Cutting the Fat
by Brian Pierce • Dec 5th, 2006 at 3:34 pm • 56 comments
New York City’s Board of Health unanimously passed a ban on artificial trans fat in restaurants today. Chicago’s considering a similar law right now.
What do we think about this one, folks? I have a crazy hunch Tom is against it. I, for one, am for it. Time for the rest of you to flex or relax your libertarian muscles and discuss.
Comment by tet on 5 December 2006 at 3:46 pm:
You’re sure right about me being against it.
Brian, what in God’s Green Earth would be the reason for you to support it? If people are so brain-dead that they need a MommyState to force them to eat right, it’s time to find the genome of Velociraptors, clone them and turn them loose in the wild to breed and eat the slow-moving and stupid in America.
I smoked for thiry years and ate fatty foods for fifty years. It’s killing me–slowly. Is it the government’s fault that that’s true?
Nope, it’s mine–and that’s ok.
One of the problems is that America in the late-20th has become so safe that *any* danger is seen as too much. What the hell are you guys going to do when someone sets off a ground burst and everyone downwind gets a good dose of fallout?
Life ain’t safe, Brian, any semblance of that in your life is an illusion. YOU WILL DIE SOMEDAY.
Choose to live instead. Stop worrying about what’s good for you, be brave and enjoy. You’ve already taken the first step by proclaiming who you are, now claim the right to wallow in the wonderful (and short) existance that we’re all gifted with.
Tom
Comment by Doctor X (Josh) on 5 December 2006 at 4:31 pm:
This is what we call legislation these days in New York…
I suspect the only “reasonable” argument for this ban would be that it saves us health care costs due to heart disease and would fight the obesity epidemic.
The former is intentionally confusing. Preventing more heart disease in the long-run won’t provide any more relief to health care spending. The problem is with our malfunctioning entitlements programs. Reform those, and costs will naturally go down. The latter is overhyped by nutritionists and people who watch Oprah.
Not to mention this ban would impose an undue cost on restaurants, especially those that profit on fatty foods (pizzerias, delis, burger joints, etc.) It would also impose an undue cost on the consumer. Who are you to tell me I can’t go eat those bacon-covered scallops? I will admit that for consumers are less pronounced, because most don’t actually go around looking for trans-fats in their foods, given that trans-fats aren’t visible. But if the ban means less products in some restaurants are being served, or that some restaurants without the proper technological know-how will close down, that’s less choice for the consumer.
Aside from the utilitarian arguments, I’m just opposed to this on the grounds of individual freedom (what I’m allowed to eat!) and the power of the state. And you complain about right-wing evangelicals?
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 5 December 2006 at 5:31 pm:
I am for it.
Here’s why: Americans love to eat. We’re a nation of fat-asses and we’re getting fatter all the time. We’ve developed an addiction – a need- for fatty, unhealthy foods. (Nevermind that trans-fat is also added to things other than junk food, we must save you from yourself.) The addition is so strong, so deep, that it will not quietly go away.
So let them ban it. I’m all for it.
And the day after they do, I’m going to start hustling. I’m young, I’m ambitious, and people with needs will come to me for their fix. I’m going to sell trans-fat.
I’ll start out small but build my organization fast. It shouldn’t take more than a dozen good killings before I’ll be the face of illicit trans-fat in Chicago.
Al Capone? Please. Al Niemerg will be the new face of organized crime in Chicago.
So, yeah, let’s ban it already. Where everyone else sees nanny-state foolishness, I see a beautiful opportunity.
Comment by JayBandit on 5 December 2006 at 7:56 pm:
OK, this feels weird, but I actually agree with Brian on this one. You are all making this sound like Trans-fats are a naturally occuring fat and we’re just too stupid as americans to stop eating it.
Trans-fats are increased by MASSIVE amounts in foods when they contain Hydrogenated oils, which didn’t start until the mass-production of foods just after the turn of 20th Century.
I actually made a post to my blog (www.kjbandit.blogspot.com) about this before I saw Brian’s post just now. There is a link to some info about trans-fats.
I plan on writing a large post about how big business has thoroughly changed the make-up of the food we eat in America for the all-important buck. Another HUGE change with food involves corn. Corn Syrup didn’t used to be in nearly all foods like it is today. The sugars in corn syrup are extremely difficult for our bodies to break down, and that is why america is a bunch of fat-asses more than any other.
These changes were made quietly, and the food companies play dumb like the cigarette companies pretending that they just found out this stuff was bad for you.
Tom, most people don’t know anything about trans-fats let alone saturated fats. This is not the same type of issue as eating fatty foods. Bad food is still going to be bad food. But this is a small step in the huge leap required to change the way processed foods are consumed in this country.
Josh, don’t worry, you can still eat your bacon covered scallops. The ban is about adding trans-fats to foods, because they don’t occur in many foods naturally. This is the equivalent to banning MSG in Chinese food. You can still have excellent food without it, but its a cheap flavor enhancer, so they use it.
Comment by tet on 5 December 2006 at 8:32 pm:
I miss MSG so much! I still have some Accent at home so that I can add it. (MSG made food taste so good that there was commercial brands of it available when I was a kid.)
The question is, does trans-fat and corn syrup MAKE FOOD TASTE BETTER?
