Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
By THOMAS J. LUECK and KIM SEVERSON
Published: December 6, 2006
The New York City Board of Health voted yesterday to adopt the nation’s first major municipal ban on the use of all but tiny amounts of artificial trans fats in restaurant cooking, a move that would radically transform how food is prepared in thousands of restaurants, from McDonald’s to fashionable bistros to Chinese take-outs.
Some experts said the measure, which is widely opposed by the restaurant industry, would be a model for other cities. Chicago is considering a similar prohibition that would affect restaurants with more than $20 million in annual sales.
“New York City has set a national standard,” said Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, who predicted that other communities would follow suit.
Trans fats are the chemically modified food ingredients that raise levels of a particularly unhealthy form of cholesterol and have been squarely linked to heart disease. Long used as a substitute for saturated fats in baked goods, fried foods, salad dressings, margarine and other foods, trans fats also have a longer shelf life than other alternatives.
While the trans fat regulation captured the most attention, the Board of Health approved a separate measure — also the first of its kind in the country — requiring some restaurants, mostly fast food outlets, to prominently display the caloric content of each menu item on menu boards or near cash registers.
Health officials said displaying calorie counts was meant to address what is widely regarded as a nationwide epidemic of obesity.
The city’s prohibition on trans fats, which would be phased in starting in July, was a victory for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, an outspoken health advocate, and his activist health commissioner, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden.
After the city’s aggressive campaign to ban smoking in restaurants and in public places that goes back more than a decade, the regulation governing trans fats has again thrust New York to the forefront of a significant public health issue.
Experts say eliminating trans fats need not change the taste of foods, but chefs and restaurant owners say it is hard to replicate the taste and texture of some items without them.
Both the trans fat and calorie regulations would be enforced by the health department’s restaurant inspectors. Inspectors would check the packaging of ingredients used in restaurant kitchens for the amount of trans fats they contain, but prepared food would not be routinely tested. Violators would face fines of at least $200.
Both measures have come under fire as impractical and unwanted intrusions by the government into free enterprise and civil liberties.
“This is a misguided attempt at social engineering by a group of physicians who don’t understand the restaurant industry,” said Dan Flesher, a National Restaurant Association spokesman. He said one or both measures could be challenged legally.
Mayor Bloomberg said the city is “not going to take away anybody’s ability to go out and have the kind of food they want, in the quantities they want.”
“We are just trying to make food safer,” he added.
Still, some restaurant workers said the trans fat ban would represent a challenge.
“This will be better for people’s health, but we’d like to know where to go from here,” said O’Neil Whyte, a baker at Sweet Chef Southern Styles Bakery in Harlem. “Things without trans fat are harder to get and more expensive.”
With artificial trans fat increasingly seen as a health risk, many city restaurants had begun seeking alternative ingredients long before the new regulations were proposed.
Most packaged food manufacturers began removing them on a large scale in 2002, in anticipation of federal rules that trans fat content be disclosed in nutritional labeling. The rule took effect in January.
Some restaurant chains are following suit. Wendy’s has switched to a soy-corn blend cooking oil in its 6,300 restaurants in the United States and Canada, and KFC says it will eliminate trans fat in its food by April.
Chicago’s proposal is under discussion. “I’m disappointed we’re losing bragging rights to be the first city in the nation to do this,” said Edward Burke, a Chicago alderman who is pushing the ban.
New York’s Board of Health, made up mostly of physicians and health professionals appointed by the mayor, can adopt regulations without approval by any other agency.
Still, the board granted concessions to the restaurant industry, which had complained vehemently that it was not being given enough time to experiment with new ingredients and recipes that would preserve or improve the taste of their food.
Restaurants will still have until next July 1 to eliminate oils, margarines and shortening from recipes that contain more than a half-gram of trans fat per serving. By July 1, 2008, they would have to remove all menu items that exceed the new limit, including bread, cakes, chips and salad dressings.
