NYC Banning Trans Fats Doesn't Fix The Problem
New York City pushing more progressive government with trans fat ban
Have you heard the news about what New York City public health officials have proposed to do in that city? After their recent ban on all smoking in restaurants and bars in the Big Apple, now they want a zero tolerance policy for any restaurant cooking food in the most evil fat to ever be exposed to mankind: trans fats!
This USA Today column gives all the sordid details. The proposal states that a new regulation needs to be implemented to REQUIRE all restaurants to eliminate trans fats from their cooking procedures by April 2007. This ban on trans fats would apply to ANY business that sells food to the public in New York City. The fines that restaurants could face for not complying with this new regulation will range from $200-$2,000 per violation.
There was a second proposal on the table to also REQUIRE the restaurant chains to list the calories of their menu items in a conspicous place for consumers to know what they are eating before they purchase it. This would impact companies like Starbucks, Subway, Burger King and McDonald's, among many others. This requirement will only apply to those restaurants that already have their nutritional information provided on the Internet or in brochures by March 1, 2007.
Not surprisingly, the restaurant industry which boasts sales of a staggering $511 BILLION annually from nearly a BILLION restaurants in the United States alone, is crying foul to these proposals. They say that consumers are intelligent enough to know what the nutritional content of what they are eating before they order it and don't need such draconian measures by the government to tell them how and what to eat.
Well, that's right and it's wrong. Let me explain.
The idea of forcing a business to stop using trans fats in their products assumes that the people who are eating them don't realize what they are shoving in their mouth when they eat fast food. But this poll of Canadians released last year showed that they are more aware of trans fats now and are paying attention to that particular ingredient now more than ever before. The same probably holds true in America as well. So, the awareness of the dangers of trans fats is already there.
What a lot of people may not know about is the little trick the FDA allows companies regarding the nutritional labeling. While a food product may be deemed "trans fat-free," that does not mean there is ZERO trans fats in them! GASP! How can this be? Well with rounding that is permitted those "trans fat-free" Oreo cookies you eat may have as much as 0.49 grams per 2 cookie serving. If you eat 12 of them, then you just consumed 2.94 grams of tran fats, higher than the MAXIMUM 2 grams recommended by the American Heart Assocation. Something to think about.
At the same time, how can we trust companies like McDonald's who got into trouble earlier this year for miscalculating the amount of trans fats in their French fries? If they SAY they drop their trans fats completely, does that really mean their food will be trans fat-free? Don't bet on it. Let's forget about KFC and all the trans fats that are hidden in their food, too. Trans fats are most definitely unhealthy for you and have been scientifically proven to make people one-third fatter as well. Yikes!
So is a total ban on trans fats--A GENUINE ONE--the answer to this problem? With kids eating more fried junk food than ever before, does Big Brother government need to come in and compel behavioral change to slow down skyrocketing obesity rates?
My answer may surprise a lot of people, but I say no.
What?! But I thought you were all for helping to improve the health and weight of people? I am, but not when it is forced on businesses and people with a government mandate. Government and health leaders are proposing throwing more money at the obesity problem, but more money isn't the answer. They also want restaurants to cut their portion sizes and calories, but those things aren't the answer either.
And neither is banning trans fats in New York City restaurants. That DOESN'T fix the underlying problem that people have in this country as it relates to the foods they eat and how that impacts their weight and health. People who are obese need to be gently confronted about their weight by those friends and family members who love them the most to encourage them to start making better food choices. Educating people about making those decisions that are best for them is what is going to bring about the most change.
As much power over people as they think they have, the government cannot lose weight for you and nor should they. Obesity will not go away on its own, so the people who struggle with shedding the pounds need to find a dietary plan they can stick with and then DO IT!
It's amazing, but people are always saying to me now, "That's easy for you to say, you don't have a weight problem." That's right, I don't--ANYMORE! But it was just a little more than couple of years ago I was walking around this world as 400+ pound man looking for answers to my morbid obesity problem, too. I found the low-carb lifestyle and it changed my life forever. If you resolve today that nothing will stand in the way of your weight loss success, then IT CAN and IT WILL happen for you like it did for me. Find a plan that will work for you, implement that plan into your life, and then keep doing it forever. That is what it takes to find weight loss success.
Best of all, you won't need the government forcing it on you either!
Labels: fast food, government, New York City, obesity, trans fats
posted by Jimmy Moore at
9/28/2006 08:27:00 AM
13 Comments:
IB, this issue isn't about how BAD trans fats are. Nobody is going to argue that trans fats are healthy.
The underlying issue is about whether the government should get involved. I don't think they should and people need to learn to say no without being made to. That's my position.
Do I want people to stop eating trans fats? Of course. But permanent changes in their lifestyle will NEVER happen until they make the prudent choice about what to do regarding their own health.
THANKS for sharing your opinion, even if you are wrong...er, I mean, disagree with me. :D
The problem is that most people simply aren't *into* learning about what's good to eat.
