Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Transfat: Banned for Life?
The deed is done. Transfats were officially banned in NYC this afternoon. The vote was unanimous. Restaurants have until July 1, 2007 to replace the tasty fats in spreads and for ordinary deep frying, but get an extra year to fix their recipes for fried baked goods, like doughnuts. Eat 'em while you still can, New Yorkers.
We expect this kind of thing from uptight Yankees, but what about the home city of KFC? Could Louisville be next?
Timothy|12.5.06 @ 3:22PM|#
I hope Bloomberg and the fuckers who voted for this get cancer. From THE SUN.
|12.5.06 @ 3:25PM|#
Are trans fats tasty? Do they have a long shelf life? Are they
costly to remove?
It seems to me that the food industry has spent the last year
jumping over each other declaring that their food either is now
trans-fat-free, or always has been; it doesn't seem to be anything
that people seem to miss much.
I don't like nanny-state food bans any more than the next guy, but
if they're going to waste their time banning something,
I'd prefer it to be something that nobody really wants anyway.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 3:27PM|#
The great thing is that if you must have trans fats, you can move to another city. Everybody wins.
|12.5.06 @ 3:29PM|#
I'm with Bergamot. I'm against this sort of legislation anyway, but will this have any effect at all on anybody beyond the initial changeover?
|12.5.06 @ 3:30PM|#
Mother-bitch! This means Chicago will be following suit
soon.
Damn you (pre-emptively) Alds. Burke and Natarus!!
Alice Pitney|12.5.06 @ 3:35PM|#
Hooray! A step in the right direction. But only a step... we need to make it so that there is no city you could move to.
|12.5.06 @ 3:37PM|#
Dan, isn't this a great country or what? Local gov. has the freedom to ban other people's freedom because they know better. Anyway NY city need not worry about anyoneleaving that Liberal Hellhole. But if enough people tried I bet they would make leaving illegal.
|12.5.06 @ 3:46PM|#
I think the main advantage (for the food industry) of trans fats is their low cost. Margarine is about half the cost of butter. Similarly, hydrogenated vegetable oil is cheaper than lard. In point of fact, most of the trans fats can be replaced by something natural that tastes better anyway, so the main gotcha here is that restaurant and grocery prices will go up slightly (assuming they pass the cost on to the customer).
|12.5.06 @ 3:47PM|#
Bergamot,
I shall refer you to the Alton Brown (Good Eats) episode
Fry
Hard (Scene 2) for the explanation of why transfats are
used. The short answer to all of your questions is "yes".
Regarding this legislation... why not ban saturated fats as well?
Then we will have no lard, butter or shortning. That is the only
way to ensure the health of the citizens. I'd love to see the pies
that would result from that change though. Oh, wait, pies are bad
for you too with the sugar and HFCS. Guess next up is banning
them.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 3:53PM|#
Dan, your blog is boring and trite. Are you hoping to beef up readership by trolling/being dense/being yourself?
|12.5.06 @ 4:00PM|#
Kwix: I've seen that episode, and he doesn't mention trans fats
once.
According to Wikipedia, they're
undesirable byproducts of the partial hydrogenation process. I can
believe that they're somewhat more expensive to remove (or prevent
from forming), but the trans fats themselves don't seem to affect
shelf life or flavor much at all.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 4:03PM|#
Fine. Instead of actually engaging me on issues, you choose to call me a troll or impersonate me. I should probably stick to posting at Daily Kos where the posters are a little more intellectually enlightened and honest.
thoreau|12.5.06 @ 4:08PM|#
I still say that modest calorie intake, moderate exercise, modest fat intake, and eating a variety of foods is the best bet. It's far better than worrying over whether this particular fat is better than some other one. And if you adopt that sensible balanced approach, you can afford to indulge here and there.
|12.5.06 @ 4:17PM|#
No, you can't indulge here and there, because it's illegal. It's
illegal because it's everybody else's business how you eat.