But under terms adopted yesterday, some foods will fall under the later deadline, including doughuts, fritters, biscuits and deep fried items that the board said were particularly hard to prepare with a trans fat substitute.
“We want the taste, and the experience of food, to be the same or better,” Dr. Frieden said.
The requirement for posting caloric content will take affect next July 1, and applies to restaurants that before March 1, 2007, already provided calorie counts on Web sites or in some other public format. Health officials said it would apply to about 10 percent of the city’s restaurants, mainly large chains that have highly standardized menus and portions.
Restaurants can decide how to display the calorie counts as long as it is near where diners pay for their food, officials said. “We want to allow creativity,” said Dr. Lynn Silver, an assistant health commissioner. “If someone has a better way of doing this, great.”
__________________ 2009: No races, No times. Slow year. So, now you're 96 cals short. You're now in starvation mode. Doomed. - LostDog
Blog entry: November 1, 2009, Pancakes LiveSTRONG daily plate log
Well, that depends on your outlook. Lord know if anyone needs to be blocked from trans-fats, it's me. However, what about self-responsibility and choices? This is government over-regulation at it worst. Sure, we all pay more for health insurance because thousands of people eat this junk everday of the year, but should the possibility of slim savings outweigh (no pun intended) someone's right to eat what they want. I have mixed emotions about this. Trying to make food safer? What's next, making all adult beverages non-alcoholic? I'd bet alcohol kills more people per year than trans-fats do. This is just another example of governmental bureacrats thinking they know what's best for us and believing they have the right to enforce it. Wait until those who are supposedly being saved from themselves begin to cry foul over the increased costs of such foods due to the new ban. Nevermind the fact that it's also an example of government telling private businesses how to operate. A little freedom here, a little freedom there...
O.K., now I'll take off my "politico" hat and wait for the tongue lashing from everyone! (This is a fitness & nutrition board!)
__________________ Defeat is not defeat unless accepted as a reality-in your own mind. - Bruce Lee
I have to agree with Fat J. A lot of the food manufacturers are changing there products now to be trans fat free. So are the fast food restaurants, albeit slowly. To make all restaurants do it is heavy handed.
It's also saying to the public "you're not smart enough to take care of yourself, so we'll do it for you".
I also think they did it it have the bragging rights, as the Chicago alderman lamented.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
I hear that they're going to start regulating the Food Guide Pyramid guidelines next. Get ready for your 10 ounces of grains (half of them whole...) per day!
I'm with you guys. If I'm eating healthy 99 percent of the time, If I want to eat some delicious trans-fat containing food, I should be able to.
I'm cool with making restaurants display info about trans-fats in their food. People are entitled to information. But banning the foods completely? that's going too far.
__________________
Audentes Fortunas Juvat
"Focus on making the 5 lifts stronger and getting enough food. There will be plenty of time to worry about glycemic indexes, PERs, and Bulgarian Split squats later. Much later."-Mark Rippetoe
excerpt from "But Mommy, I Waaaaant it!" (author unknown, written in 2123)
"Joe: "Remember the good ol' days, back in the 21st century, when you could get your hands on some sweet cigarettes and a bowl full of trans-fats?"
Bob: "Yeah, man. I heard those days were the shiiiznit. We could choose to destroy our bodies. Now we're all healthy and live longer and health care costs are down.... but not because we chose it... it was forced on us!"
Joe: "Definitely. I mean, what's more important? The health of the often uneducated people of this nation, or my ego and the desires it produces?"
Bob: "That's a no brainer. I mean, the 300 million people in the country back then had SO much time and oppurtunity and money to educate themselves fully on how to grocery shop properly for a large family. So nobody had to eat out 6-10 times per week, unless they WANTED to."
Joe: "Right. And those that did... well, that's called thinning the herd. We're all about survival of the fittest here. Let the less-than-fit fall by the wayside."
Bob: "Let them fall by the wayside... and let us have a right to limit the masses from better health because we want to indulge our tastebuds from time to time."
