Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

NYC Proposes Ban On Artificial Trans Fats!!!!

rockthecasbah

rockthecasbah

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Apr 12, 2005
2,395
2
Moorestown, NJ
Though merely a proposal, NYC Health Officials are considering a ban on artificial Trans Fats from being served in all New York restaurants (24,600+). The ban would make it illegal to serve anything containing Hydrogenated Oil which is found in many fatty American foods like doughnuts and french fries. Obviously this is dangerous to restaurant owners because it would focus these establishments to redevelop all recipes containing these artificial trans fats.

Thomas Frieden, health commissioner, says the ban is easily attainable and the trans fats are easily replacable. According to the article, some companies like Wendy's and Crisco have already announced plans of their own to switch oils voluntarily.

The proposal would require the removal of the transfats from oils, shortenings, and margarine would be July 1, 2007 and all other foodstuffs by the same date in 2008. Additionally this would not affect the naturally occuring trans fats in meat and dairy products (hence the "artificial" in the title :D)

I think this is a good idea and a noble attempt but i doubt that it will be passed. The article likens the proposal to the ban on smoking, which is irrelevant. Smoking is bad because it affects others not even smoking through second hand smoke. There are no second hand trans fats. The real way to get this stuff done is by volunteer as we've seen, but this proposal may encourage more companies to do so.

link
 
Hopefully this means a return to beef shortening ... and taste in the fries at McDonald's.
attachment.php
 
I hope this instead can be used as an impetus for companies to advertise non-trans fat foods and market themselves as more healthy. I am all for eating healthier and personally generally avoid fried and fast food, but this is America and don't think the government should ban it.
 
I don't think this will go through.

There are too many businesses who are going to resist such a large changeover, and quite frankly, I don't remember American government being so progressive. :p
 
Abstract said:
I don't think this will go through.

There are too many businesses who are going to resist such a large changeover, and quite frankly, I don't remember American government being so progressive. :p
Click to expand...

Note that in this case it's not the American government, but the city government of the City of New York, that is considering it.
 
I know, but I'm generally referring to any level of American government, especially ones that are in charge of a major city or state (ie: NY State, NY City, etc). Even the city government of NYC would be considered rather large.
 
It may go through - they're trying to pass the same law here in Chicago. They successfully passed a ban on restaurants serving foie gras as well as a smoking ban that will be enforced starting in 2008.

Cities and states are trying to control the choices people make - something I'm not fond of. All these things are bad for you but it does come down to personal choice. Then again, taxpayers do foot the bill for the uninsured when they have health-related issues that require hospitalization. Ugh, what a conundrum.
 
aricher said:
It may go through - they're trying to pass the same law here in Chicago. They successfully passed a ban on restaurants serving foie gras as well as a smoking ban that will be enforced starting in 2008.
Click to expand...

Wow, a comparison between foie gras and smoking. I have to say that is quite a stretch. Foie gras may be fatty, but come on :rolleyes: . I'd say that this oversteps the bounds a bit. Oh well, if that keeps the prices down elsewhere, it's all good with me. :) I loves me some foie gras.
 
gauchogolfer said:
Wow, a comparison between foie gras and smoking. I have to say that is quite a stretch. Foie gras may be fatty, but come on :rolleyes: . I'd say that this oversteps the bounds a bit. Oh well, if that keeps the prices down elsewhere, it's all good with me. :) I loves me some foie gras.
Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia animal activist are against foie gras. That was as much as I read. Always loose interest when I read activist.

But as for the fatty, isn't obesity a greater killer now then smoking?
 
Just legislate that to protect everyone, they must now eat from the children's menu.

And if they order from the fatty menu they get the piggy song like they did in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. ;)
 
Abstract said:
They banned it because it's cruel to ducks/goose or whatever, not because of the fat.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured, actually. I just don't get this line of argument, honestly.

I realize that the process of making foie gras may very well be cruel to the birds, and if people have a problem with that, fine. To me, it's hypocritical to ban foie gras and not ban every other mass-produced animal product, whether it be beef, pork, chicken, whatever. I'm sure that there are many examples of cruelty in all of those stockyards as well.

Foie gras is an easy target to ban because it's associated with elite upper crust people, not 'regular folks' who just want a burger.

/rant
 
gauchogolfer said:
That's what I figured, actually. I just don't get this line of argument, honestly.

I realize that the process of making foie gras may very well be cruel to the birds, and if people have a problem with that, fine. To me, it's hypocritical to ban foie gras and not ban every other mass-produced animal product, whether it be beef, pork, chicken, whatever. I'm sure that there are many examples of cruelty in all of those stockyards as well.

Foie gras is an easy target to ban because it's associated with elite upper crust people, not 'regular folks' who just want a burger.

/rant
Click to expand...