And it's everybody else's business how you eat because ....
wait, where was I?
|12.5.06 @ 4:20PM|#
Bergamot,
No, he doesn't mention transfat, but he does mention hydrogenated
fats. Transfats are the result of hydrogenation. Complete
hydrogenation would result in a completely saturated fat (similar
to lard) but since complete hydrogenation is not possible some
portion of the fat is converted into transfat, hence partial
hydrogenation(shortning).
To quote this
link:
Trans fat has both the benefits and drawbacks of a saturated
fat. On the plus side, it has a longer shelf life than regular
vegetable fat and is solid at room temperature. The major negative
is that trans fat tends to raise "bad" LDL- cholesterol and lower
"good" HDL-cholesterol, although not as much as saturated
fat.
Andrew|12.5.06 @ 4:20PM|#
I have a serious problem believing that trans fats are "tasty". I replaced most of the trans fats in my recipes with butter recently and they've tasted at least as good as they did with margerine or crisco. In the case of the cookies I've made since then, they tasted much better. The main benefit of trans fats seems to be that they're cheap.
|12.5.06 @ 4:21PM|#
Oh, Lard! New Pork has slid to margarine of greaseness. The fat is in the fryer now and oleo people are too tallow and blubbering. You're doing it adipose. We will suet you if you surfeit and put you in cellulite.
JD|12.5.06 @ 4:24PM|#
You know, Dan T., that's starting to sound like a better and better idea all the time. I'll just have to move my young, educated, money-making, trans-fat-eating ass to some other place...one without quite as many petty fascists.
|12.5.06 @ 4:24PM|#
...because you feel guilty over the fact that Americans are sterotyped as being overweight.
|12.5.06 @ 4:30PM|#
So, what will happen if a restaraunt refuses to comply? Will
they go so far as to shut them down?
I really, really hope one of these tony, well moneyed shops takes
these fuckers on.
|12.5.06 @ 4:38PM|#
thoreau,
(serious response)
I think most animal meat contains some transfats naturally.
|12.5.06 @ 4:41PM|#
Whoever is impersonating Dan T.,
Please use a spoof email or website for his name. It is very hard
to tell which are his actual posts.
|12.5.06 @ 4:44PM|#
If we ban cooking, not only will we be protecting ourselves from trans fats, but we will also be battling global warming!
thoreau|12.5.06 @ 4:44PM|#
Please use a spoof email or website for his name. It is very
hard to tell which are his actual posts.
I think that's the point.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 4:46PM|#
The main benefit of trans fats seems to be that they're
cheap.
Of course. But not so cheap once you figure in health care costs
incurred to fix the damage.
I guess most sensible people realize that the cost of taking away
the right to poison one's self (and each other) is a small price to
pay for a healthier population.
|12.5.06 @ 4:50PM|#
Dan T.,
So transfats are now "poisons?" Wow.
The larger concern is of course "where will this stop?" How big of
a "price" are you willing to pay for a "healthier
population?"
Anyway, its not as if trasnfats will ever be eradicated if people
desire them. If people want products with transfats in them they
will get them.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 4:55PM|#
Ugh, the impersonations are quickly becoming tiresome. Enough
Already. Let's try to behave like adults here.
Ok, now to get back on topic. The animal meats that contain trans
fats should NOT be excluded from the ban. If we start making
exceptions, then that opens to door to all sorts of corporate
skullduggery. Pretty soon we're back to where we were.
Besides, do we really NEED that hamburger? We all would be much
better off enjoying a delicious organically grown salad in its
place. Good for us, and even better for the environment.
lunchstealer|12.5.06 @ 4:59PM|#
the tasty fats
They're not all that tasty, just usefully solid at room temperature
and long-of-shelflife.
Butter, now that's tasty. And don't even get me started on bacon
grease. Mmmmm bacon grease.
I could get behind a mandatory all-butter-and-bacon-grease
ordinance.
|12.5.06 @ 4:59PM|#
You want some trans fats? I can get you some trans fats, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me...
|12.5.06 @ 4:59PM|#
"I have a serious problem believing that trans fats are "tasty".
I replaced most of the trans fats in my recipes with butter
recently and they've tasted at least as good as they did with
margerine or crisco."
