Say No to trans-fat

I've read that in NY, people are voting to get rid of this fat that clogs up arteries... just wanted to say it's about time.

What do you guys think of this? A smart decision? Or it won't make a difference because people who eat loads of fast food will still get fat and have heart disease anyways?

They're voting to get rid of it? Well good luck with that. The irony is that some foods in hospital cafeterias contain more trans-fat than some fast foods. I don't think it'll be gone. Plus what's so hard about going to buy something without transfat? Nowadays a lot of foods have labels and stuff that say "No Trans-fat!" In some foods trans fat occurs naturally, so the best thing to do is to avoid it yourself.

In some foods trans fat occurs naturally

That's not true. Trans fat is entirely a man-made creation in labs: cheap and filling which leads to profits. The only natural fats are polyunsaturated, saturated and unsaturated fats.

I'm in favor of banning trans fat. It does nothing useful, and it's really bad for the body since trans fat is unrecognizable in the system and takes much longer to digest. You don't shove something new into the body after millions of years of evolution.

KFC is experimenting with not using trans-fat in their products. They are also going to a more healthy side.

That brings up the point, when is fried chicken ever healthy.

It's healthy when it's big mamma's down south fryyyyyy chicken...mmm mmmm sippay tay!

But seriously..it should be banned. Other countries run to food when they get it..americans run from food cause we're the fatest mother fuckers on the planet.

Well, there's been no valid study to show high trans-fat levels lead to heart disease or really any adverse conditions as the only study didn't account for anything at all (including age, physical activity, smoking, etc.) although it is standard operating procedure that too much of anything is bad for you.

Slippery Slope Warning:

This is amazingly questionable when we start letting the state decide what's good for us. Do we want the state to have the authority to tell us what to eat? When to sleep? When or how we can play basketball? If we can drink or not? Regulating sexual behavior?

We already have people attempting to pass taxes on "unauthorized" food to discourage their use. If "universal health care", darko forbid ever comes into being, the state will have authority and reason to deny us from doing things that could bring us harm.

It's totalitarianism.

Does this have another name in Australia? Ive never heard of it...

maybe saturated fat?

They shouldn't ban it...if people want to eat it then they can. The government should make them label it cleanly and clearly though if the product does contain trans fat. If it says it on the box people will be less prone to buy it. I don't know about you guys but I don't like to sit in the store and read the ingredients of everything I buy. I want to get in and out quickly. The best way to do that and have people be aware of a product with trans fat is to make the company clearly write it on the cover.

Why should they be required to place it clearly on the front? Why not force them to put something that contains calories or amounts or sodium or protein or serving sizes?

Oh wait, they already do. It's called the nutrition facts.

If a company wants to advertise "No Trans-Fats" that's their business like "Low Sodium" or "Low Fat" and shouldn't be a government requirement.

I think it's a great alternative then banning it completely, don't you think?

But hardly anywhere as good as the "alternative" of not supressing the freedoms of people and their companies to associate with each other out of their own choice and free will.

If trans-fat is really dangerous to humans don't you think they should put that on there? Do you think tobacco companies should have to put that warning on them that say they could cause cancer?

Trans fat benefits corporations at the expense of human health. Trans fat was what, a recent creation? Sure, instead of banning it, people have the choice to buy foods with trans fat or not, but there's too many people that are uneducated about nutrition that trying to read the nutrition facts label to them is like trying to read a math textbook. They don't know how many grams are in what, etc, the stats are skewed. I'd rather ban it, since there's no use for trans fat other than to squeeze out a bit more profit. Bring back the old polyunsaturated/monounsaturated/saturated fat trio.

They are doign the same in Toronto in 2007 or 2009 I think. But it's hard tracing transfat.

Trans fat benefits corporations at the expense of human health.

That's nothing. Here the government owns the distribution of alcohol, period. It's completely monopolized. So the government gets the money for all the drunks and zinged fathers beating up their families.

Well, just a note... KFC is experimenting cooking with Soy Bean Oil... or soemthing like that

Does this have another name in Australia? Ive never heard of it...

maybe saturated fat?

There are two types of fat: saturated and unsaturated. Transfat is a type of unsaturated fat.

