[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I think the outrage is that it’s “nanny government”. It’s not analagous to lead or rat hair. I’m all for restaurants offering healthier fare - the thing is, THEY’RE ALREADY DOING IT. People object to nanny government because of the precedent it sets. Lots of things are bad for you, but not if taken in moderation. If the government can start banning food items because they are unhealthy, what’s next? No sugar allowed in restaurants? No fried food? No red meat? People want to make their own decisions, not have the government decide for them.
[/QUOTE]
That’s exactly right. Giraffe’s point in asking me if I want to eat trans fats is…what, exactly? Does it require a government ban for me to avoid them? Or are there other ways to be sure that the public is informed of the potential danger, and informed of food content, so that I can avoid them if I wish?
I eat plenty of foods that, if not outright harmful, certainly are not of much nutritional benefit. Others probably ARE outright harmful. Should I be disallowed from eating those, as well, “for my own good?”
As I said, if something is harmful enough, and with no discernable benefit, then it is right to ban it. Otherwise, I just can’t see it as justified.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I agree with you here, as well. My biggest problems with the ban are that 1) I am not yet convinced that trans fats are no better than poisons, and 2) I don’t understand why a ban should only affect the restaurant industry. IF trans fats are as dangerous as some claim, then perhaps they should be banned entirely. If they aren’t, or can’t be proven to be, then let folks make a choice, the way that we do with many risky areas of life.
[/QUOTE]
If I ingested the same amount of lead as I have trans-fats in my life, I would have been dead a long time ago. It’s utterly ludicrous to equate trans-fats with poison.
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
But let me ask you something. If I recall correctly, you’re a physician. Do you have occasion to prescribe cholesterol-lowering drugs? And for each of those drugs you prescribe, do you have proof obtained through clinical trials that that particular drug reduces the heart-attack risk for a patient of the profile you’re treating? The fact is that medicine deals very heavily in just the kind of supposition you’re decrying here. For most physicians, reduction in cholesterol = lowered risk, end of story. How are transfats any different?
[/QUOTE]
A fair question. And the answer is “yes”, as much as I can. So, there is good randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical evidence to prove to me that statins prevent heart attacks (in those with previous heart attackes and at very high risk). OTOH, the same type of studies show that for many people, lowering cholesterol with medicines to prevent a heart attack is simply not worth it. You’d need to treat hundreds of such individuals to prevent one heart attack.
To be honest, though, the best analogy may be to smoking. There are NO good, double-blind, blah blah studies to prove that cessation of smoking prevents cancer. Still, I counsel people to quit. However, in that situation there are other ill effects of smoking that ARE reduced (eg. COPD) and the weight of evidence is more than overwhelming. Not so for trans fats.
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
And before someone suggests across the board restaurant labelling (not you, tdn), many smaller restaurants plan a daily menu based on what foods they can get. So while getting a nutritional analysis done on a dish might be feasible for menu staples (another expense to be passed on to the consumer), it will kill any chance at daily specials.
[/QUOTE]
Why would it? A full nutritional analysis, sure. But they can certainly denote whether today’s deep fried prawns in a cream of coconut sauce contains shortening. They already do this with dishes that include beef, pork, eggs, and fish. (Is that a federal law or state?)
[QUOTE=KarlGauss]
They [polyunsaturated fats] lower the HDL level which may even be worse than raising the LDL level. In fact, statistics show convincingly that HDL is by far the more important, more potent, risk factor for heart attacks.
[/QUOTE]
And…
“Metabolic studies have clearly shown that trans fatty acids (TFAs) elevate LDL and lower HDL cholesterol.”
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
If I ingested the same amount of lead as I have trans-fats in my life, I would have been dead a long time ago. It’s utterly ludicrous to equate trans-fats with poison.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I think, too. I was responding to this post:
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Do you want to eat hydrogenated vegetable oils? If so, why?
Similarly, are you also upset that the government tells you you can’t drink water with a certain amount of lead in it, or buy a house with a high risk of collapsing, or buy a car which might randomly explode?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=KarlGauss]
A fair question. And the answer is “yes”, as much as I can. So, there is good randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical evidence to prove to me that statins prevent heart attacks (in those with previous heart attackes and at very high risk). OTOH, the same type of studies show that for many people, lowering cholesterol with medicines to prevent a heart attack is simply not worth it. You’d need to treat hundreds of such individuals to prevent one heart attack.
[/QUOTE]
I applaud you for doing this, but I fear you’re not in the majority in your profession. And I’d much rather have transfats banned based on what you argue is speculative science than have drugs prescribed to me based on speculative science. The social cost of the former is dramatically less. I would even qualify it as trivial.
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac] John Mace, the NEJM article I cited earlier also says the following: “The evidence and the magnitude of adverse health effects of trans fatty acids are in fact far stronger on average than those of food contaminants or pesticide residues, which have in some cases received considerable attention.”
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but that’s not the issue. We shouldn’t be comparing trans fats to poisons only, but to other food additives. Do we have a quantititative breakdown of the health risks for, say, the 10 most harmful food additives, and where does this one stand on that list?
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Funny - after I posted, I thought maybe I should have written “I agree”. Then I thought, “nah, it’s obvious that I agree”. Guess it wasn’t.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry! I think I have a slow brain today!
John, you’re asking for something that I doubt exists. It’s difficult to reduce this to a simple table ranking everything from best to worst, just because individual consumption, and probably genetic variability, determine how dangerous a food or additive is. To me this is a question about probability of risk (high), prevalence (high), and ease of substitution (high).
I mean, are we basically contending here that the FDA’s concerns about transfats are completely groundless?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Do we have a quantititative breakdown of the health risks for, say, the 10 most harmful food additives, and where does this one stand on that list?
[/QUOTE]
Google on “most harmful food additives”, and you’ll get a bunch of hits on this. The first one listed the top four as trans fats, refined grains, salt, and high fructose corn syrup. Other sites listed various artificial sweeteners and colorings as most harmful, but trans fats were right up there.
I’m not sure how scientific the findings are, however.
I mean, are we basically contending here that the FDA’s concerns about transfats are completely groundless?
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. We’re saying: Why pick this one thing to ban out of all the other food items that are bad for us, and if one is banned, why are they not all banned?
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Not at all. We’re saying: Why pick this one thing to ban out of all the other food items that are bad for us, and if one is banned, why are they not all banned?
[/QUOTE]
You’d have to ask the lawmakers, but my guess would be that it’s more harmful than most other additives, has negative health benefits, and no addition to flavor.
I must say that I’d support a ban on HFCS as well.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
That makes no difference to the point of my argument. If I want to avoid them, I will, and if I don’t care, then I won’t.
[/QUOTE]
You asked “Why should I not be able to decide if I want to take the risk of eating these types of foods?” I was curious why you (or anyone) would want the choice of eating foods with trans fats, i.e. if you had any reason to prefer a food with trans fat over one without.
Many of the things that are already regulated in foods will not cause instant death, either, but merely an increased risk of serious disease down the road. I don’t see how trans fats are any different, and I think the argument that it will lead us down a slippery slope to a federally-mandated diet of tofu and fresh vegetables is pointless alarmism.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
You asked “Why should I not be able to decide if I want to take the risk of eating these types of foods?” I was curious why you (or anyone) would want the choice of eating foods with trans fats, i.e. if you had any reason to prefer a food with trans fat over one without.
[/QUOTE]
It depends on whether or not it affects the taste and/or texture of the food, mostly.