California bans trans fats in restaurants

[MB_722]

NEW YORK: California has become the first US state to ban use of trans fats, long linked to health problems and obesity, in restaurants and bakeries.

Under a new bill signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday, the restaurants are required to phase out the use of trans fats and excise them completely by 2010 and in all retail baked goods by 2011. Packaged food will be exempt.

Earlier, New York City had banned their use from July 1 this year. Some other cities, including Philadelphia, have also made similar laws.

But California will be the first to ban their use in more than 80,000 restaurants and bakeries across the State. Those who violate the law would be fined USD 25 for first violation and it would progressive increase for subsequent violations rising to USD 1000.

The ban on synthetic fat comes in the wake of intensive movement launched by health professionals and consumer advocates who blame them for heart and other diseases.

"I think the potential here is real for a far greater understanding of the harms of trans fats, and to encourage more states to do the same," Dr Clyde Yancy, incoming president of the American Heart Association was quoted in a media report as saying.

Restaurant and bakery operators prefer trans fats as they are inexpensive. Trans fats are prepared by passing hydrogen into liquid oil at high temperature to produce what is called partially hydrogenated product.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_Cetera/California_bans_trans_fats_in_restaurants/articleshow/3282833.cms

[stormshadow]

Why does the government care?  I'll tell you why.

Since the United States went bankrupt in 1933 and officially surrendering all Gold to the Federal Reserve, the only backing to our currency is the Sweat Equity in every United States Citizen.   You are Human Capital and your sweat equity is extracted and spent by the powers that be.

Stay healthy people and keep paying that income tax.

[Dos Equis]

I don't like this.  They should leave it to the marketplace to decide whether or not to sell unhealthy food. 

[OzmO]

I don't like this.  They should leave it to the marketplace to decide whether or not to sell unhealthy food. 

they did leave it to the market place.

unhealthy food won.

[Dos Equis]

they did leave it to the market place.

unhealthy food won.

Then that's the way it ought to be.  What are they going to do next, outlaw red meat? 

[OzmO]

Then that's the way it ought to be.  What are they going to do next, outlaw red meat? 

 

I see the ban as something good.  They could never EVER ban red meat in America.

Not enough vegans....even in California!

[Dos Equis]

 

I see the ban as something good.  They could never EVER ban red meat in America.

Not enough vegans....even in California!

Don't have to be a vegan to not eat red meat. 

I think the ban will have a positive impact on the health of Californians, but so would forcing everyone to eat more grains, nuts, and fruit.  So would banning pork.  But that's not the government's job.  If people want to eat unhealthy food and there are businesses who want to sell it, then the government needs to stay out of the way.  I could see promoting or discouraging, but banning foods like that is a bit much. 

[Hugo Chavez]

they did leave it to the market place.

unhealthy food won.

yea, no shit... good post.  If the companies could get more shelf life/profit by putting Cadmium in your food, they would if there were not a law againt doing it.  Wake up BB.  When you have something that only has negatives and no positives other than for a company's profit, it's fucking ok to pass a law and ban the shit.  Like you're so fond of pointing out president, this is nothing new.  There are no positives for consumtion of transfats only negatives.

[Dos Equis]

yea, no shit... good post.  If the companies could get more shelf life/profit by putting Cadmium in your food, they would if there were not a law againt doing it.  Wake up BB.  When you have something that only has negatives and no positives other than for a company's profit, it's fucking ok to pass a law and ban the shit.  Like you're so fond of pointing out president, this is nothing new.  There are no positives for consumtion of transfats only negatives.

I'm quite awake, although tired as heck after playing softball for three hours.  The positives are people like to eat it.  If no one liked how food tasted with trans fats they wouldn't buy it. 

So would you favor a law banning cigarettes too?  That's something that "only has negatives and no positives other than for a company's profit."

Why don't we just start coming up with a list of all those "bad" things that people like, but that are harmful, and let the government ban those things too?   
 

[OzmO]

Don't have to be a vegan to not eat red meat. 

I think the ban will have a positive impact on the health of Californians, but so would forcing everyone to eat more grains, nuts, and fruit.  So would banning pork.  But that's not the government's job.  If people want to eat unhealthy food and there are businesses who want to sell it, then the government needs to stay out of the way.  I could see promoting or discouraging, but banning foods like that is a bit much. 

People want legalized pot too.

[Dos Equis]

People want legalized pot too.

Cocaine, heroin, etc., etc. 

[Hugo Chavez]

I'm quite awake, although tired as heck after playing softball for three hours.  The positives are people like to eat it.  If no one liked how food tasted with trans fats they wouldn't buy it. 

So would you favor a law banning cigarettes too?  That's something that "only has negatives and no positives other than for a company's profit."

Why don't we just start coming up with a list of all those "bad" things that people like, but that are harmful, and let the government ban those things too?   
 

wow   I mean really, wow...  You think it's about taste.  Your cig analogy sucks.  It's really easy to go to the store and choose to buy cigarettes or not.  Not so easy to avoid transfats.  At one point it got to where it was almost in everything and it was not until NY banned it that we started to see a movement from it so what you critise California for doing is what NY did and got the ball started with.  And if the analogy were correct, we would be talking about a harmful substance added by the companies to cigarettes for longer shelf life--yes I would be for banning that. We're not talking about banning food are we     Really, it's pathetic.  You say let the market decide... Shit when it gets to the point where it was in everything, what kind of decision are you talking about, either buy the shit or start your own farm/ranch lol.  Then I also guess you're just fucked if you're not well off too   The poor can decide to not smoke, not so easy for them to only buy primo product from Whole Foods  

[OzmO]

Cocaine, heroin, etc., etc. 

the government should stay out of that too.  If people knowingly choose something that's bad for them, then they have to pay the price.  It's not the governments responsibility to protect us from our selves.


right?

