Oh, gee - which strawman should I pick? Oh, I know - none of the above.
That’s rather ironic coming from the person who is so vehemently arguing that trans-fats divide neatly from other things that are bad for you.
You’re comparing two things that would have to be about 1,000 times more similar to even be able to say they aren’t in the same ballpark, and now you’re using an absurd “fine-line” argument to try to convince us they are. Ludicrous. You might as well say we can’t differentiate between Jello and arsenic.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but since you mentioned making biscuits with butter, it brings up an issue. I don’t think it’s good to require that butter be used as a substitute for shortening, because it isn’t fair to vegetarians. There may be people who want to be able to eat biscuits, but do not eat animal products. One may agree or disagree with this idea, but it should be the decision of the consumer, not the government.
Sorry, I missed that Swan had already made the same point. And it’s definitely true that you need solid shortening to make biscuits (or pie crust, or any flaky pastry). The solid shortening is what makes it flaky; without it, it would knead into a gooey paste and result in, as another poster put it: hockey pucks.
lowbrass, when I ask, “Are you arguing that transfats aren’t dangerous, or that government should get out of the business of regulating food ingredients altogether?”, you reply, “None of the above.”
In other words, what you’re saying is that a) you recognize transfats are dangerous; and b) you don’t dispute government’s power to regulate things that are dangerous – from which you conclude c) that government shouldn’t regulate transfats. Right?
I don’t want to speak for lowbrass, but there is more than one way to “regulate.” They could require warnings for restaurant patrons, they could allow it in some foods and not others, depending on how necessary the properties of trans fats are for that kind of food, they could restrict how much of a trans fat is used, etc. I am not sure that lowbrass is advocating that there be absolutely no regulation of trans fats whatsoever.
How? They have a defined use in baking, otherwise you are just switching oils. Where the flavor of the oil is not an issue, most restaurants will shop on price. Now, in addition to price, they’ll need to check the label. One of the benefits of partial hydrogenation, stated upthread, is extended shelf-life. I don’t know if this is of the oil itself, or the end product. For restaurants, the shelf-life of the end-product shouldn’t be an issue. If it is for the oil, it just might mean smaller and more frequent purchases.
mack, are you saying that if trans fats are banned, then there are more choices because patrons would not have to choose restaurants based on whether or not they use trans fats? I can see your point, but D_Odds is right, as has been pointed out already…there are some items that will not be practical without using trans fats. I have no doubt that some restaurants will take certain items off of their menus because preparing those foods will be too expensive or too difficult without that particular type of ingredient. So, perhaps there will be a wider variety of restaurants to choose from, but the restaurants themselves will be more limited in what they offer.
If you would, continue to fight my Crisco ignorance. Are you saying that the trans-fat free Crisco has different properties than the Crisco w. trans fats? And are you saying you know that bakers have in fact rejected the trans fat free version in favor of the version with trans fats? I’m honestly asking.
Because I couldn’t give less of a fuck about sweeteners? I don’t favor banning any sweeteners. I’ve never heard anyone in favor of a trans fat ban speak out in favor of banning, well, anything else. It’s only people arguing against the ban that seem to think this is the start of a broad movement against all unhealthy food, which is completely retarded. I gave the reasons why I personally favor a ban on trans fats, where I believe taste is really the key issue.
That seems to be the question of the day among bakers. As I understand it, the new shortening has some liquid oil mixed in with the fully hydrogenated palm oil, which makes it slightly less easy to work with when mixing it in with flour. In other words, it has a slightly “looser” consistency.
It is up for debate in the baking world. Some (including Crisco) say the two products are interchangeable. Some say that statement is false. it all depends upon how much of the perceived difference is legitimate vs. Baker’s voodoo. I tend to go with legitimate, as many baking professionals tend to be rather fanatical about their products.
And I’m confident that ways will be found to adequately compensate for the loss of trans-fat in baked goods or wherever else it is currently deemed necessary.
Granted, though it can be difficult to sort out – as in lowbrass’s case – whether the objection stems from philosophical (read libertarian) anti-regulation sentiment, or from an assessment that transfats are not worthy of the kind of regulation proposed. I think I’ve finally figured out that you’re in the latter camp, though you managed to confuse me a little initially.
I will say, in general, that while I’m not completely opposed to the idea of warning labels, it’s very much a second-best in my view. The problem is that the world is filled with warning lables of doubtful specificity. The one that drives me nuts is the one – I’m sure you’ve seen it – that says, “This product contains substances known to the State of California to cause cancer.” Well, what isn’t?
Any warning, in order not to be dismissed, needs to give you some sense of probabilities. If it’s dangerous to eat undercooked shellfish, what are the odds that something will happen to you, and what is that something? It’s almost useless to be told, “Eat this and something bad could happen.” You might just as well worry about a meteorite bonking you on the head.