If they do, I say keep it. If it doesn’t, it falls under the government interfering in the boardroom, a thing that I am as opposed to as government in the bedroom.
In any and all cases, another intrusion by evil government in people’s lives.
I stand by my opposition.
Tom
Comment by Doctor X (Josh) on 5 December 2006 at 9:05 pm:
Being Chinese, I too miss MSG. You can still buy products with MSG (such as instant noodles) in Chinatown.
As for transfats, if they’re so widely used for mass production of foods, I don’t see how it would be easy for restaurants to remove foods that contain them. I view that as an unnecessary production cost imposed on restaurants, which will have real tangible costs such as unemployment or shutdowns. The health-conscious consumers who want to eat foods without trans-fats can go elsewhere. Eventually, restaurants will cater to such needs with trans-fat free foods. In fact, I would rather have a law mandating full disclosure for restaurants – forcing them to tell consumers if their foods contain trans-fats. And then, I’d have greater education of the general public on trans-fats. Then let consumers make the decision.
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 5 December 2006 at 9:07 pm:
I slept in today, preventing myself from having the full day to study for my final exam. This may cause me to do poorly, which may cause me to get a job that I find unsatisfying. Despondent, I may turn to drowning my pain in alcohol. This reckless behavior may lead me to other terrible decisions, such as eating unhealthy foods containing trans-fat. Obviously we need to regulate sleeping in.
Government! Help me now! I need saving!
Comment by JayBandit on 5 December 2006 at 9:27 pm:
I’ll go into more detail later, but people had food for thousands of years without these additives…so why do we need it now?
Comment by illinikc33 on 5 December 2006 at 10:41 pm:
Jay, the issue is that Americans ARE too stupid to stop eating it. The issue about the harmfulness of excessive amounts of trans-fat did not appear overnight. We have known about this for enough time now to adapt our eating habits to reduce consumption of the product. The fact, as evidenced by the growing obesity rate and this law banning trans-fats, is that Americans simply don’t give a damn about their health or are foolish enough to believe that nothing bad will come from eating fast food 8 times a week. This is a law that basically tries to protect people from their own bad choices.
That being said, excessive trans-fat is not THE cause of coronary disease, it is one of many factors that can lead to heart disease. Others include smoking, lack of exercise, and overall bad diet. What’s next, the government telling me how much sugar or sodium I can eat per day? How about regulating my daily exercise regimen?
Eating at a trans-fat free McDonalds every day for a year will probably give you a heart attack and cause obesity, but I guess no one will care if it isn’t caused by the evil trans-fat.
Comment by tet on 6 December 2006 at 8:20 am:
Amusing aside–
Years ago, when my cholesterol was first diagnosed as being high, the doctors put me on an extremely low-fat diet–less than 20 total grams of fat/day, with less than 6 of those being from saturated or trans-fat.
After a year, and a weight loss of 30 pounds, they remeasured and found that my cholesterol had jumped 20 points higher.
Since 3/4 of my ancestors came from extremely stressed gene pools (Lithuanians with wars constantly coming through the county–there are two kinds of Lithuanians, the big blond ones that can fight and the little dark ones that can hide–and Alsatians, who are from the disputed border area of France and Germany,) my body interpreted the lack of fat as a war or famine and began MANUFACTURING cholesterol.
So, add genetics to the list of reasons why you might get a heart attack. The upshot of all of this is that no matter what you do, you are still going to die. The most important thing is to maximize the quality of life while you are here.
Tom
Comment by erik on 6 December 2006 at 10:15 am:
jaybandit agrees with me? lolololol
this is an issue that, like progressive taxation, i support even though i am nominally against government control.
ignoring the excellent points already made by the scientists–that, unlike normal fat, trans fats are always bad for you, that they aren’t any more a natural part of your diet than petroleum jelly–might the only vocal anti-capitalist here point out that not every person can afford to eat whatever they want? this is a fatal flaw in libertarian logic (no alliteration intended) that crops up time and time again: the privileged assumption that we are all rational beings with a more or less infinite spectrum of choices in every decision from jobs to diet.
the line of reasoning goes something like this. are you poor? you just don’t have enough work ethic. maybe you are stupid. starve. good riddance to you. the human race is now smarter and more hard working. are you fat? you just don’t have the motivation to eat healthy. probably stupid, too, since I’VE known trans fats were bad ever since that CNN expose 5 years ago. die of a heart attack. the aggregated human race is now healthier and smarter in what they eat.
this libertarian compulsion to cling to eugenics rather than allow a vapid anti-government platitude to be shattered is a false dilemma. government is not the only thing that limits human freedom. capitalism limits human freedom. wages, inheritance, access to education and resources limit human freedom.
advertising, on a very acute and subversive level, limits human freedom (entire books are being released continually on this topic as the industry is neck deep in a revolution of sorts. i can remember listening in horror as a sophomore in college listening to a freshman girl state the purpose of advertising (English 101):”to inform us.” that was literally all she said and no one in the class seemed to mind.
i can feel myself unwinding into a full-blown ramble as i type so i will cut myself off here. thanks, jason, for being sensible like me.
now BURN ALL OF YOUR FLAGS
Comment by tet on 6 December 2006 at 10:36 am:
Erik, how many velociraptors should I put you down for?