[Hugo Chavez]

the government should stay out of that too.  If people knowingly choose something that's bad for them, then they have to pay the price.  It's not the governments responsibility to protect us from our selves.


right?

I don't want transfats in my cocaine

[OzmO]

I don't want transfats in my cocaine

all natural cocaine only. 

[Dos Equis]

wow   I mean really, wow...  You think it's about taste.  Your cig analogy sucks.  It's really easy to go to the store and choose to buy cigarettes or not.  Not so easy to avoid transfats.  At one point it got to where it was almost in everything and it was not until NY banned it that we started to see a movement from it so what you critise California for doing is what NY did and got the ball started with.  And if the analogy were correct, we would be talking about a harmful substance added by the companies to cigarettes for longer shelf life--yes I would be for banning that. We're not talking about banning food are we     Really, it's pathetic.  You say let the market decide... Shit when it gets to the point where it was in everything, what kind of decision are you talking about, either buy the shit or start your own farm/ranch lol.  Then I also guess you're just fucked if you're not well off too   The poor can decide to not smoke, not so easy for them to only buy primo product from Whole Foods  

Of course it's easy to avoid foods at restaurants that have trans fats.  Stop eating at restaurants that use them.  How hard is that?  I think the market should decide.  Not big brother.  Dangerous precedent.  If you want to talk about what is really killing us in this country, read The China Study.  It's heart disease and cancer that kill most of us in this country and most of this is diet related . . . and it ain't fruits and veggies causing problems.  Following this line of thinking, we should be putting the beef/chicken, etc. industry out of business.        

And it's not as easy as not buying cigarettes.  Tobacco companies have to hook kids to stay in business.  Once they do so, nicotine is as or more addictive than things like heroin. 

[Dos Equis]

the government should stay out of that too.  If people knowingly choose something that's bad for them, then they have to pay the price.  It's not the governments responsibility to protect us from our selves.


right?

Depends.  I'm not a libertarian, so I don't have problem with some regulation (seatbelts, etc.).  But we’re talking about restaurants using legal food products.  Not the government's role.  Maybe they should ban cheese too.   

[24KT]

Why does the government care?  I'll tell you why.

Since the United States went bankrupt in 1933 and officially surrendering all Gold to the Federal Reserve, the only backing to our currency is the Sweat Equity in every United States Citizen.   You are Human Capital and your sweat equity is extracted and spent by the powers that be.

Stay healthy people and keep paying that income tax.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hugo Chavez]

Of course it's easy to avoid foods at restaurants that have trans fats.  Stop eating at restaurants that use them.  How hard is that?  I think the market should decide.  Not big brother.  Dangerous precedent.  If you want to talk about what is really killing us in this country, read The China Study.  It's heart disease and cancer that kill most of us in this country and most of this is diet related . . . and it ain't fruits and veggies causing problems.  Following this line of thinking, we should be putting the beef/chicken, etc. industry out of business.        

And it's not as easy as not buying cigarettes.  Tobacco companies have to hook kids to stay in business.  Once they do so, nicotine is as or more addictive than things like heroin. 

Oh fuck, you are joking... Really, in all my life I've never seen a restaurant that said, "We use transfats"  Correct that bullshit before we move one   Infact!!! places like KFC and McDonnalds didn't start advertising  they stopped UNTIL NY BANNED IT!  Had NY not done so, there would have been none of that.  So back to how the fuck would you know?

[24KT]

I gotta admit this is a new one on me. I shouldn't be surprised that transfats still exist in America.
Just looking at the size of the average American should have been evidence enough. Can't believe I missed that.
Transfats have been banned here for quite a while, as well as over in Germany.

[Dos Equis]

Oh fuck, you are joking... Really, in all my life I've never seen a restaurant that said, "We use transfats"  Correct that bullshit before we move one   Infact!!! places like KFC and McDonnalds didn't start advertising  they stopped UNTIL NY BANNED IT!  Had NY not done so, there would have been none of that.  So back to how the fuck would you know?

Ask.  I've heard restaurants say they don't use them, like McDonalds, etc.  If someone is concerned about it they should do their own research.  I'm sure you could find out by simply calling them.  Or you can just rely on the government to go around the country banning them at all restaurants.  Next up:  chitlins.    

[24KT]

Ask.  I've heard restaurants say they don't use them, like McDonalds, etc.  If someone is concerned about it they should do their own research.  I'm sure you could find out by simply calling them.  Or you can just rely on the government to go around the country banning them at all restaurants.  Next up:  chitlins.    

I suppose that's why McD's got it's pants sued off them when they advertised their french fries as suitable for vegans and it was discovered they were frying them in lard. Then there was the coconut oils... yada yada yada.

[Dos Equis]

I suppose that's why McD's got it's pants sued off them when they advertised their french fries as suitable for vegans and it was discovered they were frying them in lard. Then there was the coconut oils... yada yada yada.

Precisely why companies have an incentive to tell the truth.

Just to clarify, McDonallds was sued for not informing all consumers about backing off a promise to phase out trans fats.  They were later sued when they disclosed that their fries contain ingredients derived from wheat and dairy.

[MB_722]

Precisely why companies have an incentive to tell the truth.

so you would rather wait for a company to be honest, than have something harmful banned outright?

that makes no sense.

[Dos Equis]

so you would rather wait for a company to be honest, than have something harmful banned outright?

that makes no sense.

I would rather a company be held accountable for lying, which serves as a deterrent to others in business.  Makes sense to me. 

I'd also rather have the government stop short of telling restaurants what kinds of food to serve.  That also makes sense to me.