Do You Trust the Health Authorities?

If I want to eat a trans-fat loaded sandwich, I think I should be allowed.

The information is out there... it's a matter of choosing at that point.

I don't eat 1.3 grams of trans-fats a day, much less per 1000 Calories, averaged out. Because I care.

I suppose with me... I tend to stay away from legislation when possible. Education, not legislation.

I disagree with any and all attempts of government to force its ideas of clean living down my throat.

With the amount of press that trans fats have gotten, there's simply no excuse to not at least know you should read a little about it, if you don't already know the score. Ditto with high fructose corn syrup and all of the other garbage in low quality, processed foods.

If people choose to eat crap on a regular basis, that's their right. It's their bodies, and their lives.

No one forces anyone to eat trans fats. No one forces anyone to eat processed foods.

The one exception I might be comfortable with is a ban on trans fats in schools, but trans fats are only the tip of the iceberg if school lunches are still the garbage I was served when I was in high school in the 80s.

I resent any attempt of any government to tell me what I can or cannot consume, smoke, snort, inject, say, read, watch, or listen to.

Peoples' health and diets are their own responsibility. In absence of laws like this, millions of people have taken responsibility for their health into their own hands, and this list is just one example. I'm an adult; I don't need a nanny.

Health Authorities are not always experts. One well meaning Politian wanted to ban fatty food which would include whole milk which is better for small children than low fat.
But I think all restaurants including casual chains should be forced to give the proper information on line or in the store. While many fast food companies do have the info online many causal chains do not have the info online.

I agree with the previous comments. I don't like laws telling me how to eat. It's a choice.

Iggy Petulante said it best...

"I resent any attempt of any government to tell me what I can or cannot consume, smoke, snort, inject, say, read, watch, or listen to."

Ditto :)

A ban may be overkill, but I do support labelling requirements. It's very difficult to tell what things are made of and how and socially awkward to ask for nutritional information while ordering at a restaurant.

No one is telling you what to eat, they are just telling junk food companies to stop using fat, that in very small amounts, (1.3 grams is about 1/4 of a teaspoon) significantly increase heart attack risk! The women in the study who at 2 grams, or 1/2 a teaspoon of trans fats per 1000 calories had TRIPLE the rate of heart disease! Goodness, that is a very large risk from only 1/2 teaspoon of fat. Eat whatever you want, but when I'm on the road with a carload of kids then I would really appreciate some healthy food to give them from McDonald's or wherever I can get it quick and cheap. A sixth grader can't be waiting for hours until we get home when he's been ice skating for 15 hours. I try to make them almost every meal and we have family dinners with healthy food more than any other family I know, but I'm amazed at how frequently they end up having to eat away from home. Go to any birthday party, any restaurant, school, parks, the pool, etc... and all you can find for your child is a bunch of sugar and shortening to eat. I'm all for SOME type of HELP.
I think the government is basically doing nothing to help me in any shape or form but I'm giving them a huge chunk of my money every month. We have crappy overcrowded schools, our roads are terrible, our health care is the pits, so I welcome a ban on stupid trans fats. God knows they won't do anything about it anyway so why even have this conversation in the first place; it's like talking to a wall.

I've only seen Jamie Oliver's show once - he made his daughter pasta and then took her to the park and bought her icecream. He also seems a bit chubby and red in the face. I'm not sure why the media feel the need to play along with his self-appointed campaign to promote the foods Sainsbury pays him to advertise.

He's been part of a big campaign here in the Uk (took a petition to Downing Street etc) for healthier school meals, which at this point in time seems to be backfiring - forcing kids to eat healthy in school means that less and less of them are going for school meals and are choosing to eat out or go home for lunch instead. A local school received a donation of McCains Low fat Oven chips and was ridiculed for accepting it given the recent 'healthy eating' stance of the government, but explained that the kids are going to eat chips either way, surely it's better to offer them a slightly healthier option rather than them nipping out to the chip shop? Information and education definitely seems to be the way forward - the transfat question is a little more difficult here as it doesn't have to be included on the label, but I do believe banning people from the right to choose is wrong.

Something needs to be done. Look around, we as a nation are in trouble. I say cheer on the doer, the Mayor who is trying to make a difference. While I agree with the right to choose, I also thing corporate food is out of control. They need to be responsible members of society and not contribute to our demise in the name of profit.

