Tightening the belt: Nassau bans trans fats

[KEmperor]

Looks like the suburbs are starting to follow New York City in it's nanny state rules with regard to food.  I expect Suffolk will follow suit within the year.  Now I have no problem with a voluntary switch, but note the part I have bolded.  This will most hurt the small business owners like the one quoted in this article.

(09/18/07) MINEOLA - Nassau County's Department of Health banned the use of trans fats in local eateries Tuesday.

Trans fats are most often found in fried and baked foods cooked in hydrogenated oil. Beginning in April 2008, restaurants, bakeries and other eateries that prepare food in Nassau County will not be allowed to use trans fats. Eateries that use trans fats in their ingredients will have an extra year to adhere to the ban in order to adjust their recipes.

"Trans fats increase the risk of heart disease," said Dr. Abby Greenberg, of the Department of Health.

Greenberg said trans fats were originally thought to be better for the body than saturated fats. Once used, however, she said trans fats proved far less healthy.

Karl Reisterer, owner of Reisterer's Bakery, said trans fats are in many of his baked goods.

"I'm looking at basically a 10 percent increase in prices that'll come just because of switching over to the trans fat-free," he said.

Fast-food chain McDonald's pledged to stop using trans fats years ago, but never made good on the promise. Dunkin' Donuts announced it would unveil a trans fat-free menu next month.

The Department of Health has not yet settled on penalties for eateries that don't adhere to the ban.

Edit:  Forgot to include the link to the article: http://www.news12.com/LI/topstories/article?id=200313

[© tweed]

strongly support.  props to our neighbors.

that 10% at the Job Blow bakery pales in comparison to how many lives this will save.

[Lief 🗽]

I strongly support banning trans fats.

[Eraserhead]

I'm sure Waltermitty will be thrilled.

To me this seems very nanny state.

[Lief 🗽]

Hardly. It's not like you can't make food without trans fats. This law isn't banning food, it's banning the introduction of unhealthy substances into food.

[KEmperor]

Hardly. It's not like you can't make food without trans fats. This law isn't banning food, it's banning the introduction of unhealthy substances into food.

I'm not exactly sure what you are responding to here.  I didn't see anyone suggest a ban of any foods.

[Eraserhead]

Hardly. It's not like you can't make food without trans fats. This law isn't banning food, it's banning the introduction of unhealthy substances into food.

Well some people like unhealthy substances in their food. I know I do.

I know ice cream and candy bars aren't the healthiest food choices around but that won't stop me from enjoying them when I want.

[KEmperor]

Hardly. It's not like you can't make food without trans fats. This law isn't banning food, it's banning the introduction of unhealthy substances into food.

Well some people like unhealthy substances in their food. I know I do.

I know ice cream and candy bars aren't the healthiest food choices around but that won't stop me from enjoying them when I want.

Well don't worry.  They won't ban them, they'll just ban using sugar as an ingredient since it's unhealthy.  All for the greater good.....

[© tweed]

Hardly. It's not like you can't make food without trans fats. This law isn't banning food, it's banning the introduction of unhealthy substances into food.

Well some people like unhealthy substances in their food. I know I do.

I know ice cream and candy bars aren't the healthiest food choices around but that won't stop me from enjoying them when I want.

you're not going to be able to tell the difference in products when trans fat is gone.  it's only there because it aids shelf life and saves people money.  of course, until it gives you a heart attack.

again, we aren't banning ice cream or french fries here.  we're just banning an unnecessary, poisonous ingredient which has only one purpose: convenience.

[KEmperor]

Hardly. It's not like you can't make food without trans fats. This law isn't banning food, it's banning the introduction of unhealthy substances into food.

Well some people like unhealthy substances in their food. I know I do.

I know ice cream and candy bars aren't the healthiest food choices around but that won't stop me from enjoying them when I want.

you're not going to be able to tell the difference in products when trans fat is gone.  it's only there because it aids shelf life and saves people money.  of course, until it gives you a heart attack.

again, we aren't banning ice cream or french fries here.  we're just banning an unnecessary, poisonous ingredient which has only one purpose: convenience.

Don't be so dramatic.  It's not poisonous, it's just unhealthy.  If it was poisonous, everyone who gets fries with their burger would be dropping dead.

