The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
CA officially bans trans fats
Dalboz
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-transfat26-2008jul26,0,2161554.story
From the article:
Here's the actual text of the bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_97_bill_20080715_enrolled.html
So, has the CA government gone too far, or not far enough? Is this ban actually going to work, or should a fight be expected? How enforceable is this?
Personally, I think it's a good idea, but I'm concerned about what the transfats will be replaced with. I seem to remember Dr. Dean Edell saying around the time that Taco Bell announced that they would no longer include transfats in their food that what they were replacing it with was actually worse and people would have been better off if they left the transfats in (I can't find a link to this statement; still searching). I would like to see a ban on HFCS as well, but I'm not sure how feasible that is since the dangers of HFCS don't get as much air play as transfats.
From the article:
SACRAMENTO -- California restaurants will have to cook virtually without trans fats, such as those contained in margarine and many oils, under restrictions signed into law today by the state's health-conscious governor.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a five-time Mr. Universe and a physical-fitness advocate who crusades against obesity, sided with legislators who said the measure would help get the fat out of Californians who are too dependent on fast food.
"California is a leader in promoting health and nutrition, and I am pleased to continue that tradition by being the first state in the nation to phase out trans fats," Schwarzenegger said. "Consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease, and today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California."
The law, AB 97 by Assemblyman Tony Mendoza (D-Artesia), will ban cooking with artificial trans fats in restaurants by Jan. 1, 2010, and bar their presence in baked goods by Jan. 1, 2011.
Trans fat has a long shelf life but has been linked to heart disease.
The law trails steps already taken by such culinary institutions as Burger King and Spago Beverly Hills, to meet customer demand.
"I am completely in support of it," chef and Spago owner Wolfgang Puck said in a statement. "My companies stopped using trans fats years ago."
"Everybody agrees there are health benefits in getting rid of trans fat," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It causes heart disease and it is causing several thousand deaths each year."
But the legislation was vigorously opposed by the California Restaurant Assn., which argued that it would not substantially affect public health because people eat most of their meals at home.
Even so, association spokesman Daniel Conway said: "Given the fact that our industry is already phasing out trans fat in response to customers and that there is a delayed timeline for compliance, we are confident we will be able to meet the mandate of the law."
Here's the actual text of the bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_97_bill_20080715_enrolled.html
So, has the CA government gone too far, or not far enough? Is this ban actually going to work, or should a fight be expected? How enforceable is this?
Personally, I think it's a good idea, but I'm concerned about what the transfats will be replaced with. I seem to remember Dr. Dean Edell saying around the time that Taco Bell announced that they would no longer include transfats in their food that what they were replacing it with was actually worse and people would have been better off if they left the transfats in (I can't find a link to this statement; still searching). I would like to see a ban on HFCS as well, but I'm not sure how feasible that is since the dangers of HFCS don't get as much air play as transfats.
Dalboz on
0
Posts
I hear ya about HFCS but some soda manufacturers are listening and making drinks with real sugar. Love me some Honest Tea, yes sir!!
It's a commercial-processing product through and through.
Big government to the rescue!!!!!!!
I think the Governator is right on this one. Right on, California!
Do you need a reboot?
Obesity and its complications are medical and public health issues. Just like influenza and cancer (and most every other disease). Taking steps to minimize the spread of obesity and encourage the population to get healthier is a good move.
I can't see how you would oppose this.
On any sort of restrictions on HFCS: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaahaha...heh... whew.
I know why trans fats, sugar, cigarettes, alcohol, model glue, guns, and so on are unhealthy. What makes trans fats so special over cigarettes? Also, will this really have an impact on obesity in California???
A big difference exists between trans fats and tobacco/alcohol.
Namely, you need food to survive, but you can get along just fine without vices.
I really see no wrong with this, as food available should be as healthy as possible. Though I do have a nagging suspicion that this will eventually end up applying to tobacco/alcohol/etc as some sort of "body as a temple" campaign. :tinfoil:
Trans fats are more comparable to, say, lead-based paint and asbestos insulation than they are to alcohol, sugar, and tobacco. Obesity isn't the concern here.
At least I get a buzz when I drag on a fag.