Trans fats are not necessary to produce anything that is produced right now. So it is not a ban on fries or burgers or donuts, just on a type of fat that should not be produced and can be replaced with other kinds. It is not low-fat policing. Whoever compared it to asbestus here was right.

With a node to the recently departed free-market economist and Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman, I do not think that a government should tell a private business what edible food it should or should not use. As Heather states above, "education, not legislation".

Fast food companies use trans-fats because they are cheap and effective for their purpose. Other fats will be more costly, and that cost will be pushed onto the consumer. Their are fast food alternatives - Subway does a reasonable job as does keeping Kashi granola bars in your car for emergencies.

jb said:
I've only seen Jamie Oliver's show once - he made his daughter pasta and then took her to the park and bought her icecream. He also seems a bit chubby and red in the face.[...]

He gave his daughter an ice cream, so what? It is quite possible to eat healthy 99% of the time and have treats now and then. As for him being a bit chubby, you must be one of those people who believes a person must look a certain way to be healthy, I'd be surprised if he was overweight. Shame on Jamie Oliver for giving a damn about other peoples' children when they obviously don't.

Iggy Petulante said:
I resent any attempt of any government to tell me what I can or cannot consume, smoke, snort, inject, say, read, watch, or listen to.[...]

That's great, you inject, smoke and consume whatever you want, I just wish you wouldn't expect my taxes to pay for your health care when all the cr*p that you were warned about comes back to bite you on the a**. If we want personal freedom to make our own choices, then we have to prove that we can be responsible about it, and not just expect that someone else will pick up the pieces, not to mention the bill.

Heather said:
Education, not
legislation.[...]

That is how it SHOULD be, however, the reality is that education obviously isn't working, it's not reaching the people who need it most.

Susanna said:
Fast food companies use trans-fats because they are cheap and effective for their purpose. Other fats will be more costly, and that cost will be pushed onto the consumer.[...]

That is true, but I would rather have people paying more for better quality product with less chance of getting sick, while taxes are spent on more productive issues, that way I'm not footing the bill.

Maybe the fast food companies should be offered a choice, either use different fats in their foods, or pay health-care levies on their cheap fats. They need to take responsibility, and if it's by force, then so be it.

It's nice to see so many people on here who are for corporate rights... Like the right to sell toxins as food, in products traditionally prepared with food (i.e. fried in oils rather than chemicals).

Trans fat is a laboratory creation. So unless they want to change their name to "McDonalds Laboratories" or "Kentucky Concocted Chicken", I don't think these restaurants should be able to serve trans fats.

Otherwise, it's an issue of false advertising, to sell as food products these industrial chemicals, when for centuries before have been actual food grown of living things. Only in the last 50 to 100 years or so have our foods been surreptitiously replaced with non-foods, in the quest toward profit.

Competition forces many smaller restaurant chains and solo establishments to conform or die. Where do I eat now? Maybe some of you diet-nazis can have me over to lunch in a pinch, reaching out to those to whom you are superior...

If it's a choice between corporate responsibility and consumer rights, or consumer responsibility and corporate rights - I choose the former!! Forgive me for loving people before money.

It's a great move to get rid of trans-fats and if these rich corporations were not given the push, they would not budge, but Americans waistlines and arteries would!

Congrats to New York on this initiative to ban trans-fats! Let's hope the rest of the country follows this lead.

As far as Jamie Oliver goes. What he's done for school dinners in Britian is nothing short of amazing. Well done to Jamie!

I still agree with the asbestus comparison that I wish I remembered who it was that made. Would you defend your same stance when it comes to asbestus, saying the government should let it be produced, and just try to educate builders not to use it, cause you have the right to smoke, eat, and insulate with whatever it is?

The AMA's concern is that that trans fat will be replaced with saturated fat, which is *just as bad*. People who get their information from headlines and blogs may not know that the mainstream medical and epidemiological opinion is that trans fat is bad, but *no worse* than saturated fat. There have been a few highly publicized studies, some recent, that suggest that trans fat is worse than saturated fat, that it decreases good cholesterol, etc., but the bulk of the evidence and most of the research is still that trans fat and saturated fat are essentially equivalent in their unhealthiness. Future research may validate more dire claims about trans fat -- or not -- but the AMA is going by the current best opinion, as they should.

The danger in banning trans fat is simply that since the public has the misconception that trans fat is uniquely bad and worse than saturated fat, they will eat more unhealthy restaurant food, more fries, etc., thinking they are healthier. Better that fries have a bad reputation than a false good or neutral reputation.

