Oh, and it also depends on whether I believe that the substitute for the trans fats is indeed more healthful for me.
Well, why did the FDA pick this one thing for scrutiny, and not another? Do you have another candidate?
I will say that one thing that makes transfats bad is that they’re something of a stealth ingredient. People generally don’t know what they’re in, and in what quantity. Your order of french fries may have 10 grams, or may have none. You have no good way of knowing.
Perhaps demonizing trans fats is pointless alarmism.
It might be difficult for us posters here to do, but it shouldn’t be hard for biologists to do. I’m a scientist myself, and this is what scientists do. Besides, the caveats you mention are precisely some of the reason’s it’s not so cut and dry about whether or not this item should be banned. Plus, there are a other actions that are possible besides banning (warning labels, maximum amount allowable per serving, to name just two).
No. I never said that. Besides, it’s not the FDA that is banning this substance-- it’s politicians in NYC who are doing this. There is a difference.
Since, in the case of trans fats, it doesn’t, you should have no prblem with it, then, right?
That’s the point. There’s no evidence that they did such a study before enacting the law. What’s the threshold for how harmful something has to be to be banned? Does it have to be 5 percent more harmful than another harmful thing? 10 percent? 50 percent? Did the NY legislature make such calculations? I doubt it.
Several - some already mentioned: White sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, white flour, red meat, cholesterol, saturated fat. Should all those things be banned? There’s certainly evidence that they all contribute to health problems. Restaurants don’t need to use butter or cheese, should they be banned? They don’t need to serve bacon or sausage, should they be banned as well? I guess places like Sees Candy should just be put out of business altogether, eh? Their product provides very little nutritional value and causes all kinds of health problems if consumed in excessive amounts.
This is why I think the ban extends to restaurants and not to supermarket food. With supermarket food, the trans fat content is printed on the ingredient list, and a person can avoid it, or not at their disgression. At a restaurant, it’s harder even if still possible to avoid trans fat, or even to know which dishes contain it. One might be able to ask the waiter, but the waiter might lie, or not know. How many stories on the Dope have you read where a person asks if a dish contains ingredient, the waitress said no, then later came back with a dish full of ingredient.
I think it would be better to require restaurants to give information about which dishes contained trans fats, but banning them in restaurants and not supermarkets seems reasonable to me, assuming the dangers are what they are claimed to be.
I just wanted to note that the discourse and debate in this thread has been remarkably civilized (this is the Pit).
I take full responsibility and apologize to anyone I may have offended. 
Requiring restaurants to post information about trans-fat content would be a much more sensible way to address the issue. I’d be all for that. If supermarkets are required to label their food, I don’t see any problem with requiring restaurants to give info on trans-fats. Educate the public and let them decide. That’s the only way to go.
What is an acceptable vegetarian substitute for partially hydrogenated vegetable oil when making short biscuits?
You’re missing the point. All the things you cite are bad for you, but good for you as well. Red meat, for instance, is highly nutritious. The dose is key. I doubt small doses of transfats are all that bad for you, but they’re not good for you, either. The point is there’s scientific consensus that transfats are bad, and that you can easily substitute something less bad, without the consumer making much of a sacrifice at all.
To me the fact that people can’t be forced to eat right is an assertive reason to ban transfats, because they represent one aspect of people’s diets that can be controlled, without the people in question getting bent out of shape. Sometimes operating on the margins is the way to go.
I’m just not sure why this is such an issue. The government bans all sorts of adulterants, contaminants and additives, sometimes on speculative science, sometimes out of mere aesthetics. If you’re opposed to any government regulation of what’s in the food supply, say so. And tell me honestly that you’d like to live in a world where purveyors are free to add whatever they like to what you eat.
Actually, I don’t have a problem with this either, though I will say that regulation is regulation, whether you’re requiring a restaurant to not use certain ingredients, or post dire warnings about them. I actually see a ban on transfats as less burdensome, particularly on small restaurants.
I don’t know if that’s true. Additionally, as The Swan and Anne Neville have pointed out, some people have food restrictions that make them willing to take the risk of consuming trans fats in circumstances where there is not a subsitute that is acceptable to them. Should they not have the right to decide for themselves?
This is my opinion, as well. One doesn’t have to rely on the waitstaff to know…the restaurant could provide the information in an official capacity.
