• Home
• Healthy Living Blog
• Diet Plans
• Diet Forums
• Health Directory
• Weight Loss Resources
• Best Diet Plans
• Weight Loss Plans
• Featherish Fitness
• Archives
• Buy Diet Pills

• CPAP for Sleep Apnea
• Online Life Insurance
• Online Pharmacy Canada
• Connecticut Weight Loss Surgery
• canadian pharmacy

Home >> Diet Forums >> NYC bans trans fat in restaurants

NYC bans trans fat in restaurants

Heather said: "It's an interesting move by the State. I'll bet that this new measure throws a wrench into many eatery businesses, but this change is good. Ohio just went smoke free, too. Starting this Thursday all restuarants are smoke free.. same thing in the workplace.. people have to smoke away from the door because the smoke blows back in."

Heather said: "They are talking about doing the same thing here in Cleveland. I guess it's on the agenda for 2007. Public smoking is already gone..."

Heather said: "Cleveland is looking to ban transfats this year. They've already banned smoking, so this will probably be the next thing to go.."

cvalh said: "New York City Bans Science Thursday , December 07, 2006 By Steven Milloy The New York City Board of Health this week banned the use of trans fats by restaurants. The decision is directly traceable back to the "research" of Harvard University's Alberto Ascherio and Walter Willett, the promoters-in-chief of trans fats hysteria. Now that the Board has deemed their dubious trans fats research suitable for dictating public policy, New Yorkers ought to hope that Ascherio and Willett don't press the Board to implement some of their other published research that is similar in "quality" to their trans fats work. New Yorkers could, for example, see restaurants banned from serving potatoes, peas, peanuts, beans, lentils, orange juice and grapefruit juice. Ascherio-Willett reported an increase in the risk of heart disease among consumers of these foods in the Annals of Internal Medicine (June 2001). Although none of those slight correlations were statistically meaningful -- and, in all probability, were simply meaningless chance occurrences -- a similar shortcoming didn't seem to matter to the Board when it came to their trans fats research. Indian restaurants could be banned from cooking with sunflower oil. Ascherio-Willett once found that consumers of Indian food cooked in sunflower oil were up to 3 times more likely to suffer heart attacks than consumers of Indian food cooked in mustard oil (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2004). Sure it was only one study and even they acknowledged the need for more research -- but that didn't stop Ascherio-Willett from recommending the switch in cooking oils. Red meat might disappear, too. Ascherio-Willett reported a 63 percent increase in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with iron intake from red meat (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Jan. 2004). They didn't bother to verify how much iron from red meat any of the study subjects consumed and, therefore, don't actually have a firm basis for linking red meat consumption with the disease - but what the heck, they don't really know the quantity of trans fats consumed by any of those study subjects either. It's not looking good for dairy products either. Ascherio-Willett reported in the Annals of Neurology (Dec. 2002) that consumption of dairy products was associated with an 80 percent increase in the risk of Parkinson's Disease among men. Although they concluded at the time that the finding needed further evaluation, why should the Board wait for more research? That could take forever. If the inconsistent and contradictory trans fats research doesn't require further evaluation, I can't imagine why it would be necessary for dairy products. Regular (sugar-sweetened) soft drinks ought to be history as well. Willett linked them with weight gain and diabetes in women (Journal of the American Medical Association, Aug. 25, 2004). It didn't even matter that the same study also inexplicably linked diet soft drinks with a similar risk of diabetes. It's really odd that when their research inadvertently debunks itself and other food myths, almost no one learns of it. And that's true for their trans fats research, as well. The Board's notice of its decision to ban trans fats tries to bolster its case by playing on popular misconceptions about saturated fat. The notice states that, "trans fat appears even worse than saturated fat." The Board apparently isn't familiar with the several Ascherio-Willett studies that fail to link saturated fat with heart disease and stroke. The public's 30-year long fear of saturated fat and the Board's statement is, in fact, without a scientific basis. It's simply astounding that the Board can get away with exploiting one debunked myth to help propagate another. Just to show that not all the Ascherio-Willett research is about simply banning foods - after all, it is possible that at some point the public will tire of being nannied - the Board may want to consider requiring restaurant patrons to order caffeinated coffee with every meal. One Ascherio-Willett study reported that the risk of type 2 diabetes was reduced by a statistically significant 54 percent among men who consumed 6 or more cups of coffee per day (Annals of Internal Medicine, Jan. 6, 2004). The Board might also want to mandate the daily consumption of pizza by men. Ascherio-Willett reported that men who consume more than 10 servings of pizza per week reduce their risk of prostate cancer by one-third (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 1995). It's not that either coffee or pizza is a proven "health" food - far from it - but the Board should consider their great distraction potential. Just as the ancient Roman emperors distracted citizens with bread and circuses while taking away their freedoms, the Board could easily distract New Yorkers with coffee and pizza as it dismantles consumer choice in restaurants bit by bit. Come to think of it, why is the Board's trans fats ban limited to restaurants? What about grocery stores and convenience shops? If trans fats are so bad, why should you be able to purchase food in a store that is too dangerous to be served in a restaurant? The Board's trans fats ban has dramatically lowered the bar for scientific proof. It's such a sad spectacle that the Board of Health ought to be renamed the Bored of Science."