No one has answered my question….Do Trans-fats make food taste better like MSG does? They obviously don’t make it taste like shit, or no one would buy the foods.
Can someone please address this issue, so we can begin to assess benefits versus risks?
Tom
Comment by tet on 6 December 2006 at 10:58 am:
Did some asking around with my fellow chemists, even calling over to some food chemist friends of mine that do not have push carts in NYC.
Jay, trans-fats *do* occur in nature. They are naturally found in some meats and dairy products. They are not the primary type of fats in those products, but they are most certainly there and cannot economically be removed.
One of the major uses of trans-fats right now is as preservatives in baked goods and some other processed foods. If they were removed, the shelf-life would be reduced and the prices of those products would be increased. Whether or not that increase would be passed on to the consumer, or come out of the pockets of the stockholders of the corporation, I leave to your imagination.
I cannot get a consensus on whether or not they make foods taste better.
Tom
Comment by Rain King on 6 December 2006 at 11:10 am:
One great reason to be for it – Banning trans fats will lead to more sexy girls. Match and point.
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 6 December 2006 at 11:31 am:
Tom,
Interesting story about the ancestors, but I think you’re misapplying genetics. A genetic development like you described would take more than a couple of generations to develop. If your ancestors suffered such conditions for hundreds of thousands of years, and as a result your ancestors thrived over others because of their ability to manufacture cholesterol, then maybe. But what you’re describing doesn’t jibe. Michael Jordan’s grandchildren may play basketball well because he inherited certain characteristics that favor playing basketball and passed them down, but his grandchildren won’t play basketball well simply because he practiced a lot.
Comment by tet on 6 December 2006 at 11:32 am:
Ah, Rain King, you ever take a good look at my wives (or girlfriends)? Be careful what you say next, they might be reading this and you wouldn’t want a certain 6 foot tall intel expert to bitch-slap you, now would you.
Ball knocked out of bounds.
Tom
Comment by erik on 6 December 2006 at 11:41 am:
my understanding of trans fats, at least in the realm of hydrogenated oils, is that they primarily serve the interests of texture. potato chips and such i can’t vouch for, but, for example margarine… many health food type alternatives that poor people (first try i typed “poop people”) would probably turn down prominently advertise the absence of hydrogenated oils/trans fats with expeller pressed oils in their place. earth balance & soy garden buttery spreads come in a tub but have a taste and texture much closer to butter than the salty dyed-yellow crisco that is most margarines.
un-fortunately you won’t find this in nearly as many stores, certainly not the aldis, sav-a-lots, meijers, food4less’s, probably wal*marts and other discount markets that poor people can be forced into (although its definitely not THAT hard to find for anyone interested), and earth balance certainly doesn’t have the marketing power which UNILEVER CORP posesses to shovel I CAN’T BELIEVE ITS NOT BUTTER! down our throats, but hey- laissiez faire, right? WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE SOMEDAY!
oh, the point. no, i don’t think trans fats are the best tasting fats- certainly not my favorite. but how does this math work, anyway, exchanging taste for health for capitalist profit? taste is a pain/pleasure mechanism that taught hunter-gatherers to should stop eating their own shit and start eating maximum fats, carbs and protein in their resource-scarce world. some time between then and now we learned to farm, then learned agriculture and industrialization, then blanketed our world with a grid of convenience stores, fast food restaurants and supermarkets so that no one would ever have to hunt, gather or probably even walk, and this gift of evolution lost pace… and so here we are, still trapped with the desire to eat lots of fatty foods because our metabolism isn’t sure how long it will be before we manage kill another meal.
laissiez faire says that only sup-par advertising departments can limit what the capitalists are able sell us, always in good faith that our best interests will stay close to the bajillionaires’ hearts. this may well be the case, as the only justification anyone is willing to offer for this whole trans fat tiff is the argument of eugenicism, a privileged, cynical, self-centered excuse for ones own lack of compassion, an excuse based on some noble tough love idea of evolution that serves only the interests of the rich.
eugenics as an idea should have peaked and begun a terminal decline around the turn of the 19th/20th century, dying with hitler, but i fear it will be around for a long time, being wed as it is to the entire ideology of capitalism.
Comment by tet on 6 December 2006 at 11:48 am:
Kofi, I have to disagree with you. My Lithuanian ancestors have been in the same general area at least since the Bronze Age–experts say that Old Prussian is as close to Proto-Indo-European as exists in history. This would mean that there would have been approximately 140 generations of continuous war, tribal raiding and rapine to deal with in a closed gene pool. Remember, the rest of the Europeans, the Farsi and many of the people on the Indian sub-continent are descended from my ancestors who left the stinking swamp.
As far as the Alsatians go, the warfare between the petty French and German states only goes back as far as about 1300 or so, so we’re really talking about only 28 generations or so. The height of Alsatians dropped close to four inches immediately following the Napoleonic Wars, so I would have a tendency to believe that there are some serious nutritional problems involved there. My mother is still categorized as a “little person” just making the cut at 4 feet 10 inches.
Tests *did* confirm that my body was manufacturing cholesterol. I would be willing to bet that ONLY those ancestors of mine with a tendency to effectively deal with lack of fats lived, and those that did not, died.