Joe: "Know what else I remember, the days when you could buy protein powder and the such. Now we're no longer allowed to eat more than .2 grams of protein per lb of body wright and thank god that diets under 200grams of carbs were also banned by the 'You will eat healthy (well what we think is healthy this week anyay) Law of 2010'."
excerpt from "But Mommy, I Waaaaant it!" (author unknown, written in 2123)
"Joe: "Remember the good ol' days, back in the 21st century, when you could get your hands on some sweet cigarettes and a bowl full of trans-fats?"
Bob: "Yeah, man. I heard those days were the shiiiznit. We could choose to destroy our bodies. Now we're all healthy and live longer and health care costs are down.... but not because we chose it... it was forced on us!"
Joe: "Definitely. I mean, what's more important? The health of the often uneducated people of this nation, or my ego and the desires it produces?"
Bob: "That's a no brainer. I mean, the 300 million people in the country back then had SO much time and oppurtunity and money to educate themselves fully on how to grocery shop properly for a large family. So nobody had to eat out 6-10 times per week, unless they WANTED to."
Joe: "Right. And those that did... well, that's called thinning the herd. We're all about survival of the fittest here. Let the less-than-fit fall by the wayside."
Bob: "Let them fall by the wayside... and let us have a right to limit the masses from better health because we want to indulge our tastebuds from time to time."
Joe: "Or destroy our lungs for a buzz."
Bob: "That too."
Joe: "Ah well. So much for progress."
Darwin at it's best.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
Joe: "Know what else I remember, the days when you could buy protein powder and the such. Now we're no longer allowed to eat more than .2 grams of protein per lb of body wright and thank god that diets under 200grams of carbs were also banned by the 'You will eat healthy (well what we think is healthy this week anyay) Law of 2010'."
Bob: "No, Joe, that was repealed in 2012, when they realized that there were legitimate claims of health improvements with such a diet. A certain portion of the population, supported by medical facts, disproved the original argument."
Joe: "So why didn't they do that for cigarettes and trans-fats?"
Bob: "They tried. But they slowly came to the conclusion that there are no potentional positives to including those two in your lifestyle."
Joe: "Makes sense."
Bob: "Yup, makes sense... if you can see the bigger picture and think outside the box for a moment."
Joe: "But then I have to admit that my desires aren't necessarily good for the people as a whole."
Ian, I'm assuming the "dialogue" your posting is a stab at humor but it actually betrays the exact sentiment I alluded to in my first post. "Progress", or what a few define as progress, trumphs individual liberty and proves my point. A few have taken it upon themselves to "educate" the rest of us poor, knowledgeless souls all for the common good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Kay
Joe: "But then I have to admit that my desires aren't necessarily good for the people as a whole."
But the desires of a few agenda-driven bureacrats are?
Bureaucrat: "We here at the Center for Responsible Public Consumption have decided that the ban on trans fatty acids is too limited to affect measurable gains in the wellfare of our citizens. Therefore we're extending the ban to cover the following items : Sugar, alcohol, hotdogs, soda, Cheeze-wiz, white bread and basically anything else we deem unhealthy for you."
Citizen: "What if I like to eat those foods? Don't I have the right to eat what I want?"
Bureacrat: "Next question."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Kay
Bob: "Yup, makes sense... if you can see the bigger picture and think outside the box for a moment."
Sure, most people can see the big picture and are willing to think outside of the box. They just don't want to be forced to.
(Of course, if I'm wrong about your post then I apologize and admit to being a nutcase with too much time on my hands! I'm a political junkie, what can I say! )
__________________ Defeat is not defeat unless accepted as a reality-in your own mind. - Bruce Lee
Ian, I'm assuming the "dialogue" your posting is a stab at humor but it actually betrays the exact sentiment I alluded to in my first post. "Progress", or what a few define as progress, trumphs individual liberty and proves my point. A few have taken it upon themselves to "educate" the rest of us poor, knowledgeless souls all for the common good.
But the desires of a few agenda-driven bureacrats are?