I disagree with you there, Mark. There are new studies that show that trans fats are metabolized in a similar way to alcohol, and there are plenty of studies that show that saturated fat does not have the effects that the AMA claims they do. Even if you believe saturated fats will give you heart disease, like the AMA does, the new evidence of trans fats effects on metabolism alone would make them worse, since obesity is a factor in heart disease as well.

And the people eating fries, regardless of them being fried in canola or in hydrogenated fats, aren't really that concerned with their health.

Knowing what I do, I must disagree with you too, Mark. Eventually, the dust will all settle on what we should be eating, unless lobbying ends up the ultimate force in things. However, I would certainly be surprised, and perhaps even amused, if the heavy-animal, no-grain diet we ate for all but a small part in our history turned out to be worse for us than a diet of grain/legumes and refined vegetable oil that has only been made possible by human invention.

My father, who is actually an M.D., has this to say about the studies that come out of the AMA or anywhere else: "they just don't know what they're talking about". The field of nutrition is shooting in the dark; always has been. This is one of the few points we actually agree on. That being said, I've decided the best thing I can do is go for something that makes me feel healthy, enhances my athletic performance, is not processed or only minimally processed, and has some base in traditional diets.

For me, this ends up being a heavy animal, heavy fruits and vegetables, moderate nuts, low grain diet. And general practitioners are always amazed at how healthy I am. However, once I tell them what I'm eating, they tell me I'm killing myself.

fat is fat. i understand transfat is worse than polyunsaturated fat and even worse for you than saturated fat. however, if the government wants to tackle the issue of this obesity epidemic, i think they should begin by making consumers FULLY AWARE of the calorie content of each burger. THEY SHOULD PUT A WARNING LABEL THAT PROCAIMS: the CALORIES and FAT content of each individual food item per serving

I think that a proposal of trans fats IS a step in the right direction, as these fats are far worse off than saturated fats are.

Let's face it this way, they should limit "but do not eliminate" saturated fats, but they need to completely eliminate trans fats there.

New studies are now showing that trans fats can actually block the absorption of antioxidents in berries and, unlike saturated fats, go around the protective effects of omega 3 fatty acids and damage arteries.

Sure too much saturated fats are bad for you, but saturated fats are needed for omega 3 funcionality, immune system enhancement, and vitamins A and D absorption, something that trans fat actually supresses.

So, not only reduce on the solid fats, but use the NATURAL solid fats like butter, coconut oil, and blend margarines. NEVER EVER use artificial solid fats like hydrogenated shortenings and margarines, even though it says "fully hydrogenated". Avoid the lards "the so-called Armour Lard" on the store shelves--they are hydrogenated and highly processed.

And it shows it's true. Just eating 1.3 grams of trans fats per 1000 calories sugnificently raises the risk of developing heart disease, while eating 1.3 grams of saturated fats only modestly increases the risk. In fact, eating a meal high in trans fats damages the arteries 10 to 25 times more than a meal high in saturated fats, and the damaging effects from the trans fats are far longer than saturated fats.

Furthermore, a test has conducted on two occasions: walnuts with a cheesecake high in saturated fats but is trans fat free (coconut oil is used), and walnuts with a cheesecake high in trans fats (partially hydrogenated soybean oil).

The result: The walnuts did stop the harmful effects of the saturated fats damaging the lining of the arteries, but the walnuts offered no protection against the effects of the trans fats.

And here's another damaging effects of the trans fats. A new research has been done with the "chocolate with saturated fats, and the chocolate with trans fats". One person ate 1 once of dark chocolate and than took 1 tablespoon of coconut oil an hour later, while the second person are 1 ounce of dark chocolate and than took one teaspoon of shorteneing which contained partially hydrogenated soybean and canola oil.

The result: The coconut oil person actually saw some enhancement of the antioxident action from the dark chocolate consumed earlier. However, the second person that took the partially hydrogenated oil, not only showed that the arteries were still being damaged by the trans fats, but it also scraped the chocolate's antioxident from the arteries, leaving the arteries again vunerable to oxidation.

