http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/us/26fats.html?em&ex=1217131200&en=177d2d602bc884b7&ei=5087%0A

Quote :

"California became the first state in the nation to place a ban on trans fats in restaurants and retail baked goods Friday when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill to phase out their use over the next few years. "

I personally think this is a good move, but if it ends up not working, the next governor/legislature shouldn't hesitate to repeal it.

But, the main reasons businesses use transfat is because it's cheaper on many fronts, despite being bad for your health. I think this overly-aggressive drive for cheaper but often unhealthier food ingredients is partially responsible for 1/4 Americans being obese. It is going to be interesting seeing what effects this might have in California.

7/25/2008 5:29:07 PM

Good. I hope high fructose corn syrup is next.

7/25/2008 5:56:49 PM

Silliness, they should ban High Fructose Corn Syrup instead. It probably causes far more damage to peoples health than transfats.

Or maybe, they should let people make their own decisions on what to eat. nah, that would never work.

7/25/2008 5:58:15 PM

Do you think they should allow the sale of foods laced with cyanide? I hear it tastes like cinnamon.

7/25/2008 6:02:14 PM

^ Like almonds actually.

7/25/2008 6:13:13 PM

Quote :

"Or maybe, they should let people make their own decisions on what to eat. nah, that would never work. "

You're right, it wouldn't:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1748843320080717

Quote :

" More than a quarter of all Americans are now obese, the latest U.S. government figures show. "

I really hate that high fructose corn syrup is in everything we eat, and for no good reason other than the corn lobby being in good with the government.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724064824.htm

Quote :

"Current health guidelines suggest that limiting processed carbohydrates, many of which contain high-fructose corn syrup, may help prevent weight gain, and the new data on fructose clearly support this recommendation. "Our study shows for the first time the surprising speed with which humans make body fat from fructose," Dr. Parks said. Fructose, glucose and sucrose, which is a mixture of fructose and glucose, are all forms of sugar but are metabolized differently."

They don't need to necessarily ban fructose, but IIRC, there are supposedly ridiculous tariffs on sugar importing that cause sugar to just be more expensive to use.


[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 6:58 PM. Reason : ]

7/25/2008 6:54:54 PM

PURE SUGAR CANE SODA FTMFW

7/25/2008 7:00:52 PM

Quote :

"I really hate that high fructose corn syrup is in everything we eat, and for no good reason other than the corn lobby being in good with the government."

And yet you seem to think more government intervention is the key.

7/25/2008 7:10:45 PM

We have huge tariffs on Brazilian can sugar and ethanol. Both of which are better than what we have. Ethanol is cleaner and cheaper. The only biofuel that has proven to be cost effective and clean. So we end up with the shit we have now. The industry thats in debt despite massive subsidies, and oh yeah, food prices are up because of it.

Not to mentioned, I cant get that good sugar in my food.

Also, I think this is all fucking bullshit. People know that when they suck down mcdonalds its bad for them. Its not a question of information. Its just what we choose to do. Cigarettes are bad. Alcohol is bad. Sat fat is bad. Simple carbs arent really good. Etc. I dont think you should be putting limits on these things unless they have harmful effects on those around you.

7/25/2008 7:12:19 PM

^^
O RLY? You clearly did not read my post.

Transfat is used because of a drive for profit. Corn syrup is used because of the same drive, but is directly propped up by gov. intervention. I'm merely wanting to remove the gov. intervention, in the hopes companies do the right thing and stop using as much corn syrup.

Quote :

" People know that when they suck down mcdonalds its bad for them. Its not a question of information. Its just what we choose to do. "

You're on the right track, but it's a little more complicated than this. People choose McDonald's because it's everywhere and it's cheap. And the reason its everywhere is that because money/power scales exponentially with money. If it wasn't for this inherent property of our economic system, McDonalds wouldn't be able to impose their presence everywhere. Combine this with the fact that people will choose familiarity and comfort over pure rationality (a flawed premise that many Economic ideas are based on), then you can see people's ability to choose is impaired because of the system itself, which is what these regulations are designed to correct for.