Bureaucrat: "We here at the Center for Responsible Public Consumption have decided that the ban on trans fatty acids is too limited to affect measurable gains in the wellfare of our citizens. Therefore we're extending the ban to cover the following items : Sugar, alcohol, hotdogs, soda, Cheeze-wiz, white bread and basically anything else we deem unhealthy for you."
Citizen: "What if I like to eat those foods? Don't I have the right to eat what I want?"
Bureacrat: "Next question."
Sure, most people can see the big picture and are willing to think outside of the box. They just don't want to be forced to.
(Of course, if I'm wrong about your post then I apologize and admit to being a nutcase with too much time on my hands! I'm a political junkie, what can I say! )
No, you're correct that I was taking a "stab at humor".
I guess my first question is this: What in the world is the bureacratic agenda that involves ridding the city of artifically produced trans-fats? Seems to me the agenda is improved health.
My second question is this: Why do I have to cook all of my own food every day, for fear of the stuff they put into restaurant food? What if I want to be able to hit up my favorite joint on the way to work? Well, if I'm conscientious enough, I can't, because I don't want to put that stuff into my body. You can request non-trans-fat menu items, and some places advertise it... but that's really limiting my choices. It's like the cigarette argument: Why can't Bob smoke in the bar? Because 12 other people would like to be in the bar too, but without increasing their chances of developing a fatal disease.
My third question is this: Do you really think foods are going to taste that much worse without the trans-fats? Are they really they great? They turn average food into amazing food? I have a very difficult time buying that.
My 4th question: Why the extreme fear of governmental bans? Note how nobody said it was illegal to purchase or consume trans-fats. It's not a law for the citizens of NYC. It's a law for the businesses of the city. They are regulating business for the benefit of the people. This idea of liberty at risk is bizarre to me. Personal liberties are not an issue here. It's like me walking into a bookstore and throwing a fit because the porn mags are behind the counter and and have the covers blocked by cardboard. "But I have a right to see the cover and flip through it before I buy it!" And the employee says, "But what about the effect on children as they walk by?" and I say, "They can look away if they want to! Their parents should be watching them anyway... it's their responsibility!"
Finally: Being forced to be healthier? This is a strange concept to me. They are banning a nutritionally worthless, health-endangering ingredient. Don't you want there to be an enforced law forcing you to ride a roller coaster that has passed safety regulations? Or do you argue that you have the right to ride an un-tested one? How about the other people sitting beside you? Hey, you can build your own and not have it checked and risk breaking your neck. But if there's one open to the public, shouldn't it be checked?
As for the other "threatened" foods, like sugar and alcohol... we'll cross each bridge as we come to it. I mean, we've already repealed one attempt at banning alcohol, and there can be arguments for safe use of the other ones. Just because this group got one (good) law passed, doesn't mean they'll get all of them.
What in the world is the bureacratic agenda that involves ridding the city of artifically produced trans-fats? Seems to me the agenda is improved health.
The agenda isn't the intent of improving the health of the population. The the agenda is increase the government's influence on private matters. The people who initiate such movements are generally the same people who think governmental intervention is the panacea to every ill we may face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Kay
My second question is this: Why do I have to cook all of my own food every day, for fear of the stuff they put into restaurant food? What if I want to be able to hit up my favorite joint on the way to work? Well, if I'm conscientious enough, I can't, because I don't want to put that stuff into my body. You can request non-trans-fat menu items, and some places advertise it... but that's really limiting my choices. It's like the cigarette argument: Why can't Bob smoke in the bar? Because 12 other people would like to be in the bar too, but without increasing their chances of developing a fatal disease.
That's my point. You don't have to cook all of your own food everyday, you choose to, because you are conscientious. This type of initiative tries to force others (or at least the businesses) to be too. The smoking argument is moot. The other 12 people in the bar are physically affected by Bob's smoke. They wouldn't be equally affected by him eating a Big Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Kay
My third question is this: Do you really think foods are going to taste that much worse without the trans-fats? Are they really they great? They turn average food into amazing food? I have a very difficult time buying that.