Therein lies the rub. How long were we all told that butter was
going to kill us and we needed to switch to margerin? I seem to
recall that being the dogma back in the 70s and 80s. Now it is
margerin that is going to kill us. It is a simple formula really,
eat less and exercise more and you are healthy. If you eat enough
of any food sans celery you are going to be fat. All this does is
make food more expensive in NYC restaurants. It will do nothing to
make people healthier. And of course it sets a horrible precident
for the government to be able to ban otherwise safe products. How
long before Berkley or some other lefty craphole bans the sale of
meat or cigs or some other out of favor product?
thoreau|12.5.06 @ 4:59PM|#
Dan T.-
Healthy eating is possible without regulation. Indeed, it's even
possible without having to abstain completely from transfats. In
the past 6 months I have lost 13 pounds and brought my cholesterol
down. How? Well, for just $14.95 plus shipping and handling I'll
send you my...
OK, just joking. To be serious, I did it by moderate exercise,
modest reductions in calorie intake (especially before bed) and
eating fewer sweets and fatty foods. Oh, I still eat sweets and
fat, just not as much.
The point? The point is that it is quite possible to improve one's
health via moderation. Completely renouncing transfats, let alone
banning them, is not necessary for the purpose of achieving better
health.
I could make all of the ideological arguments, but why bother? You
claim to have a goal, and I'm saying that the methods you favor are
completely unnecessary for achieving that goal.
|12.5.06 @ 5:01PM|#
Zeno: Expect to see black market
distrubution of foods with transfats in them.
I refer you to the book "Survival Of Freedom", edited by Jerry
Pournelle, and the story therein, "Lipidleggers"
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:01PM|#
So transfats are now "poisons?" Wow.
Yes, in the sense that they are inherently bad for you.
The larger concern is of course "where will this stop?" How big of
a "price" are you willing to pay for a "healthier
population?"
That's a question worth considering, although I might ask how big a
"price" are you willing to pay for the right to east Crisco?
Anyway, its not as if trasnfats will ever be eradicated if people
desire them. If people want products with transfats in them they
will get them.
But that's just it - do people really go around looking for foods
high in trans fat? If you eat a French fry, can you tell what it
was fried in?
|12.5.06 @ 5:06PM|#
Let's just cut to the chase and appoint a
Nutrition And Safety Inspector (NASI) to every household in
America.
|12.5.06 @ 5:06PM|#
That's a question worth considering, although I might ask
how big a "price" are you willing to pay for the right to east
Crisco?
A dollar $1.79 a tub. How much of a price, in dollars, will the
poor of New York have to pay because of rising food prices? Its not
the eliete rich going to McD's every day.
|12.5.06 @ 5:06PM|#
Dan T.,
"Yes, in the sense that they are inherently bad for you."
So are lots of things. How many of those are going to advocate a
ban for? Just how involved is the state going to be involved my
diet, how much exercise I get, etc.? How many police officers are
we going to have to have to enforce such?
That's a question worth considering, although I might ask how
big a "price" are you willing to pay for the right to east
Crisco?
You're ignoring my question.
But that's just it - do people really go around looking for
foods high in trans fat? If you eat a French fry, can you tell what
it was fried in?
Maybe they do. Maybe in the future they will do so if a ban goes
into effect. I'd "bet" that you will see some reaction like that
(given the reaction to such restrictions in history).
|12.5.06 @ 5:08PM|#
And how much common sense does it take to know what foods are good for you or not? Even sans trans fats, french fries aren't exactly the best for your body, and each of us have known that since grade school.
|12.5.06 @ 5:08PM|#
That's a question worth considering, although I might ask
how big a "price" are you willing to pay for the right to east
Crisco?
If I'm not free to decide what to put in my own pie-hole, what am I
free to do? I agree there is a price to be paid for eating Crisco,
but can't I choose to do so without the government interfering?
|12.5.06 @ 5:09PM|#
BTW, I am fairly certain that some "ideas," some types of
"music," etc. may lead to sub-optimal outcomes for people. So when
do we start regulating these ideas and music?