And in any case, it is an issue of information, in a way. NY requires calories to be printed in the same size as the price on menus of food items, and there was an article recently about how this has already caused consumers to change their behavior. The gov. didn't have to restrict or ban anything, just mandate more clear information, and the other pieces would fall in to place.

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 7:26 PM. Reason : ]

7/25/2008 7:19:57 PM

^ YA RLY

Quote :

"I personally think this is a good move"

-moron

7/25/2008 7:59:45 PM

^ because government intervention is always bad right? Do you always see the world as black and white?

7/25/2008 8:05:02 PM

Wonder if they could get a STEROID ban passed in California

7/25/2008 8:27:28 PM

hopefully we can get a ban on pointy objects as well


[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 9:08 PM. Reason : think of the children]

7/25/2008 9:07:16 PM

^^^ Not all, just most of it.

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM. Reason : asdfadsfa]

7/25/2008 9:07:22 PM

Now this is a half-way decent idea from California.

There's really no reason to have trans fats in food.

7/25/2008 9:30:55 PM

I would be opposed to this in NC...

But not in California. They chose to live in that liberal cesspool. Let them do the experiment and it'll have positive benefits for us if anything.

7/25/2008 9:43:26 PM

^ my main motivation is reducing the amount of fat people. It's starting to get ridiculous.

7/25/2008 9:49:34 PM

If you think the gov't is being pushy and judgemental about your health now...just wait until it has control of health-care.

"I'm sorry Mr. Citizen but your federal exercise records show that you haven't been doing your assigned mandated number of push-ups each day. No heart surgery for you. NEXT!"

7/25/2008 10:44:21 PM

^^ People might laugh at this, but it really is true that people are in general more attractive in California than here.

NC has a serious shortage of the resource of attractive people. What's amazing is that almost our entire complex of appeal and attractiveness is becoming like 95% just a matter of how fat people are. It's gotten so horrendously out of hand that almost all physically healthy people look attractive to us, as we live in a sea of people who's bodies look like what a cartoon character should and are completely unsustainable. Not only that, but IMO, it makes all women bitches too. Fat chicks are ostracized, but fat men feel like there's nothing wrong with themselves, consequence is that remaining skinny chicks are badgered.

On a federal level, yeah intervention is crap, but on a simple interpersonal level, we need to get on this. It is SPREADING LIKE THE PLAGUE.

7/26/2008 12:50:44 AM

^ Then you've never been to UNC. Look, fuck the Tarholes--but their chicks are hot and plentiful. I have witnessed this.

PS: And, yes, I realize that many of the girls at UNC are not from North Carolina, but some of them are mating and even reproducing (GASP!) with guys from North Carolina. In addition, there are a lot of good-looking girls at State, too--just not as many.

7/26/2008 5:05:51 AM

Quote :

"It is going to be interesting seeing what effects this might have in California."

Interesting for you. I actually live there. I can tell you what effects it'll have without too much trouble: everything will cost more, starting a business here will be even more of a pain in the ass, the only people who benefit will be smug, white, nouveau-rich idiots who can pat themselves on the back for "doing something" for the poor. As usual the costs/benefits analysis of California legislation has been performed with the ideological blinders on.

Arguably this is not the worst food-policy decision California has made in recent years. Up there: banning foie gras (unforgivable) and raw milk (idiotic).

As to those calling for an equally idiotic and unforgivable corn syrup ban: no worries, Godmayor Newsom is on that. Anyone who has visited San Francisco knows for sure that its worst problem, far ahead of crime and rampant homelessness, is the wanton sale and consumption of corn syrup. After the demon of plastic bags, surely we must slay this one, too.

And on the matter of experimentation -- California is not leading here. New York City banned trans fat in 2006. McDonald's has been trans-fat free for months. Where I suspect the state will lead is in the expansive and wasteful inefficiency of its regulatory bureaucracy that will monitor the trans fat content of foods in every restaurant in the (massive) state, from Burger King to mom'n'pop Chinese.

[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 5:30 AM. Reason : foo]

7/26/2008 5:29:10 AM

^ Hear, hear! And. . .

Quote :

". . . Godmayor Newsom. . . . "

LOL. FYI: He's the sanctuary city guy--run his ass out on a rail!