No, you’re missing the point. NONE of the things I mentioned are “good for you”. They contain calories, and are therefore sustenance, but SO IS TRANS-FAT. Please, demonstrate to us what the qualitative difference is between trans-fat and, say, saturated fat in terms of whether consuming it puts one at risk for heart disease. You can’t do that. Both are types of fat that, when consumed in excessive amounts, can have an adverse effect on one’s health. Yet you advocate allowing one and not the other. That makes no sense. There is no qualitative difference, only a quantitative one, and I’m not convinced that even a quantitative difference has been sufficiently proven. At best, the government is drawing an arbitrary line as to how unhealthy certain foods are. It’s quite simply not their call to make.
I’ll ask again - why hasn’t candy been banned? It has almost no nutritional value, and is unarguably bad for you.
Because people don’t eat right, the government should force them to eat right? What’s next, the Mandatory Spinach Law?
Didn’t we cover this already? Trans-fats are not a contaminant, a poison, an additive, or ANY of those things. They are, like many other things, a type of food that can increase your risk of heart disease if you stuff yourself full of them like a big fat pig. For christs’ sake, do you really think french fries would be good for you if only they didn’t hydrogenate the fat they’re fried in? Is ice cream an “adulterant, contaminant, or additive?” No, it’s a food - a food that happens to be bad for you if you eat too much of it. Do you want to ban ice cream? Education and moderation are the way to go, not government coercion.
I disagree. Telling people “you can’t eat this” is nanny government. Telling people “you can eat this, but let us educate you on the relative risks of doing so”, is responsible government. Labeling foods in grocery stores has done unmeasurable good in educating people about what they put in their bodies, without taking choices away.
I don’t see how you can possibly say a ban is less burdensome. You could give restaurants a choice: either eliminate trans-fats OR post information about the trans-fats you are using. If they don’t use them, they don’t have to post the information. At most, it could be no more burdensome than mandating the elimination of trans-fats.
I have a feeling that if you shouted this fact in Sarahfeena’s ear, all she’d hear is “No schnitzel for you! Sieg Heil!”
So do you have any cites from reputable medical journals that show that candy contributes to coronary heart disease? In fact, I can show you a cite that a certain kind of candy – namely, dark chocolate – actually cuts coronary risk factors. Cite.
But this is really so much digression. The fact is that saturated fat <> butter (or bacon or cheese or whatever you care to name). Those things contain saturated fat, but also contain valuable nutrients – proteins, vitamins, calcium. Transfats contain zippo beyond calories.
You’ll have heard the expression that politics is the art of the possible. To me this is an illustration. Transfats are easy to ban because there’s a ready and low-cost substitute. Banning transfats will bring a small but measurable improvement in people’s cardiac health, according to scientific consensus. Maybe you can prove that banning butter will increase people’s health – and I invite you to give me a cite that says so – but can the government make it happen? No, because there’s no great substitute for butter. As the Bible says, if the butter shall lose its savor, wherewith shall it be buttered?
As to your contention about what constitutes a nanny state, I personally think that nagging warnings are much more nanny-like. In Massachusetts, all menus now have to carry a warning about the dangers of eating undercooked shellfish and the like. Under your proposal, there would be an additional warning about transfats. And further, if you’re going to make an issue about butter and cheese and bacon, then there will have to be a warning for those, too. Pretty soon going out to eat will be a deflating experience altogether. And heaven help the restaurant that changes its menu. That’s why I say banning transfats is less burdensome. It’s seamless and invisible to the customer.
I asked about that way earlier in the thread. Thanks for answering it, even if you didn’t intend to.
So it’s just a MA thing.
I am neither in support of nor against the ban. It is a piece of city governance that just “is”. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to attack a problem, but I don’t think it’s an effective tactic. So McD’s stops using trans fats. This will not stop people from overeating McD’s fried, fat- and calorie-laden fair. That is where the real problem lies.
I am against the misrepresentations in this thread regarding the ban. NYC (not the FDA, who have reviewed the use of trans-fats just like they review the use of a whole shitload of ingredients) has banned the use of trans fats in restaurants. Let’s not take this as a worldwide ban of trans-fats by the FDA and President Bush declaring war on all countries who refuse to acquiese this terrorist-supporting ingredient.