[© tweed]

Hardly. It's not like you can't make food without trans fats. This law isn't banning food, it's banning the introduction of unhealthy substances into food.

Well some people like unhealthy substances in their food. I know I do.

I know ice cream and candy bars aren't the healthiest food choices around but that won't stop me from enjoying them when I want.

Well don't worry.  They won't ban them, they'll just ban using sugar as an ingredient since it's unhealthy.  All for the greater good.....

no comparison.  sugars are necessary and in normal volumes hurt you.  meanwhile, the consumption of ANY partially hydrogenated oils can be directly correlated to an increased risk in coronary heart disease, and there's some anecdotal evidence that it contributes to certain cancers, diabetes, etc.  bottom line with trans fat is that humans weren't meant to consume this stuff.

[© tweed]

Hardly. It's not like you can't make food without trans fats. This law isn't banning food, it's banning the introduction of unhealthy substances into food.

Well some people like unhealthy substances in their food. I know I do.

I know ice cream and candy bars aren't the healthiest food choices around but that won't stop me from enjoying them when I want.

you're not going to be able to tell the difference in products when trans fat is gone.  it's only there because it aids shelf life and saves people money.  of course, until it gives you a heart attack.

again, we aren't banning ice cream or french fries here.  we're just banning an unnecessary, poisonous ingredient which has only one purpose: convenience.

Don't be so dramatic.  It's not poisonous, it's just unhealthy.  If it was poisonous, everyone who gets fries with their burger would be dropping dead.

I stand by what I said.

Because of these facts and concerns, the NAS has concluded there is no safe level of trans fat consumption. There is no adequate level, recommended daily amount or tolerable upper limit for trans fats. This is because any incremental increase in trans fat intake increases the risk of coronary heart disease.[2]

no known health benefits whatsoever and a direct link to coronary heart disease.  poison.

[KEmperor]

Hardly. It's not like you can't make food without trans fats. This law isn't banning food, it's banning the introduction of unhealthy substances into food.

Well some people like unhealthy substances in their food. I know I do.

I know ice cream and candy bars aren't the healthiest food choices around but that won't stop me from enjoying them when I want.

you're not going to be able to tell the difference in products when trans fat is gone.  it's only there because it aids shelf life and saves people money.  of course, until it gives you a heart attack.

again, we aren't banning ice cream or french fries here.  we're just banning an unnecessary, poisonous ingredient which has only one purpose: convenience.

Don't be so dramatic.  It's not poisonous, it's just unhealthy.  If it was poisonous, everyone who gets fries with their burger would be dropping dead.

I stand by what I said.

Because of these facts and concerns, the NAS has concluded there is no safe level of trans fat consumption. There is no adequate level, recommended daily amount or tolerable upper limit for trans fats. This is because any incremental increase in trans fat intake increases the risk of coronary heart disease.[2]

no known health benefits whatsoever and a direct link to coronary heart disease.  poison.

I'm not arguing that it's healthy.  But you are using complete hyperbole here.  Consumption of trans fats does not equal death.  It increases the risk of heart disease.  So do a lot of things.

[© tweed]

Hardly. It's not like you can't make food without trans fats. This law isn't banning food, it's banning the introduction of unhealthy substances into food.

Well some people like unhealthy substances in their food. I know I do.

I know ice cream and candy bars aren't the healthiest food choices around but that won't stop me from enjoying them when I want.

you're not going to be able to tell the difference in products when trans fat is gone.  it's only there because it aids shelf life and saves people money.  of course, until it gives you a heart attack.

again, we aren't banning ice cream or french fries here.  we're just banning an unnecessary, poisonous ingredient which has only one purpose: convenience.

Don't be so dramatic.  It's not poisonous, it's just unhealthy.  If it was poisonous, everyone who gets fries with their burger would be dropping dead.

I stand by what I said.

Because of these facts and concerns, the NAS has concluded there is no safe level of trans fat consumption. There is no adequate level, recommended daily amount or tolerable upper limit for trans fats. This is because any incremental increase in trans fat intake increases the risk of coronary heart disease.[2]

no known health benefits whatsoever and a direct link to coronary heart disease.  poison.

