Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

Personally, I think that this was a decision of "okay, this will help people be healthy, let's do it!", without the foolow-up statement of "okay, so before we do this, though, let's make sure that there is a healthy alternative first."

The problem is that the bakers and restuarant chefs will start to replace the trans fats with others that might be just as bad, if not worse, for consumers in the long run, such as those that have large amounts of saturated fats.

I consider myself a very healthy person (amazingly, I haven't touched a french fry in over a decade), but there is a level of personal responsibility in this country that we seem to be lacking, and feel the need to fill with government oversight and regulation. Some of that is okay, but this just strikes me as crossing that fine line between watching out for us when we may be unable to do so ourselves, and taking control away from us when we deserve to have it.

Though my reservations are similar to CookiePie's, I think this is, sadly, a necessary action. I truly think a huge part of our country's obesity problem is the artificial crap we allow to be served in every corner of the food industry.

When my mom was young, in the fifties, everybody ate three full meals a day, and obesity was NEVER an issue. Yeah, everybody also smoked like a chimney, which was probably part of it, but generally I think it's because people walked more, and because there were no artificial ingredients. It's sad that we've got to the point where we have to regulate what people eat, but obesity is dangerously rampant, and excessive trans-fats certainly encourage this trend. Every little step....

As much as I'm tired of boatloads of mis-guided legislation in this city, I have to say that I completely agree with the ban, but not for the exact same reasons.

Let's be honest here, people, cash rules everything around us -- Miguelito Bloomberg is a businessman, and has more than warm and fuzzy intentions for controlling city health issues. No trans fats and a reduced smoking population means less of the primary health problems (CVDs, cancers), which translates directly into less strain on the city's healthcare systems, which in the end costs less. Restaurants may be picking up the tab for this, and honestly, I think putting more dietary education in elementary schools and funding preventative health care would be more effective, but it's a small step that makes a huge difference in a city that is not awesome about getting things done or properly allocating resources.

I'm done now. But, I agree with the ban.

I support the ban, because the ban is in the spirit of those rules saying restaurants have to clean up occasionally and that employees need to wash their hands. I support a ban that says, "Restaurants and bakeries must avoid using dangerous unhealthy chemicals just to save a couple of pennies on the cost of preparation." It's not that they're banning something that's tasty that people are clamoring for. They're banning something unhealthy and cheap for which there are healthier, tastier alternatives.

I hear what you're all saying, I really do -- but those unhealthy and cheap substances are *legal*. What's next -- will Bloomberg start limiting how much alcohol we can drink to what is deemed a healthy amount? (Again, this is from someone who is very healthy, barely drinks, and voted for Bloomberg.)

Yes, there are healthier, tastier alternatives, but I don't want someone else deciding for me that that's what I should have. I'm a taxpaying citizen over the age of 18 -- I can decide for myself what LEGAL substances I do or don't want in my food, and spend my money accordingly.

And as for the argument that people aren't educated enough to know any better -- that may be true, but that means that we need better education, not more rules that are made for the lowest common denominator.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a ban -- all I'm saying is, let the voters decide.

"will Bloomberg start limiting how much alcohol we can drink to what is deemed a healthy amount?"

This analogy doesn't work for several reasons. First, it's already the law that a bar cannot serve drinks to someone who is already visibly impaired by alcohol. So the amount you can drink in a public place is already being regulated. Just as you can drink to oblivion in your own home, so can you cook with trans fats in your own home.

But you know you're getting an alcoholic beverage when you order one in a bar. Customers at restaurants do not always know when the foods they're eating are cooked in partially hydrogenated oils, and there's no real way to figure it out - some places will use them a lot, and some don't in the preparation of the same food products. Consuming a toxic food substance unwittingly when it's used in a preparation is different than knowingly consuming an alcoholic beverage.

And say what you will about alcohol (I'm a non-drinker myself), but it has certainly been consumed by humans for thousands of years and has been proven to be less than harmful in moderation. Not so much artificial trans fats.

@simon - I know how our government works, thank you. I'm not saying everything should be on the ballot, but there are ballot initiatives for certain things, and in my opinion this would have qualified. You may disagree, but that's what I think.

@charm city, I hear you, I really do -- as a food editor at a consumer magazine, part of my job is to inform the public about what's in their food to help them make sound decisions, and it's frustrating to hear the same questions over and over again, no matter how many articles we publish.

But if the issue is people being aware of what's in their food, then the simple solution would have been to enforce signage in restaurants and bakeries and/or labeling of the food informing consumers that what they're buying contains trans fats. That's what the federal government did with adding trans fats to the nutrition labels on food, and now people are demanding more products without trans fats. (I know they are because I meet with consumer packaged goods companies all the time and they talk about their consumer research, along with the letters I get myself from readers.) It's become a part of the conversation, and consumers have become more aware of something to look out for.