And, Erik, if Marxism had been a valid ideology, it wouldn’t have died out in the countries where it was tried. You’re sooooo 20th Century.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 6 December 2006 at 12:26 pm:
Whether marxism is a valid ideology or not, Erik’s still making some excellent points about how the laissez-faire attitude about this is a way of hurting people while still feeling okay about it (”you’re just gonna die anyway, you fat morons, so stop getting in the way of my dubious right to eat better-tasting food!”)
Comment by Rain King on 6 December 2006 at 12:39 pm:
TC – I wasn’t talkin smack about the Spice. You know I love them. You gotta stop being selfish though – first you take multiple wives, then you try to keep us from enacting sensible legislation to help girls bring the sexy.
Comment by illinikc33 on 6 December 2006 at 12:45 pm:
Word.
Comment by Brian on 6 December 2006 at 12:46 pm:
By the way, this is a ban on ARTIFICIAL trans fat, not the seldomly naturally occurring kind. Just a clarification.
Comment by erik on 6 December 2006 at 12:48 pm:
tet- don’t confuse the ideas of karl marx with the manifestation state communism. don’t confuse my drawing from, among other areas, a marxist critique (although i don’t know how much marx actually wrote about the 21st century advertising industry) of capitalism with me being a communist. you are obfuscating the points of my argument and building a straw man. i’ve already obfuscated it enough with my wandering babble!
should i elaborate? i mean, it seems that one off-the-cuff slander of of a sentence can pass for rebuttal right now, but let me try again to point out why i think you are wrong in saying “if Marxism had been a valid ideology, it wouldn’t have died out in the countries where it was tried”
karl marx was one in a long line of western thinkers who became preoccupied with this new trend he was seeing–in a nutshell, that the large majority of traditionally oppressed people was getting less oppressed and smaller in population and the small minority of oppressors was becoming less oppressive and larger. locke, smithe, sir thomas paine, prouhon, kropotkin, bakunin… and so on and so forth. the liberal capitalists divided from the marxists, the marxists split into socialists and communists, the anarchists had tons of splits nobody cared because anarchists know how to dialog with each other and plus they get laid second only to hookers…
along the way many great leaders have taken these philosophers’ ideas tried their most stubborn best to apply them… or maybe only co-opted increasingly popular ideas for their own ends, often with catastrophic results. regardless, it is a big mistake to say “look at the ussr, therefore marxism is bad”–whats that logical fallacy called? we already have touched on false dilemma and straw man today and los angeles hasn’t even seen noon… i think it ends in -duction. induction, deduction, conduction, something. it has to do with generalizing.
since you obviously understood my last posts enough to pick out some buzz words which you apparently associated with joe stalin, and since i gather that you are some kind of ex-hippie who used to carry around a copy of the little red book, why not imbibe me with the wisdom that made you finally grow up and get over this, or at least make some kind of attempt at addressing my scattered points.
Comment by Doctor X (Josh) on 6 December 2006 at 12:54 pm:
Erik, how very little faith you have in the individual will. Or do you not believe that exists? If that’s the case, take such a philosophical discussion somewhere else.
The case I’m going to make is that no matter how imperfect our environments may be, that is no matter how much we can be influenced by our environments, and in this case, by advertising, we are not absolved of individual responsibility. We are not absolved of individual choice. Let me say that no matter how good the marketing is for a product, you are not coerced to buy it. It may insinuate itself into your mind, but you are not coerced. You may now develop a certain inclination towards buying it, but that outcome is hardly pre-determined because of this new external stimuli. Or, if you will, we could say that external stimuli like advertising shapes us into who we are, but that still doesn’t absolve us of the choice we make as individual people.
Moreover, I’m generally going to believe that people are endowed with naturally competent abilities for rational thought. It is up to the individual as to how, or whether, they want to use such abilities. Such rational thought may not be perfect, but it is always better perfected with more information. You may be more inclined to a certain approach towards using your rational abilities because you are of a certain class, vocation, or education background. That may make the libertarian model of individual and rational choice imperfect, but it does not absolve you of individual responsibility to use your rational capacities in a way you deem fit. You cannot, say, blame your act of murder on the fact that your father abused you. That history might have affected who you became, but your fate wasn’t sealed because of your past – you still had a rational choice to make before every action you take, and the ability to rationally analyze your choices. Just as I may be heavily affected by white castle advertising. The desire of white castle burgers might even become a part of who I am because of said advertising – but whether I go to white castle or not is still my choice. I still have the rational ability to say no or yes. Moreover, in terms of advertising today, especially for trans-fats containing foods, I suspect the power of advertising isn’t nearly that great. McDonald’s is a favorite of the lower classes, but by their advertising you really can’t say their appeal is taste. And yet, the only reason the lower clases go to Macdonald’s is taste and costs. We are also, not to mention, all equally exposed to advertising. With all things being equal then, we are not absolved of individual responsibility in our choices.
And hence, through somewhat longwinded digression, we get to this trans-fat ban. Your argument that we should allow the substitution of health for taste to prevent capitalist profit is faulty. Whethe we should substitute health for taste is a choice each of us should make. Maybe I don’t care about being fat or dying a short life due to heart disease. Maybe I enjoy the foods that have trans-fats, which, as Tom has pointed out do naturally occur in things as basic as meat(meat, for fuck’s sake!)