cvalh said: "Smoking is NOT the same thing. A person can choose not to eat trans-fats (which is why I DO think it's good to require restaurants to SAY what they use), but a person can't choose to not breathe in second-hand smoke. Trans-fats may not be good for you, but I don't think it is at ALL right to ban them in restaurants."

cvalh said: "Lakelady, I agree with you about the "pendulum." We are a free country... And the pendulum has been swinging the whole time the USA has existed. That's why in the 40's and 50's, people were super conservative, but then in the 60's and 70's you had so much hippy-free love stuff... People only put up with extremes for so long."

cvalh said: "My opinion, in short... It won't last because someone will take it to court as unconstitutional (which I'm fairly sure it probably IS)."

cvalh said: "We're complaining about the principle of the matter, not the actual loss of trans fats :talk028: I'm perfectly happy to order things without any trans fats, but I don't think it should be banned. This isn't like smoking, where if I eat a trans fat-full meal, you have to "eat" my left overs (second hand smoke reference)."

spectrachic311 said: "THe company I work for is working on getting trans fat out of all its products. It's really not a big deal that they are banning it. All it means is that the trans fats that were created to mimic normal saturated fat is going away, bringing back all the saturated fat. Trans-fat free foods are still going to have saturated fat, but research says natural saturated fats are not as bad for you as trans fats. Saturated fats taste better anyway, so why's everyone complaining? :)"

spectrachic311 said: "I suppose it makes sense, but certain bans are a lot more questionable than others. What would have happened if they hadn't banned cocaine from medical use? It's one of those drugs that has more bad side effects than good ones and there are other drugs out there that actually do work lots better than cocaine. The whole thing with trans fats in foods comes from a lot of people who decided several decades ago that if they could hydrogenate soybean oils and palm oils and other oils to make them solid at room temperature, they could get a cheaper way to make shelf-stable food. No one really had done a lot of research into the health problems associated with them. Plus, a lot of people figured it was no different than saturated fats, so no one really minded them being in foods. As far as the food production industry's concerned, yeah, it'll cost us more to use naturally occuring fats in our products now and the recipes will need to be reformulated a bit, but the end result is a more healthy product. I agree that you shouldn't ban things like junk food in general; it's a choice you make to eat that food. But it's not really a choice to eat trans fat, it's just in a LOT of foods and people aren't really choosing to eat it or not. It's kind of just there and if it weren't there, no one's food choices are really going to change. You can eat crackers, cookies, chips, etc., same as before but now they just won't have trans fat in them. It's not like they're eliminating those foods from the city or anything."

xlilphishx said: "I used to smoke for actually 10 years. I quit in January of '06 on New Years Day. As a non smoker for over a year, I am glad that in all of NY it has been banned from public places. As for trans fats- do you know what they really are? They are REALLY damaging. Pretty much a perfect example is margarine. It doesn't melt like butter does. It just sticks to everything. IE: Arteries, heart, etc. It kills people. Probably the reason why America has a much higher heart attack rate than Europe. And, Europe doesn't nearly have the amount of Fast Food restuarants that America has. I rather keep my heart and body healthy from all these bad elements."

DBrew said: "I think,just like most people seem to think in this forum, that these bans are ridiculous, but I WISH all the foods we eat that are delicious and contain trans fats would be made with healthier alternatives. Then we could indulge without clogging our arteries!"

Kat_the_Amazon said: "[QUOTE=lakelady]Take heart, Kat and Midnight. I'm much older than you and I've seen more! Trust me when I tell you that VERY SOON the silent majority is going to wake up, yawn, look around, and say, 'HEY! you can't do that!' They'll only be pushed just so far before they hack off the tendrils the government has been insinuating into our lives. Kat, I DON'T think you can compare smoking to transfat, but I do agree that banning smoking is wrong in principal. But then, I also think marijuana should be legalized along with prostitution. It would save the country hundreds of millions of dollars, slow the spread of disease, and we'd stop creating our own criminals! Don't worry, our kids WILL have their personal freedoms intact. It's bred-to-the-bone in us![/QUOTE] Actually, i've always been an advocate of legalizing prostitution! I'm just worried that the "bred-to-the-bone" is breeding out with the pussification of America!"