It is cruel - they take a metal tube and stick it down the duck's (or goose's) throat so they can force feed it. There's a photo of it in the Wikipedia article on foie gras. I remember hearing the NPR bit on Chicago banning it, and lots of people up in arms over it. I've never had foie gras, but I wouldn't mind trying it once just to see what all the hype is about. If it's anything like paté, I probably won't have it again.

You're right though, it is hypocritical to outlaw one form of cruelty and not another (re: slaughterhouse abuses). I guess we can chalk that one up to the government deciding just how much morality they're going to legislate for us.
 
CorvusCamenarum said:
It is cruel - they take a metal tube and stick it down the duck's (or goose's) throat so they can force feed it. There's a photo of it in the Wikipedia article on foie gras. I remember hearing the NPR bit on Chicago banning it, and lots of people up in arms over it. I've never had foie gras, but I wouldn't mind trying it once just to see what all the hype is about. If it's anything like paté, I probably won't have it again.
Click to expand...

It's not quite like paté; the texture is more solid and I greatly prefer it to paté. The stuff is really rich and totally decadent. I've maybe had it three times in my life, and not within the past few years. Gotta say the seared tuna and foie gras appetizer at Aqua in San Francisco was a mind-blower.

You're right though, it is hypocritical to outlaw one form of cruelty and not another (re: slaughterhouse abuses). I guess we can chalk that one up to the government deciding just how much morality they're going to legislate for us.
Click to expand...

I doubt the raising of veal has gotten any more humane despite years and years of activism, but nobody's banned veal from restaurants (yet).
 
Good foie gras melts in your mouth like butter. I've had it as an appetizer a few times and every time was amazing. That said, it is a very cruel product as far as production goes. I really don't have an opinion one way or another on the ban though. I agree with everyone here about the hypocrisy of one food item over another. Cruelty to bring animal products to our tables takes on many forms be it forced over-lactation, beak/feet clipping or the good ol slaughterhouse pneumatic blot through the head action. Whatever. I was a vegetarian for several years a long time ago but found that my body has natural carnivorous cravings. I like me some meats - mmm good.

As far as trans fats go there have been tons of studies that have come to light about fast food (trans fats) and the rise of obesity and illness (especially) in impoverished inner-city neighborhoods where it is harder to get to grocery stores for fresh food. Maybe a ban wouldn't be that bad after all. Heck, in the long run beef fat is turning out to be better for you than artificial fat any day.
 
Ya and people are still wearing leather shoes. The problem with activists is they over do it, rather then get their point across they yell murder. It tends to turn people off to the cause.
 
MacNut said:
Ya and people are still wearing leather shoes. The problem with activists is they over do it, rather then get their point across they yell murder. It tends to turn people off to the cause.
Click to expand...

Actually I'd see it as worse not to wear leather. If you're already going to kill the cow for food, it's wasteful not to use as much of it as possible.
 
foie gras = diseased fatty goose liver
yuk! man, slap a french name on crap and people will lap it up like a fool.
 
Trans fats are really, really bad for you. Even saturated fats at worst raise the bad cholesterol....but Trans fats reduce the good and raise the bad. They're the worst possible thing to eat.

Anything that helps reduce trans fats in our diets is a good thing. Hopefully it won't mean the closure of out donut stores though :eek:
 
There was a lot of focus on trans fat in my country (Denmark) a few years ago, and today it has pretty much been eliminated from consumer products, even McDonalds doesn't use it anymore. It don't think it's a law though.
Anyway, as there really isn't any reason for trans fats other than it's cheaper to hydrogenate oil than to use butter, and since it has been clearly linked to heart disease, making trans fats illegal would be an easy way to get rid of unhealthy products.
However, just removing it from restaurants wouldn't seem to matter much... Except if you only eat out.
 
By the way, I like foie gras...
I do agree that it is kind of a sick way it is produced though.
But as said, most industrial scale animal production facilities are cruel, like chicken farms where the chicks are supplied with unlimited amounts of food while standing so close they can hardly move. Living for exactly 42 days, then butchered, as they are now so fat they can almost not support themselves.
 
Trans fats... I know that all my local chippys now display signs saying "No trans fats! we don't want to kill you!" and other cheeky comments. Hopefully shaming the local big fast food places to take action too. "Do they want to kill you?" would be good, haha.
 
Abstract said:
quite frankly, I don't remember American government being so progressive.
Click to expand...

"Progressive??" How about "paternalistic and big brother-ish??" :eek: The proper function of government is NOT to tell me whether or not I can eat doughnuts. :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
QCassidy352 said:
"Progressive??" How about "paternalistic and big brother-ish??" :eek: The proper function of government is NOT to tell me whether or not I can eat doughnuts. :mad: :mad: :mad:
Click to expand...
The idea is to forcefully take a stance against obesity and poor health by requiring the changing of these ingredients (which is supposedly easy so says the NYC health commissioner), not to ban doughnuts or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back