Freedom Fat

Scott Hardie | December 8, 2006
NYC health board bans trans fats at restaurants, not that anyone is surprised. Maybe if opponents started calling trans fat "freedom fat" they'd have more luck?

Any comments?

Amy Austin | December 8, 2006
HAHAHAHAHA... somebody -- protect me from myself... please!!! ( I mean it -- I think I'm going to roll my eyes one too many times, and my face is going to get stuck like that, just like my parents promised!!!)

I think we need to edit the Constitution to read: "We the sheeple..."
(Feel free to add on with your own amendments... but maybe only if you don't plan to fly anywhere ever again -- consider yourself warned!)

Tony Peters | December 8, 2006
another case of common sense having to be legislated....can anything happen here without a lawyer making a buck off it?

Scott Hardie | December 9, 2006
I'm rooting for the lawyers on the other side, who will argue that this legislation is unconstitutional and seek to have it blocked. Not that I know whether it's unconstitutional; I'm no lawyer. I just know that attempts to ban things because they're bad for us tend to fail inevitably under legal challenge, and with good reason.

Amy Austin | December 10, 2006
Yes. Although, I have to admit that I don't really know how to feel on it...

Take the ban of DDT, for instance. (Never mind that, like so many other things, it was only banned here in the States; but since it's still used abroad... We have an annoying habit of happily supplying the rest of the world with things that we've decided are illegal to use here in the US, but not illegal to continue to manufacture. So it's okay that if the rest of the world hasn't yet agreed that something is toxic, we give it to them?! Talk about your NIMBY attitudes! (Apparently, it doesn't occur to anyone that the atmosphere and oceans and all that good Earthy shit are connected -- even more noticeably... that the things we use don't always come from the good ol' US of A, and neither always do the things that go into the making/growing of them -- hmmm...) So, just because it's "bad for us", does that mean that DDT should not have been banned here??? No, I don't think so. I guess it's just that it's somewhat obvious that DDT is downright TOXIC... not just to individuals, but to the land and to the community at large... hence, the ban in the United States.

Do trans fats pose a similar threat to us as citizens??? Or are they just in the same scapegoat club as tobacco? (Which, let's face it, does impact more than those who choose to smoke... but that doesn't mean that I'm all jazzed about the erosion of their liberties, either -- even though I am a non-smoker who HATES to be around cigarette smoke...) Personally, I feel that mineral oil and Vaseline are the insidious & unhealthy by-products of a glutted industry that ought to be ashamed of itself (if for no other reason than the hiding of magic bullet and biodiesel technology!), and I make every effort not to buy products that make use of this cheap filler shit instead of using the pricier good stuff -- even though I cannot "make do" without the primary evil because of the obvious inherent difficulties. Do I think something ought to be done, even as I continue to drive my gas-guzzling Exploder??? Of course, I do. I look forward to it -- even if it means the forced obsolescence of my vehicle -- because it will be a change for the good, and because EVERYONE will be in the same boat as myself... which will therefore necessitate the availability of some viable alternative (especially when the rich & powerful will finally be impacted as well). This wouldn't happen if only I, personally, were trying to boycott the use of petroleum products... an admirably intended, but patently futile effort.

Which brings me back to the fats. What *is* the "right" attitude about it: should the makers of "poison" be allowed to continue to peddle their tasty wares to us, just because we crave them and, after all, it isn't going to kill us all at once... but will likely help to bring about a very gradual decline (and an expensively complicated one at that -- not only for the consumers ("users"?), but for the taxpayers and the insured as well... a la tobacco costs), or should the illegalizing of them be heralded as an impetus for forced overall improvement of the American diet, complete with better food ingredients for all??? I just don't know.

Aaron Shurtleff | December 11, 2006
Actually, there have been attempts to have DDT banned worldwide. However, it is too good (according to the folks in Africa) at killing the mosquitoes that spread malaria, so that it won't happen. I don't think it's that the US is keeping the supply open tot he rest of the world for that reason (or, at least, not only for that reason).

This is a HUGE topic of conversation among entomologists. I promise that if DDT wasn't so damn good at killing malaria mosquitoes, this conversation would not be taking place.

Trans fats are yummy though. :)

Jackie Mason | December 11, 2006
[hidden by request]

David Mitzman | December 11, 2006
Go to any ethnic restaurant that serves fried foods or pastries and I can guarantee you'll find trans fat in them. I tend to shy away from fried foods and heavy deserts now so the fact it won't be available any more doesn't bother me. The problem lies in that our country is just getting more and more fat and heart disease is a prevalent problem. Banning trans fat isn't going to solve it. Natural selection will take care of that part.