If you are worried that this individual choice model, the only model that takes into consideration individual responsibility (which MUST exist in a society), is unfair towards the working classes, then promote incentives to eat less trans-fat foods. An outright ban on trans-fat foods, which largely go towards raising production costs for restaurants and food manufacturers and will naturally be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices, does nothing for the poor. Moreover, it isn’t so much as then that the poor want to choose between trans-fat and non-trans-fat foods. It’s that they want the choice between cheap unhealthy food and time-consuming, expensive, home-made food. If they can’t afford the latter, all they have is the former. If you raise the costs of the former, they have no choice but to pay more. That is bad in terms of both freedom and equity.
Comment by tet on 6 December 2006 at 1:40 pm:
Hmmm. I sense a challenge here from Erik. I’m not, in any way, an ex- anything. I’m a techno-hippie and have been since the days of Stuart Brand’s Whole Earth Catalog.
I’ve got an idea here. I’ve really enjoyed the chance to share my three columns with you all. Erik has challenged both my debating abilities and my credentials as a radical.
I’ve got a plan for about a half-dozen columns that involve personal takes on famous (or not-so-famous) radicals that I’ve known, worked with, or just shot the bull with.
If Billy Joe and Brian are willing to put up with this misappropriation of their webspace and you, the readers would like it, it’d be an enjoyable experience for me.
What do you say?
Now, to address Erik’s statements:
Tell me, what do you think would happen if every Meijer, Wal-Mart, Costco and other large chain of suppliers of food in America vanished overnight?
(Let’s assume for a moment that there’s not total starvation because there are enough smaller stores to temporarily take up the slack at higher prices.)
The immediate effect would be that poor people would have to pay a higher percentage of their already low-income for the available food.
This situation would last until people, sensing the need, would begin *recreating* the existance of the types of stores that were just eliminated.
The success of these chains does not lie in the fact that they were created out of thin air, and then a need for them was manufactured. They succeeded because THE NEED FOR THEM WAS ALREADY THERE, AND THEY WERE BUILT TO FULFIL IT.
This is why capitalism is often a kinder way of life than socialism–it reacts to *existing* human needs without attempting to undo a hundred thousand years of human social evolution in a generation or two. This results in a quantity of plenty so great that the poorest Americans have access to an amount of food that even a century ago was reserved for only the upper classes.
Oh, how I wish Milton Friedman had not died earlier this month.
Erik, I suggest you spend a month or two (or more) studying the Austrian school of Economics. They explain all the fallacies in your arguments in much, much more detail than I imagine the readers of this blog want to spend.
What you seem to be saying is that the hoi polloi of America is much too stupid and poor to understand what is good for them. Because of this, they are easily led astray by the mechinations of the eeeevil capitalists (who are often just members of the middle-class who have invested their money in mutual funds which bought stock) and cannot make intelligent decisions.
Because they are in such bad shape, you have stepped forward as a member of the elite and are going to promote legislation to FORCE them to do the things that they’re not smart or rich enough to do for themselves.
You must have a low, low opinion of your fellow countrymen, Erik. I’m pretty sure that compassionate slave-owners felt the same way about their property–”they’re like little children, but we’ll see to it they’ve got enough of the right things to eat….”
See, you think this is eugenics because you expect them to fail, left to their own devices. I see this as freedom BECAUSE I EXPECT THEM TO SUCCEED, given the freedoms with which we are all born.
No Velociraptors needed.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 6 December 2006 at 4:20 pm:
I think this is probably a good time to point out that most of the people of New York welcome this law. It’s not a matter of the elite thinking everybody else is too stupid to make the right decisions. New Yorkers recognize that they live hectic lives in which they cannot always be as selective about the food they eat as they might like, and so welcome a democratically elected government making that selection for them.
And since trans fat consumption is unambigiously a social ill, any argument that it is a denial of god-given freedoms, to me, falls flat. We regulate consumer goods all the time to ensure safety and health that the market will not provide us, and it’s not because consumers are too stupid or lazy to choose wisely, it’s because in any market system, some people are going to fall victim to unsafe or unhealthy products unless they are eliminated in their entirety.
Such regulations, therefore, are not by principle wrong. Their existence must be the result of a constant weighing of costs and benefits. One cost brought up is that we’re maybe denied better tasting food. Another cost is whether and to what extent food prices will increase as a result of this regulation. I’ve yet to see any persuasive evidence that food prices will increase to any great extent, and if we as a society believe that my right to buy a marginally better tasting burger outweighs the social health benefits of eliminating trans fat, then I pray for us all.
Comment by Jon Ozaksut on 6 December 2006 at 6:10 pm:
Does anybody here know if trans fats serve any purpose other than texture/flavoring?
Can anybody in this area tell me which restaurants use trans fats, and which do not?
Slippery slope arguments here are unfortunate. This isn’t about a taste for trans fats, just a distaste for legislation.
I think there’s a middle ground here. I don’t see any particular need for trans fats, and certainly not enough to jump to their defense as if the government was talking about repealing the second amendment (”You can take my synthetic trans fats when you pry them from my cold dead hands!”). At the same time, since there appears to be such a backlash, I’d like to see a phased ban, where first, restaurants who serve trans fats have to have their menus clearly labeled. Then, start adding an extra tax to meals sold with trans fats involved. Then, an outright ban. That way the local economy has a change to adjust – it’s not as if passing this law will nuke local business and chains overnight, but an adjustment period will make some sense.