'Sanctuary city' no haven for San Francisco family's grief

Quote :

"SAN FRANCISCO -- -- Frank Kennedy is a third-generation San Franciscan, the son and grandson of local police officers and the proud owner of a Bay Area business. And this week he became Exhibit A for all he believes ails his hometown. On Wednesday, a 21-year-old undocumented Salvadoran immigrant pleaded not guilty to murdering Kennedy's brother-in-law and two nephews in a case that has galvanized sentiment nationwide against this 'sanctuary city' and its ambitious mayor."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-sanctuary26-2008jul26,0,3980668.story

7/26/2008 6:26:12 AM

Anyways, back to the topic...

Quote :

"People might laugh at this, but it really is true that people are in general more attractive in California than here."

I agree, but it probably has more to do with what Californians do rather than what they eat.

2001 Prevalence of Recommended Physical Activity


Where recommended physical activity is "defined as at least 5 days a week for 30 minutes a day of moderate intensity activity or at least 3 days a week for 20 minutes a day of vigorous intensity activity."

Our time and money would probably be better spent encouraging people to exercise so we can keep this trend going:

2007 Prevalence of Recommended Physical Activity


Notice that North Carolina failed to improve over the 6 years.

As for high fructose corn syrup...as some others have hinted at, this is probably best solved with less government intervention, i.e. remove sugar tariffs and lower the artificially high price of sugar in the US.

[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 10:13 AM. Reason : ]

7/26/2008 10:07:33 AM

Quote :

"Combine this with the fact that people will choose familiarity and comfort over pure rationality (a flawed premise that many Economic ideas are based on), then you can see people's ability to choose is impaired because of the system itself, which is what these regulations are designed to correct for."

Sounds like most people's ability to choose is impaired because they are irrational, not because of the system.

7/26/2008 10:32:00 AM

^^ I completely agree, but I must also add that diet and activity are not disconnected. I don't have any scientific studies to support this, but at least for myself, when I'm very physically active my diet completely changes. When you are actually getting out and being active, your tastes will literally change. Fruits start looking more appealing, and fattening crap tends to get cut out.

Systematically, I don't know which front is the best to attack first. For an individual at least, they should try to change both at the same time (methinks). There's a good chance that if everyone started walking 20 minutes a day, McDonald's would see it in their bottom line. Still, eating out has a large social element to it, so maybe they would just sell more salads...

7/26/2008 10:46:26 AM

Quote :

"Sounds like most people's ability to choose is impaired because they are irrational, not because of the system. "

Yes, people are irrational by their nature, and the system exploits this.

Quote :

"Notice that North Carolina failed to improve over the 6 years. "

Over the same time period, the country as a whole still got fatter. If your charts are accurate, you're saying that we got fatter, while exercising more at the same time?

[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 12:49 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2008 12:48:08 PM

Quote :

"Interesting for you. I actually live there. I can tell you what effects it'll have without too much trouble: everything will cost more, starting a business here will be even more of a pain in the ass, the only people who benefit will be smug, white, nouveau-rich idiots who can pat themselves on the back for "doing something" for the poor."

Well, them and anyone who formerly consumed the unhealthful fats in question. Their deleterious effects have been well-documented for a while now. It's not a liberal myth. It's not a conspiracy. As nobody particularly desires trans fat, this isn't like banning alcohol. Trans fat intake should simply decrease, improving public health.

7/26/2008 1:33:44 PM

^

I never said it was a conspiracy, just a bad policy decision. It's not fair or honest to reduce the question of banning trans fat to a simplistic discussion of whether the fats are bad or not.

The question is whether the stated benefits of doing so -- improved 'public health' -- outweigh the costs. That's the starting point for a reasonable discussion of a ban.

In reality there isn't a magical "turn off trans fat" switch:

Quote :

"“The only effect it is going to have on the consumer is that we are going to have to raise our prices,” said Tina Pantazis, the manager of Dino’s Burgers, which operates two hamburger outlets — one in Los Angeles, the other in Azusa. Ms. Pantazis said the price of those restaurants’ French fries, which now cost $1.75 an order, would most likely be bumped up to at least $2.75."