Shit, I can hear Plato clapping with entusiasm.
|12.5.06 @ 5:10PM|#
But that's just it - do people really go around looking for
foods high in trans fat? If you eat a French fry, can you tell what
it was fried in?
According to McDonald's, we can tell the difference. Believe it or
not, but McDonald's is trying on their own to reduce them on their
menu. Not because the gov't wants them to, but because they care.
Seriously, they have been experimenting with different fats for the
fries. So far, they haven't found any healthier alternative that
people like as much.
|12.5.06 @ 5:11PM|#
I can't tell the Dan spoofs from the real thing, if there is
such a thing. Anyway....
Dan, how is it any of your fucking business what I choose to eat
(or not eat)?
Ya' know, for a bunch of bloody annoyances who have been screaming
about "choice" for a couple decades now, you'd think they would
have figured out how to extend that idea beyond abortion.
Think outside the fetal box.
|12.5.06 @ 5:12PM|#
"But that's just it - do people really go around looking for
foods high in trans fat? If you eat a French fry, can you tell what
it was fried in?"
Isn't the better sollution then just laws requiring the clear
labeling of food? If I have to put a sign up on my restaurant
saying "I use transfat", why can't you just choose not to eat
there? Do you think people are too stupid to act for themselves
given the relevant information?
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:13PM|#
The point? The point is that it is quite possible to improve
one's health via moderation. Completely renouncing transfats, let
alone banning them, is not necessary for the purpose of achieving
better health.
That's true. But it appears that people are not always able to
practice moderation (and to some extent in our society good food
and the means to exercise is a luxury that not all can afford). Not
to mention that many people may not be aware of trans fat or what
its ill effects are - one of the big problems of the modern food
industry is that people are more disconnected from what they eat an
often have no idea what's in their food or how it got there.
This is not to say that the government should ban everything that
is possibly unhealthy. But regulating the quality of the food
served to the public is a legitimate function of local
government.
|12.5.06 @ 5:13PM|#
Anyway, I'll let you know now that you'll have to take my foie fras from my cold, dead hands. ;)
|12.5.06 @ 5:15PM|#
But regulating the quality of the food served to the public
is a legitimate function of local government.
Why?
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:16PM|#
Hold on, let me plug all of your questions into my trusty
cost/benefit formula.
And the answer is...more government instrusion into our personal
lives. But then again, that's the same answer I get everytime.
LOL!
|12.5.06 @ 5:18PM|#
Not to mention that many people may not be aware of trans
fat or what its ill effects are - one of the big problems of the
modern food industry is that people are more disconnected from what
they eat an often have no idea what's in their food or how it got
there.
Except for the constant drumbeat in the media about transfats, the
numerous items in the supermarket which state "no transfats," etc.
You are basically making a "market failure" argument here, and
there is plainly no market failure. There is plenty of information
out there for people. What people do is choose not to follow that
information. What this legislation is really doing is forcing
people to change their behavior in instances where they have
information and just don't care.
thoreau|12.5.06 @ 5:18PM|#
But it appears that people are not always able to practice
moderation (and to some extent in our society good food and the
means to exercise is a luxury that not all can afford).
I call BS. I get most of my exercise from walking. It ain't that
hard.
And healthy food can be cheap. I lost 13 pounds and lowered my
cholesterol while eating a can of fruit and package of ramen for
lunch every day. That's about $1/day.
I ate a bowl of cereal (store brand) with skim milk and a carton of
yogurt. The yogurt is $0.50/carton, a week of cereal and milk is
about $7.
So far we're up to $18/week.
Dinner? I can think of tons of easy and healthy recipes that aren't
too expensive. Veggies are generally cheap, and they don't need to
be bland. Stir fry them in your preferred oil with some garlic and
soy sauce. Rice is cheap if you buy the big bags. So are beans.
Rice, beans, and vegetables with your favorite seasonings are an
endlessly versatile combo as you vary the veggies and
seasonings.
So I call BS.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:21PM|#
Do you think people are too stupid to act for themselves
given the relevant information?
I'd wager that the majority of people, if you stopped them on the
street and asked, wouldn't be able to explain what trans fats are,
how they're produced, or why they're bad for you.