And regarding “Nanny State!” wails, I second what Brian said just above – this is an idea reasonably popular with people who understand it applies to unnecessary additives, but have no agency over when it comes to eating out.
Comment by tet on 6 December 2006 at 8:47 pm:
Jay, good points one and all.
One addition that I know, since I am required to read absolutely every damn label on every damn item I eat, lest it contribute to killing me faster…..
Food labels now list the amount of trans-fat in packaged items like margerine, Twinkies, Chicken Kiev, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
[My doctors say that I cannot eat any packaged item with more than 1 1/2 gm Sat fat per serving and with any listed Trans fat whatsoever. Trust me, that gets very old after a while.]
BTW, for the younger folks in the audience, stuff cooked in lard tastes a hundred times better than the stuff cooked in modern oils. Man, I am drooling just at the memory of what eggs cooked in lard tasted like……
Mmmmmm. Homemade french fries cooked in fat…..that’s gotta be one of the fondest memories.
This thread has been good for something–it has brought up some fine memories of when food was more dangerous, but tasty as hell. You guys have no idea what you’re missing.
[Of course, you're also missing the 10-15 point jump in IQ from smoking cigarettes, but that's another story--there's a reason that all the rocket scientists portrayed in Apollo 13 chain-smoked while they came up with ways to make carbon dioxide filters out of notebooks and duct-tape.]
*chuckle*
Night all, hack, hack, cough, cough, choke *drops dead*.
Tom
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 7 December 2006 at 8:33 am:
you all rambled off into some theoretical discussion of socialism and capitalism. yawn. let’s deal with practicalities people.
might the only vocal anti-capitalist here point out that not every person can afford to eat whatever they want?
it’d seem to me you could save money and avoid trans-fat by simply cooking for yourself.
Comment by tet on 7 December 2006 at 8:38 am:
Exactly, Kofi, as anyone who has ever had five kids can tell you, eating at restaurants is not a usual option for poor people. Even McDonalds is a great deal more expensive than home cooking.
Erik, you’ve never been poor, have you?
Tom
Comment by erik on 7 December 2006 at 9:12 am:
Poor people overall eat more fast food because they have more hectic schedules (less time for grocery shopping, cooking) and less fluid income (to buy ingredients to cook from scratch). i know that a big mac costs more than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but you are wrong to say that poor people eat at home more often.
… and sorry i haven’t been poor enough for you, tet. on the plus side i do have a pretty good idea of what i’m talking about here, although its getting kind of old addressing the same worn-out dismissals over and over. class is an issue here just as it is one in the case of smoking bans, where the only reason i can see to justify such policies is the health of workers who don’t have the option of leaving their environment. if mentioning class makes me a commie and thus automatically wrong, maybe i should just stop posting on here.
Comment by erik on 7 December 2006 at 9:18 am:
*…although i have spent periods in my life (in school) before where i was “poor” enough and busy enough and with no access to a car so that i was FORCED to eat nearly every meal out for days (or weeks) at a time–i just couldn’t afford to go shopping for food, come back and prepare it, etc. when there was a jimmy johns or a falafel shack right down the street. tv dinners were even more expensive than what i could buy at a restaurant. i suppose that this is really just a testament to the failure of my competetive spirit and i should probably be dead now, but i promise you that i am not that big a fan of jimmy johns sandwiches and would never have eaten so many by rational choice alone. i can’t really say i was poor, though
Comment by tet on 7 December 2006 at 10:02 am:
Erik, it’s not that you talk about class, it’s that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
For example, you have now stated several times that poor people eat out more often.
Mintel market research disagrees. In their April 2006 study, they reported these results:
“Median income families spend 14% of their income on food, while households with minimum wage (for their state) spend an average of 17% of theirs on food.
Of that amount, three-quarters was for food prepared at home, versus 62% for the median income families.”
I think Kofi’s right in that you’re not quite understanding what cooking for a family entails. I generally will hestitate before saying, “you don’t understand because you’re too damn young” because it looks like I’m just using a cheap shot instead of debating EVEN WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY TRUE.
I’m perfectly willing to debate class or any other subject with you. However, you have to agree to actually do enough research that your statements cannot be refuted in a matter of seconds by anyone with access to real research.
Tom
Comment by S&D on 7 December 2006 at 11:15 am:
Gee I feel like an interloper coming into this late and all, but finals does that to ya (Go Contracts! I’m 1/24 of a lawyer). Anyhow, I think this whole post is a little silly because the ban wouldn’t have passed unless at least a strong vocal minority if not a majority of people had supported it because they like eating out but don’t want to have that third heart attack for it.
I consider myself a roughly educated guy and I don’t even know what the hell a trans fat is, I highly doubt most other people do either. Granted I could be horribly ignorant, but I don’t think so. So back to point the arguments for nanny state are kind of moot when the people have chosen for themselves. What are they not nannying themselves? It’s really just self-regulation and a communal decision to get this unhealthy crap out of their food. Now THAT is true choice. They chose collectively to not do something the arguments against the ban based on choice tend to wear a bit thin in light of that.