The other day my husband went for a cholesterol test. I mentioned to him after dinner the night before that he'd just consumed an awful lot of butter at dinner to be going for a cholesterol test the very next day, so he shouldn't be surprised if his numbers are up when the results come back. (I wouldn't have mentioned it, but he won't give up his starches and sugars. I know low carb diets high in animal fats can cause your cholesterol to plummet, but in the presence of all that starch and sugar? Most likely it'll have the opposite effect.)
So what did he say next? He suggested that perhaps we should switch to margarine instead of butter if the butter would make his cholesterol higher. I mentioned that margarine is full of transfats and would be even worse for his cholesterol, and he didn't have a clue what I was talking about!
How he could *not* know about this, I don't know. We read the same newspaper every morning. We hear the same news reports. And yet, he wasn't aware of it at all.
I'm not in favor of the gov't stepping in and demanding that the transfats (or sugars or HFCS, etc) be removed from foods - but some people just aren't the least bit interested in what they put into their mouths, as long as they think it tastes good.
THANKS for sharing your story, Calianna. I'm not saying there isn't ignorance that exists out there about trans fats. There will always be those who either don't or won't educate themselves about their health.
But that doesn't mean the government needs to step in. That is why I encourage the friends and family of overweight and obese people to intervene on their behalf. The only reason the government feels compelled to get involved in this issue is all is because we have abdicated that role of taking care of our own.
Nice try, IB! But lead in paint affects more than just the person who paints with it. Trans fats only harm the individual who consumes them. That's why they must make the choice to eat what is good for them versus those things that are not.
I don't have a problem with labels, IB. GREAT IDEA!
Perhaps you are right, Gary. But that doesn't give the government a right to tell businesses what they can do. If people don't know about trans fats, then the government could make good use of itself by helping to educate the public with PSAs that tell them about what trans fats are and which foods they are in. But they'll never do that since it would negatively impact business. It's a catch-22.
I still have a running argument with a friend of mine who insists that "Smart Balance" spread is more healthful than butter (natural sat fats-gasp!), even though I have proven to him that, although they claim the highly processed product is "trans fat free" that it does in fact contain partially hydrogenated oils, but just below the legal limit of half a gram per serving requiring a labeling disclosure.
When it comes to an ingredient in food that can no longer be considered GRAS - "Generally Recognized As Safe" for human consumption, it IS up to the government to step in and be certain that the offending substance is removed from all food products.
That the FDA once again fails to do it's job doesn't mean that New York shouldn't step up to the plate.
And the dangerous product, in this case trans fats, does indeed affect other than those who buy it...the children who eat it... because their ignorant parents bought it for them!
-David
I appreciate your sentiment, LCForevah. But I don't disagree with anything you said. My point is centered entirely around the premise that it's not the government's business to be involved in this issue. That's why I do what I do at my blog and others are doing what they are doing to promote healthy living. Compelling businesses to force their consumers into making the right choices is NOT the way to do it in my opinion. There are better ways and individual responsibility is a BIG one to me. THANKS again for sharing your thoughts!
It shouldn't surprise you, Wanda, that I'm not a fan of socialized healthcare either. :)
they are the ones who directly pay the bills amd decide what is covered and what isn't.
I'd rather have more independent control over my health care, thanks.
So our free health care is not free!!!!!!!
It's NEVER been "free" because ultimately, someone has been footing the bill.
Okay Chartreuse, let's pretend this has NOTHING to do with obesity (IT DOES, but I'll concede in your hypothesis to make my point) and just health.
Nobody is MAKING people eat trans fats, nobody is MAKING people eat fast food, nobody is MAKING people stuff their faces with junk food. IT'S THEIR CHOICE!
If these businesses were shoving the food down people's throats and forcing them to swallow, then I would concede you have a point. But they are not. They are simply offering a product that the consumer wants and filling that need.
When people stop creating a demand for these trans fat-filled foods by ceasing to buy them altogether, then the market will shift to the products that people DO want instead. This is simple supply and demand which is what makes the economy work.
Putting the onus on government to force changes in supply and demand is wrong in a society that is supposedly of the people, for the people and by the people. Who are "the people?" YOU AND ME! That's why WE need to take responsibility for US and NOT the government or health officials.
PERIOD. End of story.
You have a good point on the transfat issue, Jimmy. I would like to see a law that about listing nutritional info., though. Yeah, there's rounding, but you'll have a better idea with the information than without it.
How about smoking in restaurants and bars? They banned it here in California and I am so glad that I can go out to eat without breathing second-hand smoke. I remember going to a bar and not coughing from all the smoke around me.
Transfats effect only the eater (at least short term); smoking effects everybody in the vacinity.
Gary,
When I mentioned "period, end of story," I was referring to MY position on the issue. Of course, others may choose to disagree and that's fine. THANKS for sharing!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home