In general, unsaturated fat is better for you than saturated fat. However transfat is an exception as it is the worst type of fat you can consume. It DOES occur naturally, just in very very minute amounts. However, most transfats you will encounter are artificially created.

Although it is a good idea, I personally think transfat should have to banned. Instead people should stop blaming others and take it upon themselves to prevent themselves from becoming obese.

If trans-fat is really dangerous to humans don't you think they should put that on there?

Again, there's no proof trans-fat is anymore dangerous than the NLSC.

Do you think tobacco companies should have to put that warning on them that say they could cause cancer?

No.

Everyone knows drinking, smoking and unprotected sex is dangerous, does it stop anybody?

Consuming copius amounts of trans-fats might be harmful, so let's ban it. Well, consuming nothing but junk food (or butter in the case of Paula Deen) would be harmful, so let's ban that too. If someone gets shot by a gun that'd be harmful, let's ban those. You know, the most dangerous devices in the world are cars, get rid of 'em.

If you're letting the state control what you eat it's a lot easier to let them "protect" you everywhere else.

The state is not supposed to be your judgement, or your mother. It's job should not be to "protect" you from consequences of your actions.

Trans fat benefits corporations at the expense of human health.

Assuming trans-fats are harmful to humans (remember, there's no proof of this!) then if this is your argument for banning trans-fats then we might as well ban video games (harms your eyes and your ability to procreate), the aforementioned cars (hurts your everything), basketball (look what happened to Penny Hardaway), paper (gah! paper cut!), scissors (do you have any idea how many people run with those?) and pretty much everything else in the world that a company is involved in.

Sure, instead of banning it, people have the choice to buy foods with trans fat or not, but there's too many people that are uneducated about nutrition that trying to read the nutrition facts label to them is like trying to read a math textbook. They don't know how many grams are in what, etc, the stats are skewed. I'd rather ban it

Do you want people to still have cars? If there's anywhere humans display an inability to handle something it'd be cars.

Instead people should stop blaming others and take it upon themselves to prevent themselves from becoming obese.

Finally, someone wants to let people have freedoms and choices.

Assuming trans-fats are harmful to humans (remember, there's no proof of this!)

The Food and Drug Administration admitted that it raises LDL levels, which lead to a greater risk of heart disease.
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_fats.html

I'm not sure if you define that as harmful per se, but I'd say it's harmful as smoking. Cigarettes aren't banned, but there's a clear label on it that says it's a health risk, which does give people a clear cut choice in making a decision.

then if this is your argument for banning trans-fats then we might as well ban video games (harms your eyes and your ability to procreate), the aforementioned cars (hurts your everything), basketball (look what happened to Penny Hardaway), paper (gah! paper cut!), scissors (do you have any idea how many people run with those?) and pretty much everything else in the world that a company is involved in.

I get your point, but they also serve different and useful functions. Trans fat doesn't serve a useful function.

Do you want people to still have cars? If there's anywhere humans display an inability to handle something it'd be cars.

People go for driver's examination before being legally allowed to drive. It's unfair to compare using a car and reading a nutrition label. The general population are uneducated about nutrition, and especially obese people have no idea why they're fat and think that the Atkins diet or Jared's Subway diet will cure all when the answer lies in the consumption of food they take in and what kind of foods are healthy and unhealthy. They have no understanding of how their body works, and a nutrition label doesn't explain that.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100% that people should have the freedom to make choices, but my argument is that trans fat doesn't benefit consumers in any way. Banning trans fat would be a lot easier than banning smoking since it's a relatively new thing in today's society.

The Food and Drug Administration admitted that it raises LDL levels, which lead to a greater risk of heart disease.
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_fats.html

The FDA doesn't "admit" anything, they use studies (the most prominent of which related to trans-fat proved nothing) although that page does state "Americans consume on average 4 to 5 times as much saturated fat as trans fat in their diets."

And then they're advising against eating nothing but raw trans-fat, not banning it, not regulating people's diets. Simply providing information and making suggestions.

I'm not sure if you define that as harmful per se, but I'd say it's harmful as smoking. Cigarettes aren't banned, but there's a clear label on it that says it's a health risk, which does give people a clear cut choice in making a decision.