I for one love cooking. My friends tell me that when I eat out I’m slumming because unless I want to pay $20 for my meal I’m decreasing the quality of what I eat. When I do eat out all of maybe once or twice a week, it’s nice not having to worry that my favorite fries at the local diner won’t hasten my death any more than I’m already expecting them to. Perhaps the proper measure would have simply been to put a warning for trans fat and have all restaurants list their nutrition information on the menus, but this is a remedy that New Yorkers chose. You don’t have to deal with it, so chill.
Comment by tet on 7 December 2006 at 11:28 am:
Brandon, the problem that I have with this is that it is, once again, a major slippery slope.
I remember 20 years ago, when they first started talking about banning smoking on airplanes, I mentioned that I believed that that was just the first step in eventually having a prohibition of a substance that had benefits as well as costs.
I was pooh-poohed, of course, just as I am being now.
The problem with government regulation of human interaction is that the same argument can be made about a whole number of things.
What would I do as a restaurant owner if a law was passed that I could not serve fat people? I mean, seriously, they’d probably be my best damn customers.
My actual guess is that this measure has little to do with the opinions of the people on the City Council and a lot on the opinions of contributors who are on the board of Insurance Companies (which ought to set off the anti-capitalists among us, eh?)
[BTW, Josh and I calculated the exposure that a bartender in a smoking bar would get to cigarettes in an 8-hour shift. It amounted to less than one cigarette per day, an amount that is not addictive and can be actually argued as being non-hazardous.]
You seem to be saying that since a duly-elected governmental body agrees that it’s healthy to ban trans-fats and it would protect us, it’s all right.
It can be argued that identifying Moslims with a tattoo or armband would protect us from potential danger. 39% of the American public acually support such a measure. If a city council passed it, would you say, “you don’t have to deal with it, so chill”?
This is the problem with government power–it is applied whether it’s a good idea or not.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 7 December 2006 at 12:18 pm:
Tom,
The problem with a slippery slope is that it goes both ways. If government can’t regulate things like this, can it regulate the amount of mercury in my water or force cars to come with seatbelts or any of the other regulations that make consumer goods healthier and safer? Now, you may actually say they shouldn’t be able to do these things, because you’re an extremist, but nevertheless I pose the question to others in this discussion who are opposed to this ban.
Also, you don’t have a constitutional right to consume trans fat, whereas a Muslim does have an equal protection guarantee to ensure the law doesn’t single him or her out simply for being a Muslim.
And I again ask for somebody to show me evidence of this supposed impending skyrocket in food prices that’s going to cripple poor people in New York now.
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 7 December 2006 at 12:41 pm:
This is complete mind boggling:
at least a strong vocal minority if not a majority of people had supported it … It’s really just self-regulation and a communal decision to get this unhealthy crap out of their food. Now THAT is true choice.
So a strong vocal minority can make a decision that regulates my behavior, and “THAT is true choice”? Ha. Your sentiments are ridiculous. Now THAT is the essence of the modern liberal and the core of what is wrong with the Democrat party.
Comment by S&D on 7 December 2006 at 12:52 pm:
Kofi, Billy and I get the feeling that we might actually know you. I’d be glad to sit down to lunch with you and listen to you ramble in person…
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 7 December 2006 at 1:01 pm:
Kofi, Billy and I get the feeling that we might actually know you. I’d be glad to sit down to lunch with you and listen to you ramble in person…
I’ll have to evaluate how this would effect my anonymity (my gut instinct says it would be negatively impacted) and get back to you.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 7 December 2006 at 1:08 pm:
Who would have thought that a debate about fat could generate 42 comments? Brian and I have been approaching this blog all wrong, expect at least one post about fat every day.
Kofi,
Perhaps you’d be more willing to come out of the closet to me? Supposing I promised not to tell anyone…believe me, I would love to know that secret and simply rub it in Brandon, Brian, etc’s faces by not ever telling them (billyjoemills@gmail.com).
Comment by tet on 7 December 2006 at 1:09 pm:
I didn’t realize that Mintel was charging just to look at this one report. A fellow futurist friend of mine gave me a subscription to the company and I use it regularly without thinking. My apologies for that.
I’m very familiar with the Community Supported Agriculture concept–I saw a lot of that practiced in Western Massachusetts when I was going there regularly. I have to say that you have impressed me with your and your friends’ plans.
One of the reasons that we seem to be disagreeing is that you seem to be implying that I am favoring corporations over the poor in America.
Nope, I’m neutral. A lot of the undue power that corporations and agribusinesses in America hold is not due to their stockholders being evil geniuses, but because they have lobbied government to supply them with coercive power.
Money being taken from me under threat of imprisonment to go to a corporation is as evil as it going to someone who has not earned it themselves. I really cannot see the difference.
Without the reduction of government influence in *all* parts of life, the megacorporations will continue to have an unfair advantage.
As far as the poor eating things that are not good for them, the “bad” things are not created in order to screw the poor. The “bad” things are merchandised because PEOPLE WANT THEM.
If the food suppliers didn’t give the people what they wanted, they would end up either going out of business, or asking for more of the money that the government has stolen from me to enable them to get by.
The reason that poor people are getting fat is that because of the success of free enterprise, they actually have enough money to *buy* food, rather than the poor in other countries like Somalia and Bangladesh, where the poor just starve to death.