Kat_the_Amazon said: "I think banning smoking in public places is wrong along with bannign trans fat. The government is butting in all the wrong places and staying out of the ones that important. I'm scared to think of what America is going to be in 50 years..."

wildlove said: "[QUOTE=Vetis][B]Lenina Huxley:[/B] Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat . . . [B]John Spartan:[/B] Are you sh**ing me? [B]A computer:[/B] John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute. [B]John Spartan:[/B] What the Hell is that? [B]A computer: [/B] John Spartan, you are fined one credit . . . [B]Lenina Huxley:[/B] Bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal. But, then again so is pregnancy, if you don't have a license.[/QUOTE] Almost there, just a little longer. :sad010: The saddest thing is people have actually been tricked into thinking all these bans actually have something to do with fats/smoking/etc. The truth of the matter is all these bans come down to one thing: control. They don't have anything to do with what is actully getting banned. I think that is why people are comparing smoking to trans fats. They both boil down to control, doesn't matter what's being controlled. I should be able to chose if I want to go to a bar serving the transfat special with a side order of smoke, just like the business owner should get to decide if they want to serve transfat and smoke. It's my choice to go there or not, and now I have don't even have the option to make my own choice. Just like business owners don't have the option to make their own choices. That's the problem, not the substance being controlled. The root of this matter is so far past fats or smoke. What's worse is people are so busy disagreeing about what is worse, smoke or fats, that they fail to see the bigger issue of pure control. Nice trick. Score one for big brother. Ahhhh, sorry about the rant. :cussing:"

Diamond said: "Let people eat what they want. I'm just glad that I don't work in the healthcare industry and have to take care of people that are too stupid to take care of themselves. At least everyone will be fat and happy."

Diamond said: ":) Lakelady I think people should eat whatever they want. It isn't up to the govt. to decide. If New Yorker's get ticked off enough they'll move to eat transfats somewhere else. :th_dblthumb2:"

mahesh67 said: "Health officials should try and stop bad things from being sold. Nobody really wants these trans fats. They are unneeded."

mahesh67 said: "Trans fats sound really bad! I dont think I want them. :angry:"

mahesh67 said: "The first city in the nation to [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_he_me/diet_trans_fat_ban_26]ban trans fats[/url] Trans fats are very bad for you. Do you think this measure is good?"

lakelady said: "It's not the transfats people are concerned about, it's the intrusion into their lives and the principle of yet another choice being taken away by the government. The ban is just a symptom!"

lakelady said: "can't quite figure out the tone of your message, diamond. Do you believe the government should dictate to us, what we can eat? Your post sounds a bit bitter."

lakelady said: "Take heart, Kat and Midnight. I'm much older than you and I've seen more! Trust me when I tell you that VERY SOON the silent majority is going to wake up, yawn, look around, and say, 'HEY! you can't do that!' They'll only be pushed just so far before they hack off the tendrils the government has been insinuating into our lives. Kat, I DON'T think you can compare smoking to transfat, but I do agree that banning smoking is wrong in principal. But then, I also think marijuana should be legalized along with prostitution. It would save the country hundreds of millions of dollars, slow the spread of disease, and we'd stop creating our own criminals! Don't worry, our kids WILL have their personal freedoms intact. It's bred-to-the-bone in us!"

lakelady said: "cvalh, the scary thing is that some people will take this seriously! Safety Nazis are everywhere. just this week they posted signs prohibiting the building of 'jumps' (little piles of snow the kids pile up) on the local sledding slopes along with a bunch of other silly rules. Pretty soon all they'll be able to do is walk slowly down the hills, single file, in specially approved, waffle-soled boots. Wheeee!"

lakelady said: "yeah, Heather, comparing banning transfats to banning smoking in public places is beneath a smart girl like you!:sad010:"

lakelady said: "Oh, it's DEFINITELY going to be better for the health of New Yorkers, but good? NO! I'm so heartily sick of the government sticking it's fingers into EVERY aspect of our lives that I could vomit. What ever happened to personal accountability? Sure, I like the fact that transfat alternatives are widely available, but to have it dictated to a business owner, or their customers is WAY too intrusive!:angry:"

lakelady said: "[QUOTE=cvalh]We're complaining about the principle of the matter, not the actual loss of trans fats :talk028: [/QUOTE] It's frightening how many people just don't get the 'slippery slope' concept Cvalh, and many of them won't get it 'til they're looking up from the bottom saying, "how in the H=LL did I get way down here?!""

lakelady said: "uhhh, I really hate to tell you this Spectra, but they HAVEN'T banned cocaine for medical use. It's used in surgery every day all across the country, (generally in liquid form however). They HAVE banned pallative heroin, a measure the medical community abhorrs! Heroin is a much more effective method of pain relief for terminal cancer patients than is morphine. Every docor IN THE WORLD has access to pallative heroin for their terminal patients (including those in Canada), except for ours! Uh oh, sorry to get so off topic, but I feel strongly about this! I had a friend a few years ago die of cancer, needlessly in excruciating pain because of this outmoded ban that's ONLY in the United States. Our doctors have been fighting this ban with no effect, for DECADES!"

Vetis said: "[B]Lenina Huxley:[/B] Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat . . . [B]John Spartan:[/B] Are you sh**ing me? [B]A computer:[/B] John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute. [B]John Spartan:[/B] What the Hell is that? [B]A computer: [/B] John Spartan, you are fined one credit . . . [B]Lenina Huxley:[/B] Bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal. But, then again so is pregnancy, if you don't have a license."