Is everyone 'healthier' when food costs get bumped up? Definitely the smug urban yuppies are. They can afford as much food as they like. What about the poorer individuals among us?

Also I am still simply dubious that every restaurant can have every recipe on its menu checked for trans fat. That just sounds crazy -- expensive, easy to cheat, etc. What is the state of California going to do? Send "recipe testers" to every little hole-in-the-wall eatery and have them prepare everything on the menu? Or will be it be done by the 'honor system' of publishing a list of ingredients? If so I suspect the honest brokers will be put out of business for raising their prices while the dishonest ones skate along still using trans fat until they are 'audited' or whatever. There's a pretty solid precedent for this situation already in L.A. and the bacon dog fiasco:

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/392.html

And finally, on the subject of smugness -- did it ever occur to you that if something appeals to one's taste, they should be allowed to eat it? It's fat, not arsenic.

7/26/2008 2:35:53 PM

^ the use of transfat has nothing to do with taste.

And I don't see how the argument "some people will cheat so it's not worth it" is valid. And if restaurant A raises prices, and restaurant B does not, people will just go to restaurant B. $2.75 for fries is ridiculous.

Really the only question is "will this make a difference" and it may not at all. But at the least, it can't really hurt anyone.

7/26/2008 2:49:22 PM

^

Bullshit.

Quote :

"The Dino’s in Los Angeles has already begun using new oils, she said, adding that she could taste the difference but that there had been no complaints from customers."

(from the article)

McDonald's took a long time to expunge trans fat from their french fries because

Quote :

"McDonald’s has been reluctant to risk changing the taste of its iconic french fries. It pledged in September 2002 to switch to a new oil that would halve the level of harmful trans fatty acid in its fries. But it has delayed those plans, citing product quality and customer satisfaction as priorities while continuing testing."

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11241228/)

And now that they finally have,

Quote :

"Addressing long-held concerns that changing the oil could jeopardize the popular taste of its fries, he said: “We’re very confident in our test and taste results. ... We’re very confident in what we’re hearing back from our customers.”"

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16873869/)

As to price -- restaurant A isn't raising prices for the fun of it. I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that the hamburger business in L.A. is cut-throat competitive. See, businesses need to do this thing, it's called making a profit on what they sell ...

Also there's a big difference between "some people will cheat" and a ban that is wholly impossible to implement in a way that is reasonable, cost-effective, and fair. Why not try answering my question? How are they going to enforce this mandate?

7/26/2008 2:59:11 PM

^ A "change" of taste doesn't mean better/worse taste. Also, I was referring to the original reason transfat started to get used in the first place, it wasn't picked because of its taste qualities. You can make the same arguments about corn syrup, people may be use to the taste now and might find actual sugar to taste "worse" but that doesn't mean the corn syrup is still used because it tastes better.

And secondly, the price of non-trans-fat might be higher in the beginning, but it should quickly drop due to economies of scale that have made transfat cheaper since everyone else is using it. That's actually the second concern though is that someone might come out with something as bad or worse than transfat, that's legally not the same thing, but still allowable to be used, similar to what's happened with solder and the RoHS mandates in europe.

7/26/2008 3:03:09 PM

^

Well, as I said -- it's fat, not arsenic. I am not expressing my personal preference for whether trans fat tastes better. What I said was -- if someone likes its taste, why shouldn't they be allowed to eat it? I can't think of a good reason.

I don't buy the public health arguments for banning trans fat across the board. Why not just simple disclosure on menus and then people can make a choice? That seems easier.

As to economy of scale reducing price -- well, maybe. I don't see any logical reason people should have to pay more now or in whatever interim until prices equalize, just because the 'food police' in Sacramento want to push their preferences on everyone.

7/26/2008 3:16:34 PM

No, it isn't arsenic, but it IS, effectively, poisonous.