You know, I’m a lot more comfortable seeing a kid looking plump and poor with the *possibility* of growing up to get diabetes than one of a distended-bellied kid with flies on them THAT WON’T GET DIABETES BECAUSE HE WILL DIE BY THE AGE OF 10.
As evil as the capitalists can be when fueled by government intervention, you still have to agree that we’ve got it better here.
Tom
Comment by S&D on 7 December 2006 at 1:10 pm:
No Kofi. Billy’s a conservative, he’ll judge you. I’m a liberal, it’s all good in the hood as long as you’re not touching my pot. Come out to me!
Comment by tet on 7 December 2006 at 1:36 pm:
Brian, in answer to your slippery-slope remark.
I am opposed to things like seat-belt laws, most certainly.
As far as the mercury goes, I believe that corportations should be held liable for the damages that they do to individuals due to neglect or purposeful evil. The government should not have any say in limiting how high the amount of damages that can be assessed, nor would they be able to allow avoidance of payment of damages by bankruptcy.
This way, after real, measurable damage is done, the corporations can be dealt with in a way that provides a warning for their competitors.
Tom
Comment by Jon Ozaksut on 7 December 2006 at 6:09 pm:
Tom,
are you saying here that if people can’t buy food with trans fats anymore, they’ll stop buying food? I can think of at least one good reason why not.
Also, regarding your hands-off attitude toward safety regulations – people who suffer from, say, mercury poisoning don’t necessarily have the time, money, or ability to sue a multi-million dollar corporation. Do we simply discount them as cracked eggs toward an omelette?
Comment by tet on 7 December 2006 at 7:20 pm:
Jon, I’m not saying that folks won’t buy foods if they cannot get trans-fat containing food. The questions that I were raising were these:
1) Do they make food taste better or have a more pleasant texture?
2) Since they’re used as preservatives, will their elimination cause food prices to rise significantly, since shelf lives will be less?
These two questions are above and beyond the moral question of the extent that governments can rightfully impinge on the normal marketplace.
Now, as to the mercury question, I would imagine that if the government was not making the regulations, a type of business would evolve that would, in exchange for part of the settlement, be willing to represent all of the people who were damaged by a corporation’s neglect or evil intent.
Oh, wait, they’ve already been invented–they’re called trial lawyers. How clever of the marketplace!
Without the government putting a cap on damages or forbidding suits entirely (like in the case of gun manufacturers presently), I imagine that companies would tread *very* softly in the realm of allowing people to be damaged by their actions.
Tom
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 8 December 2006 at 10:35 am:
ok Tom, I agree with not capping damages, but are you really upset that you can’t sue a gun manufacturer when the product functions properly? The manufacturer isn’t responsible for who the gun was pointed at or when the trigger was pulled (the shooter is). The manufacturer isn’t even responsible for who bought the gun (the seller is).
If a gun backfires or otherwise malfunctions, injuring the user or those nearby then I am all for suing gun manufacturers. But let’s not run around crazy assigning blame where it isn’t due. You aren’t going to sue Ford if I use my car to run down a few pedestrians are you? And will you sue Wusthof if I decide to start stabbing people? Everything from pencils to pillows can be abused in a manner that will kill. But gun manufacturers are special? Bah.
Comment by tet on 8 December 2006 at 11:00 am:
Jeez, Kofi, let’s have a shooting match and work this one out.
What I’m saying is that no industry should be singled out by being immune to damage suits for either neglect or evil intent.
The implications of my statement that you seem to be drawing from this, I think, fall into the eminations and prenumbras category.
I’m as fierce 2nd Amendment supporter, as I am with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Currently, gun manufactures are exempted from damage suits by federal law. This is just one example of the government using its coercive power to protect corporations. They’re *currently* “special” and singled out, to use your terminology.
Tom
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 8 December 2006 at 11:05 am:
ok so maybe I jumped the gun a little. Any chance you know the name of the act or code section granting this protection? I’d be interested in reading what it all says.
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 8 December 2006 at 11:14 am:
Nevermind, I found it myself. It’s the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (15 USC § 7901 – 03)
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 8 December 2006 at 11:25 am:
Having read it, I’ll also say that it sounds pretty reasonable and that the only reason it exists (and a Protection of Lawful Commerce in Pillows Act doesn’t exist) is that gun manufacturers were being singled out and harrassed by those willing to abuse the legal system. Anyway, back to work.
Comment by tet on 8 December 2006 at 12:46 pm:
Well, it’s not the first time we’ve disagreed, Kofi. I assume you will concede my point about government pro-corporation legislation being as bad as pro-everyone-else legislation, right?
Tom
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 8 December 2006 at 1:08 pm:
I’m pro-as-little-government-as-possible.
But I do wonder about how else this situation could have been resolved. If the judicial system knocked out every such case that came across their desk, there would be case law that effectively did the same thing. What it looks like is that liberal leaning judges and appellate courts failed to knock them out when they should have been (the result being high legal costs and public image damage over a case that never should have been brought in the first place). A primary purpose of the act is: ” (7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.”
Yes, this act favors ’someone’ (in this case corporations) but it was drafted in response to judicial activism. If the judiciary had acted within the scope of its powers and the law, the act wouldn’t be necessary. I want to minimize government, but hen a branch of the government breaks down what is the proper course of action?
Comment by tet on 8 December 2006 at 2:54 pm:
Begin phasing it out.
Tom