Not the point. Removing trans-fats may indeed have no affect on taste and it doesn't matter if I think it would or does. The point is forcing business to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Kay
My 4th question: Why the extreme fear of governmental bans? Note how nobody said it was illegal to purchase or consume trans-fats. It's not a law for the citizens of NYC. It's a law for the businesses of the city. They are regulating business for the benefit of the people. This idea of liberty at risk is bizarre to me. Personal liberties are not an issue here. It's like me walking into a bookstore and throwing a fit because the porn mags are behind the counter and and have the covers blocked by cardboard. "But I have a right to see the cover and flip through it before I buy it!" And the employee says, "But what about the effect on children as they walk by?" and I say, "They can look away if they want to! Their parents should be watching them anyway... it's their responsibility!"
I have no extreme fear of governmental bans. Asking such a question assumes I am arguing from emotion or what I may personally believe about such topics. As a matter of fact, I hate cig smoke and am glad many municipalities have instituted non-smoking policies and I may beleive banning trans-fats will increase the public's health, but I don't think it's the gov'ts role to police everything. There are very few areas where gov't should flex its muscle. Regarding personal liberties, sure, the ACLU isn't going to be storming into NYC to sue for "eaters rights". I'm simply using the "slippery slope" idea. Again, another moot argument. The child can't make the decision for himself to not look at the magazine cover. Like you said, it's the parents responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Kay
Finally: Being forced to be healthier? This is a strange concept to me. They are banning a nutritionally worthless, health-endangering ingredient. Don't you want there to be an enforced law forcing you to ride a roller coaster that has passed safety regulations? Or do you argue that you have the right to ride an un-tested one? How about the other people sitting beside you? Hey, you can build your own and not have it checked and risk breaking your neck. But if there's one open to the public, shouldn't it be checked?
Yes, as strange as that sounds. Another "apples and oranges" argument that doesn't apply to the topic. The regulation of rollercoasters is comparable to health inspections at restaurants not the banning of an ingredient, no matter how nutritionally-worthless. The actual amount in which trans-fats are health-endangering is debatable or at the least would have to make up the majority of one's fat intake to have a significant effect.
(This is fun!)
__________________ Defeat is not defeat unless accepted as a reality-in your own mind. - Bruce Lee
Give a man a city devoid of transfats and he will eat healthy for a day. Teach a man to avoid transfats, and he will eat healthy for a lifetime. -- less than ancient, non-Chinese proverb
Actually, the smoking ban was not put in place for patrons of bars/restaurants but for the employees. It became a limiting factor of places for employments for waiters/waitresses, bartenders etc. who did not smoke nor want to be exposed to it.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
The thing is that when you remove trans fats most people just replace it with saturated fat which isn't that much better for the average person (pro-saturated fat nazis don't respond to that comment).
__________________ Mike Roussell
Nutrition Doctoral Student
Don't forget to listen to the latest episode of Max-Out Radio featuring Zach Even-Esh.
Ok, took a quick glance from work here: looks like nobody else thinks this is a good idea.
Ok then, we'll just let everyone do what they want, and see what happens.
I just hope that when we do that, we don't find ourselves in the middle of an obesity epidemic or something. Let's just quit while we're ahead! I mean, why even try when you know you can't be perfect?
I mean, we want people to listen and learn, and we have to reach 300 million people... but if we use a system large enough to do this (government, media) then it's no good because there's another "agenda". So let's write articles on the internet and hope everyone runs across them.
And we could start with trans-fats and work our way up, but since there's always something else bad out there, why bother? People will find a way to kill themselves, so let's not fix what's wrong.
Let the damn people figure it out on their own. They're so damn good at figuring out how to better their own lives. "Lending a helping hand is like chopping off one of theirs!" (good bumper sticker)
Ian, take a breath, man! I appreciated our "jousting" and I can respect your opinion on this issue. You seem to be sincerely concerned and I don't doubt your "agenda". (I realize the term is an epithet now-a-days but I wasn't using it in a negative way.) I'm concerned as well but I think the tone of your posts exhibit an "all-or-nothing" stance that most on this thread don't agree with, not the initiatives themselves.
