NY wants to ban certain food ingredients...

Donkey® · 09-27-2006, 11:16 PM

NYC mulls ban on trans fats in eateries - Yahoo! News

I am a little torn on this one. Americans OBVIOUSLY aren't going to stop killing themselves with food...but that's their right. Isn't it? I guess I am for it in the end.

Originally Posted by article

By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 27, 2:32 AM ET

NEW YORK - Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.

The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.

Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.

Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.

"Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.

He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.

The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts.

Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy.

"It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient," Frieden said. "No one will miss it when it's gone."

A similar ban on trans fats in restaurant food has been proposed in Chicago and is still under consideration, although it has been ridiculed by some as unnecessary government meddling.

The latest version of the Chicago plan would only apply to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million, a provision aimed exclusively at fast-food giants.

A few companies have moved to eliminate trans fats on their own.

Wendy's announced in August that it had switched to a new cooking oil that contains no trans fatty acids. Crisco now sells a shortening that contains zero trans fats. Frito-Lay removed trans fats from its Doritos and Cheetos. Kraft's took trans fats out of Oreos.

McDonald's began using a trans fat-free cooking oil in Denmark after that country banned artificial trans fats in processed food, but it has yet to do so in the United States.

Walt Riker, vice president of corporate communications at McDonald's, said in a statement Tuesday that the company would review New York's proposal.

"McDonald's knows this is an important issue, which is why we continue to test in earnest to find ways to further reduce (trans fatty acid) levels," he said.

New York's health department had asked restaurants to impose a voluntary ban last year but found use of trans fats unchanged in recent surveys.

Under the New York proposal, restaurants would need to get artificial trans fats out of cooking oils, margarine and shortening by July 1, 2007, and all other foodstuffs by July 1, 2008. It would not affect grocery stores. It also would not apply to naturally occurring trans fats, which are found in some meats and dairy.

The Board of Health has yet to approve the proposal and will not do so until at least December, Frieden said.

The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration began requiring food labels to list trans fats in January.

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives.

"Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year," he said. "The federal government should have done this long ago."

6SpeedTA95 · 09-27-2006, 11:18 PM

I think people using government healthcare should have to do this, save me some tax dollars...but if you have insurance and/or are paying for healthcare yourself you should be able to eat yourself to death...

JaJae · 09-27-2006, 11:20 PM

Geez talk about a slippery slope.

I agree with the guy quoted. Labels is one thing. Banning is another.

Donkey® · 09-27-2006, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Geez talk about a slippery slope.

I agree with the guy quoted. Labels is one thing. Banning is another.

The problem with labels is that consumers aren't looking at the containers of that crap the restraunt is serving them.

Diamond Cross · 09-27-2006, 11:51 PM

So they've got to be protected from themselves, right??

While we're at it, why not ban obesity?

Heart disease is on the top ten list of causes of death, and obesity is one of the highest causes of heart diseases along with smoking.

And since people are generally too stupid to care for themselves we've got to save them from themselves right?

The information is out there to look up what causes obesity. People don't have to be fat anyway. It's ugly and disgusting and scares europeans for fear of being flattened to death from being sit on...

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The problem with labels is that consumers aren't looking at the containers of that crap the restraunt is serving them.

What I meant was make it available on request.. like it is.

IminWonderland · 09-28-2006, 12:27 AM

I probably eat alot of crap food.

And I would prefer my crap food to not have shit in it.

If this trans fat isn't like, you know, putting flour in food...

I mean, isn't it like a kind of fat that is cheaper to buy, and like, worse for you? I would like to buy food in a restraunt, and just not have them put it in there at all.

I don't know about legistlation for this...but I'd prefer they not add crap to my crap food.

kinggovernor · 09-28-2006, 01:51 AM

I think restaurants should "label" their food very similarly to how food is labeled in supermarkets. But out right banning is bullshit

smokie700 · 09-28-2006, 08:54 AM

This reminds me of the whole smoking debate. All of the people that supported the smoking ban are now seeing how far allowing the government to ban legal substances will go. I am curious to hear the outrage a ban would have and then I will smoke my cigarette on the street and say told ya so.

ballz2wallz · 09-28-2006, 08:56 AM

This is ridiculous. People can't even make french fries or sell them anymore. Who is the government to tell me I can't buy french fries?

ballz2wallz · 09-28-2006, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by smokie700

This reminds me of the whole smoking debate. All of the people that supported the smoking ban are now seeing how far allowing the government to ban legal substances will go. I am curious to hear the outrage a ban would have and then I will smoke my cigarette on the street and say told ya so.

I'll join you.

Stylerod · 09-28-2006, 09:48 AM

Amazing how many people here are for their government telling them what they can eat. Some of these are the same people who think the government should make narcotics legal

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Amazing how many people here are for their government telling them what they can eat. Some of these are the same people who think the government should make narcotics legal

A lot of people who want drugs legalized feel that way because they're stoners. There view on that issue goes against their typical political beliefs.

Scrum · 09-28-2006, 09:57 AM

This is a horrible fucking idea just like the smoking ban.

I know I will never vote for someone who supports this.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-28-2006, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

This is a horrible fucking idea just like the smoking ban.

I know I will never vote for someone who supports this.

The smoking ban is COMPLETELY different.

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The smoking ban is COMPLETELY different.

I agree. The smoking ban had to do with other people's health. If I don't want to eat a fucking donut, I won't order it and nobody is forcing it down my throat.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-28-2006, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I agree. The smoking ban had to do with other people's health. If I don't want to eat a fucking donut, I won't order it and nobody is forcing it down my throat.

Thats exactly it. If you wanna smoke fine, but keep that nasty shit away from me.

Stylerod · 09-28-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I agree. The smoking ban had to do with other people's health. If I don't want to eat a fucking donut, I won't order it and nobody is forcing it down my throat.

That is where I agree with Scrum. The smoking ban is horrible. If I own a restaurant or bar I want to allow my patrons to smoke it should be my right. It's a private place, if non-smokers don't like it, they can leave. And I don't smoke, have never smoked don't even go to the comedy club in town because when I leave I smell like an ashtray.

But my business should be my business.

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

That is where I agree with Scrum. The smoking ban is horrible. If I own a restaurant or bar I want to allow my patrons to smoke it should be my right. It's a private place, if non-smokers don't like it, they can leave. And I don't smoke, have never smoked don't even go to the comedy club in town because when I leave I smell like an ashtray.

But my business should be my business.

And that's a perfectly normal view, I was agreeing with 6Speed that the smoking ban is different from this and I explained why.

Scrum · 09-28-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

And that's a perfectly normal view, I was agreeing with 6Speed that the smoking ban is different from this and I explained why.

No it isn't. It's telling people what they are and aren't allowed to do in their buisness. It's BS. Last time I checked, trans fat and tobacco were still legal substances in this country. These are selective laws.