Now you're arguing a completely different point. That they should be labeled, not banned. (And I think it's perfectly fine for a company to choose to label it's products "trans-fat free" in order to gain a market advantage, in the wake of the trans-fat scare, over any trans-fat using competitors.) Remember, trans-fats DO NATURALLY appear in the milks of cows and such. And we must question how much damage cigarettes would do if one consumed an equivalent amount of them as the average person does trans-fats.

I get your point, but they also serve different and useful functions. Trans fat doesn't serve a useful function.

You said it helps companies make a profit. It's cheaper than similar products. Back in the 80s the crusade was to eliminate saturated fats, the compromise was the healthier cheaper trans-fats. It was only in the 90s when the food nazi's needed something new to campaign against that they suddenly hated the trans-fats they loved in the 80s.

I like how you said "they also serve DIFFERENT...functions" as if the justification for not banning other things is that their applications are different.

People go for driver's examination before being legally allowed to drive. It's unfair to compare using a car and reading a nutrition label. The general population are uneducated about nutrition

The same people who don't follow speed limits, turn whenever they hell they feel like, are completely unaware of what's going on around them, who talk on the phone, consume trans-fats and fiddle with dials and switches, fill their body with drugs and alcohol then go for a cruise, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100% that people should have the freedom to make choices, but my argument is that trans fat doesn't benefit consumers in any way. Banning trans fat would be a lot easier than banning smoking since it's a relatively new thing in today's society.

Ignoring the lower costs of foods, and superiority of trans-fats to other fats, your argument is horrible. (Before people get mad at me...I love you cynaide and want to have your children...I "flame" arguments, not people.)

Your argument is that because consumers may not benefit from trans-fats it should be banned. Then when the same argument is applied to cigarettes/alcohol/all junk food, you say "well, it's new, so it'd be easier to ban." (Even though man-made transfats have been around for a century and prolific for 45 years.)

High-speed internet is relatively new. Based on my out-of-shapeness, it's certainly harmful to my health. The free flow of information is harming the establishment media and education systems. For some people it leads to internet gambling or expensive eBay purchases. It'd be a lot easier to ban than television which has been around for half a century. So, let's ban high-speed internet.

That's the LOGICAL (not content) argument you're making.

EDIT: Actually, one last thing. You complained how people aren't informed on nutrition, so they need the government to help them make decisions. I can think of one area where people are even less informed and less qualified to make judgements. An area that effects this entire topic. The entire election process.

When it comes to eating we want to restrict people's choices so they don't make bad decisions due to their lack of knowledge. But when it comes to voting, the same people want to make sure everyone votes (which is anti-democratic) and restrict the information and knowledge they recieve through disingenuous rhetoric and measures such as Campaign Finance Reform.

Good points, I can't really disagree with what you said. I didn't know that trans fat has been prolific for 45 years when I'm just relating the trends to my experiences. One thing I'm unclear about was when you said "superiority of trans-fats to other fats." Can you elaborate on that?

I never said they should ban it. I said they should put a label on it if people really think it is harmful. Benji, I'm not sure who you are agruging against but I don't think it should be banned. If they want to do something to it then they should put a label on it like they do with Tobacco. Simple enough.

There's more people in the thread than just you...reading goes a long way sometimes.

You did say you think they should be required to put a label on their product if it has trans-fats. Whereas I think it should be up to the company to promote their lack of trans-fats. You're a big government nanny-stater, I'm a liberal. Philosophical differences.

One thing I'm unclear about was when you said "superiority of trans-fats to other fats." Can you elaborate on that?

Saturated fats?

I'm a liberal

I always thought you were more on the conservative side.

Anyway, so you're saying saturated fats are more superior than trans fat? In what way? I always thought trans fat does more "harm" than saturated fats.

In the 80s during the "war on saturated fats" the result was fast food and such switched to trans-fats because they're healthier. All the people against trans-fats now defended them back then as the superior option. I'm no dietitian so I can't tell you any details, I'm just relating what the "experts" said.

I always thought you were more on the conservative side.

Don't get things confused just because people mislabel those aligned with a certain side of the aisle as "liberals." They're statists. Socialists, Fascists, Totalitarianists.

A lot of those called "conservatives" aren't really either. They're statists too. A conservative just wants to keep the status quo. Stand athwart history and yell "stop!" and all that jazz...