There are rules governing the publishing of nutritional information and over the past few years, trans fat has been added to that label on pre-packaged foods. What I think should be done is the requirement of all food producers (not just pre-packaged foods, but restaurants included) have readily available all nutritional information. We are so far behind on this. I went to Applebees the other night and wanted to know nutritional information on some items on their menu and they had no idea. There was no published data except for their Weight Watchers menu because, according to their website, the vendors that supply each restaurant differ. Guess what though? Each vendor publishes nutritional information on the products they sell, so it's not that hard to give this information to the consumer (which we have every right to have). I'm trying to be very conscious of what I'm eating now so I'd like to know what's in my food (more than just the trans fat content, but regular fat, carbs, sodium, proteins, etc). I know McDonalds and some other fast food places publish this information but that doesn't matter because if you're eating there, you know that you're not exactly putting healthy ingredients in your body. I could imagine some people saying that if they're eating chicken strips from McDonalds, they're saying "oh it's white meat so it's ok!" but guess what? It's deep fried. A 5 piece serving is 630 calories with 33 grams of fat! That's insane! I can have a whole meal with desert and drink for that many calories (and a fraction of the fat).

I don't think the problem with obesity and heart disease (non-genetic) will be solved easily until we have a solidified food pyramid and better education. I watch tv and see advertisements for kids snacks that are just pure sugar and then parents don't make their kids go out and exercise and wonder why they're fat. I know this woman that's trying to lose weight (does Weight Watchers and everything) but continuously gains weight. She doesn't know why. I watched her grab a plate full of yellow rice (not sure if it was fried or not) that was at least 6-7 servings (a regular plastic plate piled about 3" high in the center) and 2 bagels to go along with it. The rice alone was more than a days worth of carbohydrates, and not counting what crap she put on the bagels (if she put anythin gon them, I'm not sure). With eating like that, no wonder she doesn't lose weight. She's opting for the surgery but guess what? She's only going to get fat again.

I don't have a problem with people having the occasional sweet. It's the abundance of sweets and bad foods along with a total lack of self control that a lot of people have. Sure, I'm guilty of overeating and everyone has that but it's gotta be learned. I'm on Weight Watchers myself and it's working great. Aside from a few bad weeks after moving I've lost 15 pounds and I'm 13 away from my goal. It's a great system that taught me how to limit how much I'm eating while allowing me to eat what I like. And yes, I do realize that there are people who are genetically predisposed to being overweight (and some morbidly obese) so no matter what they do, they can't lose weight. This is where the surgery should come into play (if needed).

Amy Austin | December 12, 2006
Ha... Aaron, I was pulling that DDT info out of my dusty memory from *years* ago and wasn't even sure if it's still true that it's used abroad -- props to me for hitting upon a hot topic in your little entomological community, though! ;-D I wasn't aware that there was still discussion on the subject or that malaria-carrying mosquitoes were the primary proponents, either (heheheh)... but I was just using it as an example of how insular people can be when it comes to this type of thing. Like they can happily draw lines and say, "it's not happening *here*!" and turn the other way while it happens elsewhere. Sorry if I chose a poorly-informed example to illustrate my point!

And my point about trans fats is that the banning of them doesn't have to mean the end of any "delicacies" -- I mentioned petroleum by-products as an analogy to the situation.... meaning, there do exist healthier alternatives, and using them doesn't require the sacrifice of our gluttonous indulgences! In fact, some things can even be made tastier!!! Why, for instance, has peanut butter always included "hydrogenated oil"??? This is an example of a trans fat. It's my understanding that the hydrogenation of the oil is what lends peanut butter its cohesiveness and keeps it from separating... a very undesirable trait of "all-natural" peanut butters. Well, guess what. They can & do make trans-fat-free peanut butter now, also labeling it as natural, and it tastes great. In fact, I would challenge anyone here to differentiate between the "new & improved" peanut butter and the traditional, filled with evil trans fatty hydrogenation kind and tell me that they prefer the one that's bad for you. I know that many such illustrations exist, and my question is "why?" Once upon a time, it was probably quite innocent -- manufacturers likely didn't initially realize that their hydrogenation process was so bad for us -- but at the point that they did, why didn't they make these changes sooner??? Why does it take "the banning of trans fats" to drive that point home (as clearly, it seems to be doing, since the manufacturers appear to be trying to stay ahead of the ball on it now)? Mmm, could it be economics??? Yeah, that probably has a lot (everything) to do with it. Whether it's because hydrogenated oils are a cheaper product to begin with or because refitting their processes to formulate with the healthier alternatives is too costly, that's what it boils down to -- money over health. Starting a legislative move against these trans fats is having a positive impact by pushing food producers to "get with the times" and feed us better... not necessarily better foods, but at least foods with better ingredients. So now those Oreos might only kill you in ten years, instead of five!!! ;-D

And, of course, it's easy and common-sensical to point out that the laws of supply & demand are all that are needed to change these things -- not more stupid legislation to do it for us -- right? Well, two things: 1) that's kind of like saying that "if people just wouldn't buy drugs, there would be no more drug dealers!" (or sex/prostitution... or bootlegs/piracy... whatever -- choose your evil, and fill in the blanks!); and 2) if the healthier alternatives are always more expensive, then how are any but the wealthy and/or educated & determined few (who care more about their health than their wallets) going to make a difference for anyone but themselves?