Does this mean they're "stupid"? I wouldn't say that. Few us have
the time or inclination to become experts on everything.
|12.5.06 @ 5:22PM|#
Just for giggles, I go to Dan's blog and what ad should appear
before my wondering eyes?
-----
Net Nanny
Find great deals and save! Compare products, prices & stores.
Ads by Google
----
You can't pay for that kind of comedy.
|12.5.06 @ 5:24PM|#
I'm sure the majority of the people, when stopped in the streets, could tell you why eating at cruddy fast food joints isn't good for you with out hearing the words "fast foods" in their life.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:24PM|#
Nobody normal wants to eat pig shit, but if people WOULD want to
eat pig shit, what would be the basis for stopping them? It is
their own body they are screwing over, and the welfare state (or
various aspects of it) both allow for this self-abuse by getting
the willing participants out of their hole they dug, and stops the
abuse at the expense of a persons right to eat pig shit because
people don't want to pay to fix other's self-caused health
problems. The solution I thought I'd be seeing would be
advertisements detailing the dangers of pig shit.
Anyway, back to impersonating:
i;'m dum lol
Rhywun|12.5.06 @ 5:27PM|#
The vote was unanimous.
*Sigh*. We asked for term limits and in return we got an infinitely
worse bunch of crooks than the ones we tossed out. I swear these
idiots don't represent average New Yorkers. I can't only imagine
that average New Yorkers stopped voting. Like me.
I can't tell the Dan spoofs from the real thing
And now he wants to ban meat. Where's Juanita to top that?
Dan, how is it any of your fucking business what I choose to
eat (or not eat)?
It's for the good of society. Duh.
|12.5.06 @ 5:27PM|#
You know, I wonder how often government "experts" are actually "right" (in some testable sense)? Furthermore, I wonder how often they are "right" (in a testable sense) in comparison to the decisions of the general population? Anyway, the idea that government "experts" are better predictors, better at making discrete decisions, etc. is simply assumed by a class of people; that assumption needs to be demonstrated before we can take it seriously.
|12.5.06 @ 5:28PM|#
Anyway, I'll let you know now that you'll have to take my
foie gras from my cold, dead hands. ;)
Watch what you say. I am a "by any means necessary" kind of guy
when it comes to foie gras.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:31PM|#
So I call BS.
Well, therou, it seems you've employed the classic libertarian "I
don't have this problem so I don't understand why anybody else
does" argument. There's not much answer to that one.
Jennifer|12.5.06 @ 5:31PM|#
I seem to recall that transfats made it onto menus in the first
place because they were supposed to be healthier than dangerous
substances like butter and lard. Now we're supposed to use butter
and lard instead of those dangerous transfats.
By the way, dark chocolate is good for you this week, because it
contains antioxidants and stuff. But enjoy it while you can,
because next week it will go back onto the "bad" list due to
diabetes concerns or some such thing.
|12.5.06 @ 5:33PM|#
John asks:
"Isn't the better sollution then just laws requiring the clear
labeling of food? If I have to put a sign up on my restaurant
saying "I use transfat", why can't you just choose not to eat
there? Do you think people are too stupid to act for themselves
given the relevant information?"
It's funny that you ask that. I recall an article on MSNBC about
this exact thing. We live in a world where we have access to all
the information we need. The MSNBC article found that people do
read the information on food products, and even though they see
that some products are full of sugar, fat, cholesterol, etc. they
continue to buy them. Why? Because they want to. Which is what gets
the nanny staters' goats. Since people won't make the "right"
decision, it then has to be made for them, under fear or
punishment.
Nick
thoreau|12.5.06 @ 5:33PM|#
Well, therou, it seems you've employed the classic
libertarian "I don't have this problem so I don't understand why
anybody else does" argument. There's not much answer to that
one.
No, I DO have the problem, and I found a very cost-effective
solution to the problem. So I call BS on the notion that it's too
difficult of a problem to solve.
|12.5.06 @ 5:34PM|#
Anyway, I've got get ready for the Christmas Concert. Maybe I'll eat some transfats along the way. ;)
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:36PM|#
Dan, how is it any of your fucking business what I choose to
eat (or not eat)?