Quote :

"The primary health risk identified for trans fat consumption is an elevated risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).[32] A comprehensive review of studies of trans fats was published in 2006 in the New England Journal of Medicine reports a strong and reliable connection between trans fat consumption and CHD, concluding that "On a per-calorie basis, trans fats appear to increase the risk of CHD more than any other macronutrient, conferring a substantially increased risk at low levels of consumption (1 to 3 percent of total energy intake)".[4] This study estimates that between 30,000 and 100,000 cardiac deaths per year in the United States are attributable to the consumption of trans fats. [33] The major evidence for the effect of trans fat on CHD comes from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) — a cohort study that has been following 120,000 female nurses since its inception in 1976. In this study, Hu and colleagues analyzed data from 900 coronary events from the NHS population during 14 years of followup. He determined that a nurse's CHD risk roughly doubled (relative risk of 1.94, CI: 1.43 to 2.61) for each 2% increase in trans fat calories consumed (instead of carbohydrate calories). By contrast, it takes more than a 15% increase in saturated fat calories (instead of carbohydrate calories) to produce a similar increase in risk. Eating non-trans unsaturated fats instead of carbohydrates reduces the risk of CHD rather than increasing it.[34][clarify] Hu also reports on the benefits of reducing trans fat consumption. Replacing 2% of food energy from trans fat with non-trans unsaturated fats more than halves the risk of CHD (53%). By comparison, replacing a larger 5% of food energy from saturated fat with non-trans unsaturated fats reduces the risk of CHD by 43%.[34]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Health_risks

There are SERIOUS health risks attributable to the consumption of relatively small amounts of trans fats in a person's diet.

Furthermore, since the FDA required trans fat to be listed on product nutritional information, many companies have simply changed the serving size so that there is less than half of a gram of trans fats per serving. The result? A whole shitload of products in the supermarket containing trans fats yet state, quite legally, "Og trans fat!!!" on the package.

7/26/2008 3:51:57 PM

Moron--- your idea of economic rational is clearly wrong. Rational, in an economic sense, does not mean that there is perfect information and people make the best choice

7/26/2008 3:54:59 PM

^^

Foods that cause (are correlated to!) coronary heart disease are "poisonous" now? You have an odd concept of the word "effectively." By your logic salt is poisonous.

Of course "excessive" salt intake is also correlated to various risk factors in one's life. Why not regulate that? Oh, wait -- mother government is looking at that too. Soon all our food will be bland "for our own good."

We can all see where this is going. Homogeneous, over-regulated food service. I used to complain that restaurants are over-reliant on Sysco and other providers. Now I see it as a simple matter of compliance (in the Sarb-ox sense, as applied to ingredients). That's just sad.

People have a right to know they are consuming trans fat and a responsibility to read the label thoroughly. That's it. There's no sense in this ban other than to regulate everybody to death.

7/26/2008 4:56:11 PM

Or you might say... to regulate everybody to life

7/26/2008 4:57:08 PM

^

One World, One Dream

7/26/2008 5:00:22 PM

Quote :

"Foods that cause (are correlated to!) coronary heart disease are "poisonous" now? You have an odd concept of the word "effectively." By your logic salt is poisonous."

Salt, like fat, is a necessary ingredient in any person's diet. If they somehow make a new kind of processed salt, however, that's cheaper to produce but was 10 times as harmful to a person's health, then yes, I would call that poisonous.

We're not talking about huge amounts of consumption, here. We're talking about very small amounts of trans fat in people's diets leading to very large increases in their risk for heart disease.

7/26/2008 5:06:29 PM

That's the dark nature of capitalism!

7/26/2008 5:08:42 PM

^^

OK, I get that, I can read. I still don't see any argument about "if someone wants to consume trans fat, why shouldn't they be allowed to" -- as long as they know it's there.

As for salt -- the reality is that it's generally added in "excess" quantities for processed and prepared food so the effect is analogous. I don't see any reason to be so literal in comparisons, except that this is TWW and literal thinking rules the day here.

[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 5:10 PM. Reason : foo]

7/26/2008 5:09:53 PM

Are people allowed to eat cyanide if they want to?