Should you prefer than still use some hydrogenated oil? If I was part of the American Health Association, I would ban trans fats all together and use a reduced amount of coconut or palm oil, blended in with low linoleic soybean oil or olive oil

But I have good news for pumpkin pie lovers, just in time for thanksgiving: They're good for you! A New research shows that the antioxident effect from the pumpkin pie protects the arteries from oxidation. HOWEVER, this effect is only shown if the pie does not contain trans fats, and using whole grain pie crusts enhances the health benefit. But this does not mean that you can eat the whole pumpkin pie after your tasty thanksgiving dinner. One slice is OK, but more is not good. The key: moderation. It's like chocolate. A slice after your thanksgiving dinner is good, but 5 slices of it is not good.

Caramelle-oh said:
That's great, you inject, smoke and consume whatever you want, I just wish you wouldn't expect my taxes to pay for your health care when all the cr*p that you were warned about comes back to bite you on the a**. If we want personal freedom to make our own choices, then we have to prove that we can be responsible about it, and not just expect that someone else will pick up the pieces, not to mention the bill.

Fine with me.

I pay for my own health care.

It's not about proving responsibility, it's about personal responsibility being institutionally imperative.

On a separate issue, I'm tired of this "toxin" talk. Everything that every dietary partisan doesn't like becomes a "toxin."

I can go over to the Center for Science in the Public Interest website, and they're complaining about everything from sugar to Quorn.

If I had a dime for every person who declared to me that "Sugar is poison," I'd be rich.

Canola oil, artificial sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup. Eggs. Meat. Non-organic produce...Milk. Refined flours. Soy. Simple carbohydrates. Everything, somewhere, by some dieter, is labeled, "poison," or some synonym of that word.

The first step in coming up with some kind of sane policy is to stop using language like "poison" and "toxin" for everything we don't like. I don't think having a couple of trans-fat-laden cookies a year will have any measurable effect on anyone's health, and if people are eating that kind of stuff every day, that's their choice, but I see far more stupid and dangerous activity on the roads every day. Ammonia is poison. Partially hydrogenated soybean oil is junk food.

There's a significant difference.

In Jamie Oliver's case, one thing that's subverting his efforts are parents, who seem to pander to their every children's whim (My parents would *never* slip me junk food because I didn't like what the cafeteria was having. Watching this on TV...I couldn't believe what I was seeing.)

In watching the TV show about Oliver's crusade, I was surprised to find what miserable spoiled little whiners many British children and their pea-brained parents are. My own parents made errors in the kinds of food they served me, but they made an attempt at healthy meals, given the standard nutritional wisdom of the time, back in the 70s and 80s. One thing they didn't serve me, and never would have, are those disgusting-looking gray twisty sausages - whatever they're called.

Living in the USA, I have been reminded of how spoiled, fat, and what horrible people we are here (much of this criticism *is* fair - we - including me - are fat and obnoxious too much of the time) ad nauseum, but I see that, increasingly, this kind of obnoxiousness seems to have an international element that those so quick to criticize my own country at every opportunity conveniently forget to mention. Jamie's show was an indicator, if nothing else, of what utter whining lunkheads much of the world's population beyond these borders is. This made me feel better for some reason, given the lunkhead saturation factor many living in the United States suffer from daily.

I applaud Jamie Oliver for pointing out that school lunches in the UK are obviously crap (they are not far off from what I had in school here in the USA - certainly nutritionally equivalent). I applaud his attempt to get people to think about what they're eating and to try newer, healthier alternatives.

I share his frustration at the narrow-minded and immature tendency to be unwilling to try to eat a healthier diet and try new and unfamiliar things.

Overall, his crusade is a positive one. If only people would look a little beyond the instant gratification mentality when it comes to food (and even then, people might actually grow to like things like fresh vegetables - I certainly do).

Sorry for a later post, but I want to inform people that some frozen vegtables, particulary from Green Giant contains trans fats. I also have some pies out there that claim trans free, except that it does contain trans fats in them. So be sure to read the ingredients on the food packaging for anything with the word "hydrogenated" on the list before buying that product. There are companies cutting corners to make it claim trans fat free while they actually arn't. It just makes me mad when they advertising a so-called healthy vegtable product while when you read the labels you notice that it's laden with trans fats, and it really makes me burning mad when they make the serving size small enough so that it's just under 0.5 grams of trans fats per serving and they scream "Trans free".

I think that the new "Trans fat" laws that allow no more than 0.5 grams of trans fats per serving to claim trans free is out of date. I think it's time to jump to the gun and make hydrogenation of oils illegal. It's a great thing that I have a sharp eye when it comes to detecting the hidden artificial trans fats in the foods.