Ban the Tran(s) or Damn the Man?
The New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene will consider banning trans fats from New York City restaurants, and require that restaurants post nutritional information for all the items on their menus.
Meanwhile, the Center for Consumer Freedom calls it "paternalism".
So what do you think? Are they saving us, or keeping us down?
"New Yorkers are consuming a hazardous, artificial substance without their knowledge or consent," Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas R. Frieden said. "Trans fat causes heart disease. Like lead in paint, artificial trans fat in food is invisible and dangerous, and it can be replaced. While it may take some effort, restaurants can replace trans fat without changing the taste or cost of food. No one will miss it when it's gone"
Meanwhile, the Center for Consumer Freedom calls it "paternalism".
For our part, we told USA Today this morning that the NYC menu intervention is "a solution in search of a problem," since Americans already "know that a Diet Coke has fewer calories than a milkshake."
New York is no stranger to meddling government regulators who are pretty sure that they know better than the people they ostensibly represent -- especially the poor.
So what do you think? Are they saving us, or keeping us down?
20 Comments:
The response from the Center for Consumer Freedom is puzzling. Consumer advocates usually push for more - not less - information. People have a right to know what they're eating.
It's because the Center for Consumer Freedom is actually a fast-food industry advocacy group posing as a consumer organization!
This would cost the restaurant industry a few bucks, but I think it would be totally worth it in terms of public health. Hopefully if it works in NYC, there'll be a domino effect.
"People have a right to know what they're eating"
Absolutely. The individual has the right to choose what they want to eat. End of story.
"I think it would be totally worth it in terms of public health."
No, it would be an infringement on the rights of individuals. If people want to eat crap, let them. It's not the job of the public to tell people what to do with their bodies. Or do you want the domino effect to apply to other private practices, such as sexual orientation? You'd be surprised how much the irresponsible actions of homosexuals has led to larger costs in the health system.
Cost the restaurant industry a few bucks? How about harming an already stagnant economy?
This law would in no way infringe on anyone's right to eat crap. Replacing trans fats with other fats would not change the appearance or taste of foods. Donuts and the like would even still be bad for you! Just slightly less bad.
Making the nutritional information available for the items on the menu, great. I think that should be done. Banning transfats from food, not so much. Yes it's bad for you. However people should be able to make up their own mind about whether they want to eat it or not. By providing the nutritional informaion, this at least gives the customer the information of what exactly they are eating.
If someone wants to take something actively harmful off the market, that's absolutely fine by me. Transfats don't enhance flavour, they simply make the mass production of certain foodstuffs more economical. Personally I can't imagine why anyone would willingly want to eat them anyway.
Transfats--isn't that the manmade gunk they use to make McDonald's french fries last for a melinium? By all means, take it away. I'm something of a naturalist myself, so anything not grown from the dirt, especially if it's bad for you, is something I want avoid. As for individual rights, do you think people should have the right to poison themselves? I mean, what if you went to a sandwich shop and they asked you if you'd like some lead along with your lettuce, cheese and olives.
Maggie, I totally agree. I would fight to do the death for the rights of any person, regardless of size, to enjoy an all-butter croissant or even French fries fried in beef dripping or goose fat, if that's what floats their boat - and I'm the last person to ever take a moralistic "this is bad for you" stance but, in this instance, with various countries attempting to find ways to legislate against obesity, it would make infinite sense to ban the routine use of transfats in processed food production.
I'm all for posting the nutritional info on menus, but BANNING a certain type of fat, even if it would have to be reported in the nutritional info? You've got to be kidding me!
I don't see any legislation against salty foods (high blood pressure), soda (tooth decay and obesity), red meat (high colesterol, heart disease), etc. That's because nothing is 100% safe, and people should be allowed to make choices when the choices only affect themselves.
But there's nothing good about the fat. It doesn't taste better, it's just a way for companies to misrepresent the nutrition content of their food, since they have to list saturated fat and haven't had to do the same with trans fat. It's not infringing on anything or changing one iota about the flavor or even fat content of what we eat. It's just a freebie--things getting incrementally healthier with a slightly healthier fat. I'm all for banning it, myself.
Also, as several people mentioned above (and pardon me if I'm getting this wrong, for I am far from an expert nutritionist) but transfats are sort of a "frankenfood," aren't they? Isn't this just sort of like making Coca Cola stop putting cocaine in their soda?
Also, buffpuff - thank you for the image of french fries dripping with goose fat. For some reason, it totally cracks me up to envision someone using that as a catch phrase in a fast-food ad - preferably spouted repeatedly by cool, slack-jawed teens.
If you don't stop the nanny state today, tomorrow it will be interfering in your business, your family, and your way of life. It's not the government's business to make sure I eat all of my vegetables and do my homework. And there's nothing wrong with an industry trying to protect its interests. If you ran a restaurant, you wouldn't want Big Brother telling you how to make your meals either.
There's nothing wrong with eating arsenic too, in moderation. I mean, small amounts, but really its okay. Large amounts will kill you over time, but intelligent people should be able to figure out how much they've eaten and plan accordingly. No nanny state should prohibit its use as a "flavor enhancer," to add a nice almond overtone to gourmet dishes. Hell, nicer places shouldn't even have to disclose its use. People need to take a little responsibility for their own actions, damn it!
The libertarian chorus here seems to be painfully unaware that our "nanny state" already does extensively regulate what can and cannot be put in food sold to the public, as well as how it can be prepared. As well they should! I certainly would not want to live in a world where toxins and carcinogens and infectious agents were permitted in our foods and where it was my responsibility to scrutinize ingredient lists if I chose not to eat these things.
Nice, Richard! And arsenic DOES have a pleasant almond flavor.
Yeah - - - this is just definitely not an 'individual choice' thing. This is one of those things government is actually made for, which is to protect people from lazy-ass corporate greed. Transfat doesn't make it taste better, it just makes it cheaper and more toxic.
On a secondary note - rock, Jen! I think this is the first time we've come down on the same side of an issue. :)
It's actually cyanide that comes from bitter almonds, but it's still an excellent point!
trans fats are unsafe at ANY (and EVERY) level. this cannot be said of salt, sugar or red meat.
trans fats are unsafe at ANY and EVERY level. this should end the debate.
it is not a "nanny state" to prohibit one person from poisoning another, whether for profit (as is the case here) or for any reason; in fact, prohibiting one person from harming another is the very essence of living in a society.
trans fats are unsafe at any and every level. they are not a "food", and they should absolutely be banned from being added to food.
I just wanted to respond to Jess's comment about salt and sugar content. In the UK manufacturers have had to bow to public pressure about taking steps to reduce levels of both, particularly in food and drink products aimed at children. To be honest, I'm all for that as well. It makes life considerably easier for those who need or prefer to follow a low-sodium or low-sugar diet - while anyone who finds the food too bland can add salt or sugar to their taste. Lord knows they're both cheap enough and that way everybody's happy.
And now KFC has announced that they're going to be phasing trans fats out of their food voluntarily, but likely prompted by the potential change in NYC law.
Their parent company's stock price went up in response to the news. I think this could be one of those dominoes.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home