I'm not arguing that it's healthy.  But you are using complete hyperbole here.  Consumption of trans fats does not equal death.  It increases the risk of heart disease.  So do a lot of things.

certainly not at this level.  it increases the risk of CHS at 15x the rate of saturated fat.   saturated fat increases your CHS risk when overconsumed, not just when you have any.

the bottom line with it is simply: it has NO health benefits and no reason for you to consume it (unlike things that are OK in moderation, such as sugars and saturated fats), isn't needed to make any particular type of food, and only exists for convenience.

[KEmperor]

Your whole argument is that:

A)  It has no health benefits and
B)  It is unhealthy to consume

So what?  I'm not disputing either of these points.  But consumption does not equal death here.  Cyanide is a poison, trans fats are just an unhealthy ingredient.  Do you really think the government should start banning things just because they are unhealthy for you?  That's a very slippery slope.

[© tweed]

there's no downside to banning it here.  unlike cigarettes, for example, there won't be a massive trans fat black market if and when it is done away with.  it is unnecessary and not just 'unhealthy' - save that word for something like ice cream.  it is the closest thing we have to poison that's readily available to consume in our everyday lives.

[KEmperor]

there's no downside to banning it here.  unlike cigarettes, for example, there won't be a massive trans fat black market if and when it is done away with.  it is unnecessary and not just 'unhealthy' - save that word for something like ice cream.  it is the closest thing we have to poison that's readily available to consume in our everyday lives.

But there is a downside to banning it.  Actually there are two.  The first is practical:  like I noted in the article, this increases costs for restaurants, bakeries, etc. which will then be passed on to the consumer.  The second is that it sets a bad precedent.  If you can ban certain ingredients from food simply because they are unhealthy(and yes, I'm going to continue to use the word, since poison is sheer hyperbole here), where does it end?  At this rate, it's only a matter of time before they tell you when to eat, and how much.

[John Dibble]

I have to agree with KEmperor on all counts. I don't support a ban for the reasons he stated, and as much as I dislike trans fats for being very unhealthy (with few exceptions I avoid them like the plague, and the exceptions are consumed very rarely) they can't be called poison with any degree of intellectual honesty.

[© tweed]

there's no downside to banning it here.  unlike cigarettes, for example, there won't be a massive trans fat black market if and when it is done away with.  it is unnecessary and not just 'unhealthy' - save that word for something like ice cream.  it is the closest thing we have to poison that's readily available to consume in our everyday lives.

But there is a downside to banning it.  Actually there are two.  The first is practical:  like I noted in the article, this increases costs for restaurants, bakeries, etc. which will then be passed on to the consumer.  The second is that it sets a bad precedent.  If you can ban certain ingredients from food simply because they are unhealthy(and yes, I'm going to continue to use the word, since poison is sheer hyperbole here), where does it end?  At this rate, it's only a matter of time before they tell you when to eat, and how much.

I've stated the case here.  these's nothing else I can add.  obviously you're going to hold steadfast to the government-should-do-nothing religion here, and that's cool.  but governments all around the the FDA are learning their lessons re: trans fats and are saving lives in the process.

oh, and there's one thing I do want to address

You must be logged in to read this quote.

it's also saving people money because they don't have their health insurance premiums going up when McAddicts eat too many french fries.

[KEmperor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

it's also saving people money because they don't have their health insurance premiums going up when McAddicts eat too many french fries.

I see.  So you believe the next step should be banning french fries?  What else do you think the government should do away with?  All in the interest of public health, of course.

[Lief 🗽]

Slippery slope fallacy. Trans fats are not food. French fries are food. French fries in moderation aren't bad for you. Trans fats are bad for you, no matter how much you moderate yourself.

[KEmperor]

Slippery slope fallacy. Trans fats are not food. French fries are food. French fries in moderation aren't bad for you. Trans fats are bad for you, no matter how much you moderate yourself.

I didn't bring french fries up as something that should be regulated, he did.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No Walter won't be thrilled as this just further proves how stupid his fast food tax idea is.

[© tweed]

I see.  So you believe the next step should be banning french fries?  What else do you think the government should do away with?  All in the interest of public health, of course.

that's not what I said.  you can make french fries just fine without the help of trans fat.  that's my point.

[© tweed]

they can't be called poison with any degree of intellectual honesty.

I just called them 'poison' and justified my claim.  I really don't feel any degree of dishonesty went into my comment either.  perhaps I just know too much about the topic.