F.D.A. Ruling Would All but Eliminate Trans Fats
- Thread starter GotGarlic
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Seems like a good thing on the face of it. What's your view on it GG?
Is it an outrageous attack on the right of the individual to eat what they want, or a sensible attempt to take an unhealthy artificial product out of the food chain?
Addie
Chef Extraordinaire
As a heart patient that had a quintuple bypass, I am all for it. Those special rooms they set aside in the ER for heart attack patients can be put to use for something else. It is time the food industry paid attention to the needs and health of the public instead of the bottom line. 
But you can't stop people eating unhealthily - you certainly can't legislate for it.
You also can't legislate for hereditary conditions.
I have never been a fan of artificial ingredients (and I never used margarine even when it was in favour over butter). So from that point of view, removing an artificial ingredient where there is absolute proof it is harmful, seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do.
I think my main issue with this (and any other similar ruling on either side of the pond) is the huge claims being made for improvements in public health. There is no way the statistics can be anything other than best guesses. There are simply too many variables to produce anything else.
It does prove though, that every time a scientific study comes up with a "conclusion", it will only be a matter of time before another study completely disproves it.
Teaching people (and in particular, kids) about nutrition and cooking balanced meals would surely be a better way to approach public health than telling people what they can or cannot eat?
You also can't legislate for hereditary conditions.
I have never been a fan of artificial ingredients (and I never used margarine even when it was in favour over butter). So from that point of view, removing an artificial ingredient where there is absolute proof it is harmful, seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do.
I think my main issue with this (and any other similar ruling on either side of the pond) is the huge claims being made for improvements in public health. There is no way the statistics can be anything other than best guesses. There are simply too many variables to produce anything else.
It does prove though, that every time a scientific study comes up with a "conclusion", it will only be a matter of time before another study completely disproves it.
Teaching people (and in particular, kids) about nutrition and cooking balanced meals would surely be a better way to approach public health than telling people what they can or cannot eat?
OP
OP
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
I think it takes an unhealthy ingredient out of the food system. People don't typically eat margarine by the spoonful, so it's not like removing cheese or soda from the market.
I think this shows you can, in some circumstances
It's not intended to stop people from eating junk food - just an artificial ingredient that has been shown convincingly to be harmful.
No one is trying to do that.
I'm assuming you're not an epidemiologist. How can you be so sure there is no way they can have reliable statistics? Do you think the entire field of epidemiology is a fraud?
Every time? Got stats on that? How about stats on most of the time, or half the time?
I'm not one who is bothered by scientific advances. I said a few days ago that I don't base my food and nutrition decisions on vague news reports about study results, but that's not what this is. This is a major government agency reporting the results of its review of decades of data and making a decision based on that to protect the public's health.
Who says you can't do both? In many places, we are doing both. But this is a big country and not everyone agrees on whether to do that and how to accomplish it, so it's not happening overnight.
I don't really consider this "telling people what they can't eat" because most people don't add trans fats to their food, unless they're using margarine, which, according to the article, has dropped a lot in popularity recently. And I don't think it's a bad thing to encourage people to use butter, olive oil, and other natural oils instead.
I think this shows you can, in some circumstances
It's not intended to stop people from eating junk food - just an artificial ingredient that has been shown convincingly to be harmful.No one is trying to do that.
I'm assuming you're not an epidemiologist. How can you be so sure there is no way they can have reliable statistics? Do you think the entire field of epidemiology is a fraud?
Every time? Got stats on that? How about stats on most of the time, or half the time?
I'm not one who is bothered by scientific advances. I said a few days ago that I don't base my food and nutrition decisions on vague news reports about study results, but that's not what this is. This is a major government agency reporting the results of its review of decades of data and making a decision based on that to protect the public's health.
Who says you can't do both? In many places, we are doing both. But this is a big country and not everyone agrees on whether to do that and how to accomplish it, so it's not happening overnight.
