery.

Coincidence? I think not!!

19

No, or at least, not yet. They talked the city into giving them more time to stop using them,

20

The one thing that really worries me about this is that it’s possible that restaurants will start using more animal fats (beef tallow and the like) to replace vegetable shortenings with trans fats, which would reduce the number of things I can eat at restaurants. Of course, it doesn’t affect me yet (the last time I was in NYC was 2000), but the Bay Area is known for jumping on this sort of bandwagon…