I'm not happy that my insurance premiums are higher (though in this economic climate, I'm happy to have insurance at all), and I certainly don't want people to suffer from terrible health problems and disorders. But at a certain point we all have to be responsible for ourselves. After all -- what are trans fats in? They're not in fruits and vegetables, they're not in healthy foods (except for the trace amounts that occur naturally in some foods) -- if you're buying a donut and you're overweight or a diabetic or have heart diease (etc.), you have to know that you could be eating something that's better for you, trans fats or not. The government banning trans fats is a band-aid, and in my opinion it is overstepping.

@producestories - yes, that's true, you are kept from being served alcohol once you're visibly impaired. But many people are not impaired enough to get cut off even after they've had 4 or 5 drinks or more, clearly past the point of moderate drinking, which I wouldn't disagree may have health benefits. So in theory, the government could step in and say, You can only have the amount of drinks that are healthy for you, given your gender, height and weight, etc. No, it's not likely -- but I'm just saying this to illustrate the point. I think the ban is overstepping.

Thanks for the lively debate, all -- I need to get back to work.

@CookiePie: I have to agree with your comments about something that I think that we really need to get back to in this country - personal responsibility. Of course, there are times when we need the government to step in, but I really don't think that this is the right time. And perhaps there really should have been a referendum on it, I cannot speak to that, but I would have preferred to have the people have their general say, too, I guess.

simon said -- With all due respect, you are completely out of your mind.
---------------------------

With all due respect Simon, I don't think she deserved that comment, and you have the personality and charm of a rock. No offense, Rock... I mean Simon.

@CookiePie: But artificial trans fats are not healthy in moderation, like drinking alcohol can be. Anything's bad for you when you eat/drink too much of it, even water - and that's where personal responsibility comes in.

Artificial trans fats are poisonous substances that should not be used in food. We have no idea what their long-term effects on the human body are, and what we do know about their short-term effects is harrowing.

Would anyone argue that, years ago, when one of the FD&C Red dyes was proven carcinogenic, it ought to have remained on the market because when people eat maraschino cherries, they know what they're in for? No, because it's a toxic substance that can be easily replaced with a non-toxic (okay in the case of dyes, less-toxic) substitute.

Partially hydrogenated oils are cheap and convenient, but restaurants can replace them with non-toxic substitutes. Artificial trans fats are poisonous. Consumers should not be forced to subsidze higher restaurant profit margins with their health.

I'm sitting here quite befuddled.

Let me get this straight.... Everyone knows that transfats are terrible, but some of you are upset that the city imposed a ban on it?

Of all things we have to complain about, you guys are upset bc the govt. did something to promote the welfare of its people instead of letting the people fight for it. OOooookaaaay.

I don't think it's great that it took a multimillion dollar lawsuit for Kraft to remove transfats from Oreos and other products. I'm glad Kraft has removed all transfats from their products, but it took a lawsuit and not to mention the bad publicity associated with what amounted to poisoning our kids.

Failing voluntary removal of all transfats, I'm thinking a transfat ban is a good thing.

To further indulge the idiocy of your argument: should there have been a referendum on the banning of asbestos in construction? It's a very similar thing. A toxic substance, invisible to the public. Why do you feel like voters should decide on this? We elect officials to make decisions on public health issues.

This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. It's not like people are indulging in trans fats. No one says, "mmm, I want to go get me some trans fats today, I don't care if they are bad for me." They are purely and simply poisonous and unnecessary. You are conflating two completely different issues.

As for you, FastFoodCritic, stick a sock in it. I find the admonishments of a passive aggressive spineless weasel such as yourself, someone who takes pride in touting their affinity for eating garbage no less, to be laughable.

@simon...

You have been participating on this site for what? about three months now? Since the outset, almost everything you've posted has been argumentative, complaining, and/or involves insults, personal attacks, name-calling, etc.

This is classic TROLL behavior. Please note the site's policy on the posting of comments:

1. We welcome hearty debate and dissent, but the key to maintaining Serious Eats as an inviting space is focusing on intelligent, insightful and passionate discussion of issues.

2. Please respect other people's views and beliefs. We understand that people often feel strongly about things, but we will consider removing any content that other members might find extremely offensive or threatening. We actively discourage obscenity and mindless abuse. Personal attacks on other members have no place in an intelligent discussion.

In short, if you act with maturity and consideration for other members, you should have no problems.

Remember that by registering for Serious Eats you have also agreed to our terms of use. These guidelines may change - so please bookmark this page and check back frequently.

Speaking of the aforementioned Terms of Use...

Do not post threatening, harassing, defamatory, or libelous material.

On the other hand, simon, if you are here because you genuinely enjoy participating in the Serious Eats Talk feature, please be so kind as to modify your tone and play more nicely.

Thanks.

OK. This thread has devolved from from good discussion to personal attacks. I'm closing it. The thing that's welcoming about Serious Eats is exactly what LoCo points to two comments up. Let's keep things civil here without resorting to personal attacks. Thanks.