David Mitzman | December 12, 2006
I see your point Amy but on your number 2, people have had trans fats around for years and the obesity problem is only in the more recent of times. It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of making the proper choices to lead a healthy lifestyle. There is an FDA for a reason and I wouldn't outright disagree wtih a ban if it's in the best interest of the public. I don't think a ban could be unconsitutional because this isn't really alienating our rights here. Sure as a human you have the right to make yourself unhealthy and clog your arteries as you please but there is an obesity epidemic in this country and I think we need to get it taken care of. Maybe instead of an outright ban, put heavy taxes on trans fat usage (a la cigarrettes). Personally I can live without them. I've been making sure I purchase foods without trans fats and meals made without hydrogenated oils because they tend to tie my stomach up in knots. I had 2 chicken fingers a few nights ago and my stomach was in so much pain aftewards. Oh and by the way, I LOVE natural peanutbutter. There's something about it that makes it taste better (all the peanut oil sitting on top, it has it's charm).

David Mitzman | December 12, 2006
On a side note, posted on a webcomic I read regularly (www.alienlovespredator.com):

Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 9:10am ET

New York City passes trans fat ban

Smoking was banned in NYC restaurants and bars three years ago, in large part due to the dangers of second-hand smoke to bartenders and other servers, and I was totally in favor of that decision. But I need my Popeye's fried chicken and McDonald's french fries (incidentally, see the first two photos in the article linked above)! Also, what's this about them threatening to force restaurants to print nutritional info on their menus? There's no way I'm gonna eat another sack of White Castles if I knew exactly what was in 'em. The whole point of eating out is to eat what you want and not give a damn about what's in it.

And there goes the conscious decision I'm made to eat like crap while I'm still young and can take it. I've always been a 32 waist; well I'm still a 32 waist, except unbuttoned now. So I can make my own choices, thank you very much Board of Health.

Scott Hardie | December 27, 2006
Back in 2002, I was in the small minority of people who voted against the indoor smoking ban in the state of Florida. Partly I was annoyed that casinos got a loophole, but mostly I was from the old school personal-liberty camp and didn't like the government telling people what they could do to their own health. Don't like second-hand smoke? Don't patronize businesses that still have a smoking section.

Now I'm four years older and (I hope) four years wiser, and I find myself just a little conflicted on the similar trans-fat ban. Ultimately the ban is still unjust, but this isn't a black and white issue where one value automatically trumps all others. Let's face it, eating out is a part of life in America, and short of mandated nutritional information brochures (good idea Dave), we can't avoid trans fat when we do eat out. In other words, we're going to poison ourselves irreparably unless there's either a major shift in national eating habits or governmental intervention, and of course the latter happened first. I still oppose the ban, but I wonder if I won't be even more inclined to support it after all in four more years.

Anna Gregoline | December 27, 2006
The thing is - in a few years, they will be able to have non-trans fats in everything, and with the way food science is, everything will taste the same. So I don't really see the problem.

Jackie Mason | December 28, 2006
[hidden by request]

David Mitzman | December 29, 2006
Woah I'm getting agreements :)
I'm not saying that eating dinner or any meal out is bad. I'm just saying we have to make wise choices. For instance, when I go out I pass on the french fries and get something lighter. It's also all about portion control. There was one place I went in downtown West Palm Beach (Cityplace if you know the area) called Brewzi's. It was a microbrewery restaurant and the food was delicious. I had ordered this grilled chicken sandwhich (doesn't sound too bad!) but when it showed up, it was gigantic. That sandwhich fed me for 3 meals. Here is proof: Sammich is huge. And get this, that sandwhich cost only $8. I posted that picture on my old website with a caption that said "Third world countries eat your heart out, just don't eat my sandwhich." That quote is not credited to me, but the source shall remain anonymous.

Anyway, that's the biggest problem with eating out. Look at the portion size there. People wonder why this country is just getting fatter and fatter. It's a given we don't know everything there is to know about nutrition and different people can live healthy lifestyles in different ways. For me at this point it's eating less, exercising more, and just watching the junk food intake (but I do allow myself some treats now and then, everyone needs something sugary and delicious).

I just think we need to assess how we eat on an individual basis and make the right choices from there. Not everyone can do a Weight Watchers or a South Beach Diet and get healthy (and South Beach is a waste, not as bad as Atkins but a close second).

Steve Dunn | December 29, 2006
Minor quibble: I don't think natural selection will solve the obesity epidemic because fat doesn't cause people to die before they reach reproductive age. It kills them much later, after selective pressures are, from a genetic standpoint, irrelevant.