I don't really consider this "telling people what they can't eat" because most people don't add trans fats to their food, unless they're using margarine, which, according to the article, has dropped a lot in popularity recently. And I don't think it's a bad thing to encourage people to use butter, olive oil, and other natural oils instead.
Last edited:
OP
OP
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
I thought I was responding in kind
You made some statements and I challenged them. That's debate, yes?I thought I was responding in kind
I posted opinions, not statements. My bad if they came across as statements.
I am not involved in the debate - I am not a US citizen.
Rocket_J_Dawg
Sous Chef
Just a comment on margarine. There are many brands that have been available for a long time that are very low in saturated fat and have zero trans fat.
I do support the fact that added trans fats have no place in our foods.
http://www.enjoymargarineeveryday.com/margarine-for-your-health/is-butter-or-margarine-healthier
I do support the fact that added trans fats have no place in our foods.
http://www.enjoymargarineeveryday.com/margarine-for-your-health/is-butter-or-margarine-healthier
As a heart patient that had a quintuple bypass, I am all for it. Those special rooms they set aside in the ER for heart attack patients can be put to use for something else. It is time the food industry paid attention to the needs and health of the public instead of the bottom line.
So because you were a heart patient does this mean I don't have the right to eat what I wish to?
Do diabetics mean I can't have a 13oz soda (we know 12 oz ones are completely fine).
Industry = bottom line. That is the way it is. You do have choices, even unhealthy ones. That is what freedom is supposed to be, not being nannied into being "good"
OP
OP
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
I posted opinions, not statements. My bad if they came across as statements.
I am not involved in the debate - I am not a US citizen.
Well then, I'm completely confused. Did you want to debate/discuss the article or just state your opinions and receive no response? It would be helpful to know for future reference.
I find your confusion confusing GG.
I am on this forum to discuss food.
Aren't you?
It makes no difference to me where we live. But it does matter to me what we eat.
This is a food forum. Therefore I have opinions on food. And food is firmly related to health. (In my opinion).
I cannot quote a list of scientific research to prove the link between food and health, but since people tend to die without food, I think the link between the two is fairly obvious.
OP
OP
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
Why do you seem to be angry?
You asked me what I thought about the article and stated several opinions. I answered you and asked a few questions. Then you said you were stimulating debate. I said that's what I thought we were doing - debating. Then you said you were not involved in the debate. That was confusing. And I don't understand why you seem to be angry.
You asked me what I thought about the article and stated several opinions. I answered you and asked a few questions. Then you said you were stimulating debate. I said that's what I thought we were doing - debating. Then you said you were not involved in the debate. That was confusing. And I don't understand why you seem to be angry.
Please remember the "be nice" clause in the Community Rules.
.40
The caution flag is out on this thread.
.40
I think it's a good thing. It's one less thing to ask about in a resto. It's not like banning artificial trans fats will stop anyone from eating fried foods. It just won't be as unhealthy.
Andy M.
Certified Pretend Chef
So that would mean original Crisco will be a thing of the past.
Addie
Chef Extraordinaire
Nope. You can eat anything you want to. I don't care. It is your choice. And as far as the soda goes, even diabetics can have them. The artificial sweeteners in diet drinks really mess up the system and plays havoc with the insulin, injection or pills.
I hope you never have a heart attack or open heart surgery. Neither one is fun.
Last edited:
Addie
Chef Extraordinaire
I have a can of Crisco and it is only half used. I usually reach for the bottle of oil instead of the Crisco. They stand side by side on the shelf. No reason, just that it is easier to use. My small hands can't just grab the can like it can the bottle. I suppose I should use it up before it becomes illegal.
Zereh
Head Chef
About time.
It has absolutely nothing to do with being nannied - it's about removing a known toxic substances from food.
Remember when DDT was all the rage?
It has absolutely nothing to do with being nannied - it's about removing a known toxic substances from food.
Remember when DDT was all the rage?
Last edited:
I think they already changed it.
Similar threads