Serious question I don't know if there is a law about this

7/26/2008 5:22:38 PM

Quote :

"Maura Gillison, MD, a researcher and professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, was among the first to study the link between the growth of head and neck cancers among younger nonsmokers and certain types of the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV). It's the same virus that causes the majority of cervical cancers and warts. The risks are scary because the virus is really common, even in teenagers. Twenty million people in the United States have some form of HPV, and over six million more get it every year. It can be transmitted through oral sex, and both men and women can be infected. Of the more than 35,000 people who will be diagnosed with oral cancer this year, 25 percent of us will connect our diagnosis to HPV infection. As my treatment continues, I'm struck by how nobody seems to know about any of this."

http://tinyurl.com/5nffyf

Are some of you as concerned about this health crisis? It's a serious question.

Are you willing to ban oral sex? Are you prepared to support enforcement of that ban? Having more than five oral sex partners boosts the risk of HPV-linked oral cancer by 340%--one type of HPV raises the risk of oral cancer by 3400%!

We need "government intervention," right? The "main motivation is reducing the amount of [oral sex]. It's starting to get ridiculous," right? "There are SERIOUS health risks attributable to [oral sex]," right?

7/26/2008 5:31:14 PM

^ I'm surprised you typed all that out, and you still didn't realize how stupid it was.

7/26/2008 5:46:27 PM

^^^

Who cares?

^

It's a valid point. Freedom ain't always safe. People can be responsible consumers of trans fat if they so choose just as they can be responsible about oral sex.

7/26/2008 5:57:26 PM

^^

Quote :

"Are some of you as concerned about this health crisis? It's a serious question."

Since you responded with flap-jawed idiocy, I guess you've got nothing, huh?

^ Indeed. But the fascists here get really mad when I dare question and ultimately upset their weltanschauung.

[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .]

7/26/2008 5:58:06 PM

Quote :

"It's a valid point. Freedom ain't always safe. People can be responsible consumers of trans fat if they so choose just as they can be responsible about oral sex. "

Why is it "who cares" when someone asks about cyanide, but for a dumb analogy that eating=sucking dick, it's a "valid point?"

It's not a valid point, it's completely retarded. Gov. regulations are designed to keep businesses from putting profit about the health of society (which is why transfat was used in the first place), which is what the aim of this regulation is.

HPV has no such history of businesses, gov., or individuals advocating or encouraging its spread, and thus no single entity to discourage from spreading it. And the gov. has already attempted to intervene the HPV issue by giving free vaccinations to students to prevent the disease (one type of it). And on top of that, you definitively will get sick by eating too much transfat, where as it's merely a statistical chance (and easily preventable with condoms) you'll get sick by being a whore. Not to mention sodomy is illegal in many places already, anyway.

7/26/2008 6:24:06 PM

^ As if oral sex needed "advocating or encouraging," actualmoron.

7/26/2008 6:28:45 PM

^ yeah, that's my point. we wouldn't have been using transfat if someone wasn't pushing it. It's one thing to try and stop people from doing things they do naturally, but another to try and stop someone from using something UNnatural for the simple purpose of making more profit.

7/26/2008 6:38:11 PM

Quote :

"Why is it "who cares" when someone asks about cyanide, but for a dumb analogy that eating=sucking dick, it's a "valid point?" "

Because his point was stupid and hooksaw's point was pretty reasonable?

Quote :

"Gov. regulations are designed to keep businesses from putting profit about the health of society (which is why transfat was used in the first place), which is what the aim of this regulation is."

Did you flunk Poli Sci 101? Government regulations have long covered all the bases of society. For analogous situations see: the War On Drugs.

Quote :

"And on top of that, you definitively will get sick by eating too much transfat, where as it's merely a statistical chance (and easily preventable with condoms) you'll get sick by being a whore. Not to mention sodomy is illegal in many places already, anyway."

Sodomy is legal everywhere because of Lawrence v. Texas. Please fast-forward your political knowledge from 1999.

Comparing eating trans fat to sleeping with a whore? Beyond crazy. HPV is passed around amongst very normal people. And trans fat consumption does NOT, and I repeat, DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE SICK DEFINITIVELY. The report itself says that eating it increases the RISK of CHD.

What part of the term RISK is hard to understand? RISK, PROBABILITY -- none of these things are guarantees.

Yeesh.

7/26/2008 6:48:03 PM