Besides, maybe that's why my user name is Fat J and your's isn't!:p
Peace, bro.
__________________ Defeat is not defeat unless accepted as a reality-in your own mind. - Bruce Lee
Ian, take a breath, man! I appreciated our "jousting" and I can respect your opinion on this issue. You seem to be sincerely concerned and I don't doubt your "agenda". (I realize the term is an epithet now-a-days but I wasn't using it in a negative way.) I'm concerned as well but I think the tone of your posts exhibit an "all-or-nothing" stance that most on this thread don't agree with, not the initiatives themselves.
Besides, maybe that's why my user name is Fat J and your's isn't!:p
Peace, bro.
I get very behind my views on political issues. But don't worry, I'm not angry, just adamant.
I think it stems from years of hearing and battling the "don't tell me what to do" approach.
I don't believe most people will learn on their own. Not in this or many other issues. Look around you and you'll see the evidence.
So, when something like trans-fats or cigarettes shows itself to be strictly a negative, with no redeeming values (other than financial), then it boggles my mind when people want to fight to keep it, simply for the right of having an option to choose it. See, most people will choose it, and then we all pay the price.
If it really was a matter of picking and choosing what you like for each individual, then it would be one thing. However, if something negative is so prevalent that nobody can avoid it without going way out of their way (like cigarettes had gotten in the early 90's, and trans-fats in restaurants now) then it's no longer personal preference, but rather it becomes a battle to survive what society is bombarding us with.
I understand your concern over governmental interference. But there shouldn't be a black and a white here. Take each issue as it arises.
It's also saying to the public "you're not smart enough to take care of yourself, so we'll do it for you".
Have you looked at the American public? They can't take care of themselves.
Og.
__________________ 2009: No races, No times. Slow year. So, now you're 96 cals short. You're now in starvation mode. Doomed. - LostDog
Blog entry: November 1, 2009, Pancakes LiveSTRONG daily plate log
Guess it depends on how you define, "Take care of yourself."
Hell we should let tobacco companies target children as well, stupid government interference of capitalist society!
__________________ 2009: No races, No times. Slow year. So, now you're 96 cals short. You're now in starvation mode. Doomed. - LostDog
Blog entry: November 1, 2009, Pancakes LiveSTRONG daily plate log
Most of the products that used to be made with partially hydrogenated oils are now being made with soybean oil, as far as I can tell. That's not so great for you either, due to high Omega-6 and low Omega-3. I think this trans-fat ban will backfire, because now John Q. Clueless will think all of these "No Trans Fats!" junk foods are healthy.
Most of the products that used to be made with partially hydrogenated oils are now being made with soybean oil, as far as I can tell. That's not so great for you either, due to high Omega-6 and low Omega-3. I think this trans-fat ban will backfire, because now John Q. Clueless will think all of these "No Trans Fats!" junk foods are healthy.
I tend to agree. My local health food store is filled with fat people. Carts filled with all natural cookies and crackers.
Perhaps if we were to legislate ratios of sugars to the other ingredients? Deliciously salty snacks... Non-whole grains. Peanuts.
Most of the products that used to be made with partially hydrogenated oils are now being made with soybean oil, as far as I can tell. That's not so great for you either, due to high Omega-6 and low Omega-3. I think this trans-fat ban will backfire, because now John Q. Clueless will think all of these "No Trans Fats!" junk foods are healthy.
Yeah, just like the no fat thing. "Hey fat free I can eat as much as I want" (someone forgot to tell him about the sugar!)
__________________ Mike Roussell
Nutrition Doctoral Student
Don't forget to listen to the latest episode of Max-Out Radio featuring Zach Even-Esh.
NYC Bans Trans-Fats
(This is a fitness & nutrition board!)
)
Linear Mode