So the only solution you can think of to this problem is to ban substances altogether, rather than try to give more specific warnings? To me, banning is very much a second-best solution…it takes away freedom of choice, for one thing, and it may very well be huge overkill for another.
Well, if we go with the overworded warning, everything will look like cigarette packs:
or just:
However, if the ban holds up, and tomorrow’s NEJM revises its position to say caffeinated products have been found to be the primary cause of breast and prostate cancer, the NYC Department of Health already has gained the political and legal strength to take away my morning (and mid-morning, and late morning, and early afternoon…) cup of joe.
There’s obviously a gradation of dangerousness, from things you ban (lead), to things you have warning labels for (runny eggs), to things you leave alone (butter). Then you throw into the calculation the cost, availability, and effectiveness of the substitutes, and voila, you come up with a policy. My reading of the scientific consensus is that transfats are quite dangerous – a “metabolic poison,” in the words of one researcher – and there are widely available, cost-effective, satisfactory substitutes. So you ban transfats in one particular setting – restaurants – while leaving the precious Crisco alone.
At the end of the day, it comes down to this – does banning transfats in restaurants make life better for people, on balance? And the answer, in my judgment, is yes, it does – not hugely, but incrementally. You can say it’s a matter of principle, but the horse left that particular barn a long, long time ago. Governments have been banning dangerous ingredients for at least a century and a half now. Sometimes they screw up (in the case of saccharine, for instance), but to my mind wrongly banning something like saccharine – which is just one of a myriad of artificial sweeteners – is less objectionable than failing to ban something that will lead to tens of thousands of lives being shortened.
Why would it? Restaurants are free to use any substitues now if they want to. And how many restaraunts actually use trans fats anyway? It’s probably mostly the fast food joints, and they’re just going to switch to the next cheapest oil, probably.
The only person who is having difficulty sorting things out is you. You persist in this asinine false dichotomy when I have already told you it is wrong. The only thing more irritating than people who argue using logical fallacies, is people who continue to do so after having it pointed out to them.
You are presenting two choices, and declaring that only one can be my position, and I have told you that neither is my position. Do you need me to draw you pictures? Why are you not getting this?
Do you like to murder babies, or do you only like to maim babies? Which is it?
I actually hate Libertarianism. I am quite liberal in my political views. The only time I cross over is in the case of nanny government. I am very much in favor of having the government protect people from danger. However, I draw the line when the government tell ME I can’t do X because it’s bad for me. Stop people from hurting other people - yes. Educate people as to what’s good or bad for them - yes. Take away people’s choices because you think you know what’s good for them - NO. Not in a free country. ESPECIALLY when health experts do a complete 180 as to what’s good or bad for you every decade or so. Where I part with Libertarians is that they seem to think the government shouldn’t regulate anything. My test is very simple: If it’s hurting other people, regulate it. If it’s about people hurting themselves, educate the people and let them make the choice.
Your position seems to be morphing. What you were saying before was that warning labels are more restrictive than outright bans (a puzzling position, but one you took nonetheless). Now you seem to be saying that you are not in favor of warning labels because they are not specific enough. I don’t see the problem here: “This food item contains trans-fats, which have been shown to be a risk factor in heart disease”, or something like that. Pretty darn clear. My guess is you’d find out right away if it’s feasible to replace trans-fats with substitutes - if they can, restaurants would get rid of the trans-fats pretty quick rather than have to put up a sign like that. Problem solved.
I agree that the warning labels get out of hand sometimes. But given a choice between having a warning label or banning the product altogether, which is more out of hand? People complain about warning labels on peanuts. Do you think they’d complain less or more if they were told they weren’t allowed to eat peanuts at all?
Bingo. And I have no compunction about stopping people from hurting themselves, either, if it can be done without them having to make any sacrifices – which seems eminently to be the case here.
Nope, I said easier on the small restaurant. Instead of having to comply with what would likely be a forest of regulations about the nature of the warning, its wording, size, placement, etc., small restaurants will simply get Oil X from their supplier, rather than Oil Y.
I’m a little bewildered about this enthusaism for warnings. Don’t you find yourself just tuning then out? It’s human nature, and the more warnings there are, the greater the tuneout. More to the point, why do I want to be hectored by my menu?
For someone who “hates” libertarianism, you make a hell of a libertarian argument there. Actually, I think you misunderstand what libertarianism is, but that’s pretty common around here. Libertarians have no problem with regulating actions where one person hurts another-- pollution, for example.
Actually, I think you misunderstand what libertarianism is, but that’s pretty common around here. Libertarians have no problem with regulating actions where one person hurts another-- pollution, for example.