I thought animal connective tissue had a miniscule amount of it in them? Really, really miniscule.
according to wikipedia: Milk and meat from cows and other ruminants contains naturally occurring trans fats in small quantities
but they're listening to every word I say
It's not lard or coconut oil. Which is the reason it became popular in the first place. McDonalds wasn't using Trans Fat until the early 80's because the public pressure and economics dictated they stop using Lard and/or artery clogging butter. Enter vegetable oil and the partially hydrogenated clusterfuck that now exists.
This bill will have unintended consequences like all social planning bills do. It will probably drive up the cost of food. It might bankrupt some businesses. It will probably only mildly accelerate something that was going to occur anyway: Trans fats leaving restaurant menu's. Instead of occurring in a gradual way it will be a messy transition and end up causing economic harm and I'm sure somebody will figure out a way to exploit this.
What irritates me the most is California could have at least waited to see the full impact from the New York city bill before taking action like this. Why not simply wait for the data to see the real benefit? They already have a handy test case and simply waiting a couple years allows real numbers CBA. Instead it's a political "me too" based on hysteria and grandstanding.
Edit: Why are public school cafeteria's exempt from this? Does that make any sense?
On the bright side, now we'll have two states to draw data from. But it did have to happen sooner or later, and do excuse me if I don't quite trust the restaurant industry to do this on their own, especially at the lower price points.
So even if you wanted to self regulate your intake it would be extremely hard.
but they're listening to every word I say
This is true of plain ol' fat, as well, which is why you see stuff like cooking spray, which is just oil in an aerosol can, advertising 0 grams fat per serving.
edit: what's the data on how much (if any) trans fat your body can metabolize harmlessly per day/week/year/whatever?
Only reason my resturaunt changed is because the price of the oil came down and the customers wanted it. If the price of the oil had not become cheaper recently though it wouldn't have happened. Most customers weren't even aware.
^This is the only place you will hear about the price of oil comming down^
but they're listening to every word I say
But trans fats are worse for the body. At least I know if they sneak in some butter it's not so bad
but they're listening to every word I say
Maybe some food tastes bad without using a particular kind of oil? I don't know.
I avoid trans fat anyway. I'm sure you make a conscious effort to do so as well.
Why not get data back from the other examples and then decide if this bill will do any good to begin with? Replacing trans fat with Lard creates another problem.
Why are public school cafeteria's exempt from this?
Because they barely scrape by on the funding they have.
edit: I can't believe how much crisco I must have ate in cookies as a kid. *mommy, my arteries don't feel so good*
but they're listening to every word I say
So the unhealthy uneducated poor people, those who need their intake regulated the most, are exempt from this stupid bill.
This is grandstanding. It's a bad bill.
Hey, they could try and fix California's chronically underfunded public schools problem at the same time, if you want, but the voters there have this thing about undoing that property tax cap they placed a while back.
The majority of restaurants are phasing them out. Restaurants are also being given time to phase it out anyway. The only ones that would go out of the business would be the ones unable to change their supplies over the next several months. Fuck them. It's already known now that it's bad for people and provides no benefit. So why shouldn't it be banned other than you think government interference is bad on principle?
Who's using lard now? This doesn't force anyone to stop using hydrogenated vegetable oil, merely partially hydrogenated oil. Lard doesn't come in to it.
Irrelevant, but they shouldn't be.
Are you high? They are poor and at least need some food thats bad for them over no food at all. You know or... we could fund the schools better!.
but they're listening to every word I say
I'd prefer they just raze the entire Los Angeles school district to the ground. The schools here are a farce and they deserve to all suffer in the face of their incompetence.
I missed the part where people were suddenly getting thinner in New York. What are you talking about?
We have the second highest tax rate in the nation in this state. They aren't taking any more of my money. Feel free to donate yours though thanks.
I'd prefer you just donate your own money to my shitty schools to educate morons since you're so apt to reach into my pocket and steal it.
Wake me up when they blow up the IRS then moving to Washington State or Florida might make sense.
So you would rather they had to fall under this law and then couldn't pay for any food? So, fuck the poor!
No more funding for schools. Fuck the poor!
Either that or you are against the law and are okay with an increased rate of heart disease in the poor who won't know about trans fats or can't afford the more expensive products. So, fuck the poor again!
but they're listening to every word I say
Finally someone agrees with me.