Individually, it's not. If only one person or a handful of people
ate rat poison tonight, nobody would care because it wouldn't
affect them.
But the more people do it, the more of an adverse affect it has on
others. Pretty simple concept that libertarians don't seem to
get.
|12.5.06 @ 5:36PM|#
Zeno,
Are you tempting me? I haven't had any in over a week. Don't make
me come over there.
|12.5.06 @ 5:38PM|#
But the more people do it, the more of an adverse affect it
has on others.
And those effects would be?
Funny, I never knew transfats were communicable. What's the
infection vector?
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:40PM|#
That "eat less and exercise more" bit only worked for Thoreau because he has Magic Physicist Powers. Regular people can't be expected to do it.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:42PM|#
Cmon folks, feed me. I'm a hungry troll. Just make sure it's trans fat-free.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:45PM|#
Exactly Dan T., not all people (esp. the poor) have access to
those magical powers.
Oh wait, I'm so confused.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:46PM|#
The important thing is, people are paying attention to me. My
existence has been validated.
This transfat ban is a wonderful thing.
|12.5.06 @ 5:47PM|#
"...it seems you've employed the classic libertarian "I don't
have this problem so I don't understand why anybody else does"
argument."
And here we have the classic nannybot "solution." If there is
something which is too dangerous/ complicated/ challenging/
difficult/ unhealthy/ et c for SOMEBODY, then it must be too
dangerous/ complicated/ challenging/ difficult/ unhealthy/ et c for
ANYBODY, and must be regulated (that is, prohibited)
accordingly.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:49PM|#
It is a well-known fact that walking costs a lot of money, which is why poor people can't do it. And only rich people are allowed to buy yogurt at 50 cents a carton; poor people are required by law to spend 5 bucks on a McDonald's meal instead. So Thoreau has no business saying that his weight-loss plan will work for poor people, too.
|12.5.06 @ 5:51PM|#
I read a good point over at Huffington; if we ban transfat for our general saftey, why not ban sodomy? It might infringe on our right to have sex how we want, but it would help stop the spread of AIDS, brining down insurance costs for everyone.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:53PM|#
And after being bombarded by fast food advertising, poor people have no choice but to eat fast food. The corporate brainwashing is too much for them to resist.
|12.5.06 @ 5:57PM|#
And don't even get me started on bacon grease. Mmmmm bacon
grease.
It's the only thing I use to fry eggs in :)
But it appears that people are not always able to practice
moderation (and to some extent in our society good food and the
means to exercise is a luxury that not all can afford)
Man I hate engaging with Dan but...
You are making bullshit assumptions. How do you know they are
unable to practice moderation and not merely unwilling?? In your
world is there a difference?? (Obviously not because you advocate
mandating things that are "good for people" despite even for people
who object)
But the more people do it, the more of an adverse affect it has
on others. Pretty simple concept that libertarians don't seem to
get.
That's just not true. The more people do it, the more people who
are affected adversely (since more people are doing it), but that
doesn't imply that bad behavior is contagious and somehow the
people who don't do it suffer adverse affect caused by those who
do.
And why do you insist on treating people as wards of the state
instead of as individuals who have the FSM-given right to make
their own decisions, good or bad? When did free will become
anathema?? Why is free will only an option as long as people use
that free will to make choices you deem appropriate?
Free will....it's a concept that morons like Dan T. refuse to
"get".
Nobody normal wants to eat pig shit, but if people WOULD want
to eat pig shit, what would be the basis for stopping
them?
I have seen enough German-based videos on the internet to feel
quite comfortable in asserting that there are in fact people who
would want to eat pig-shit or even human shit.
Dan T.|12.5.06 @ 5:57PM|#
And after being bombarded by fast food advertising, poor
people have no choice but to eat fast food. The corporate
brainwashing is too much for them to resist.
Because poor people are stupid. Protecting the stupid is the job of
government.
Sam Franklin|12.5.06 @ 5:59PM|#
The great thing is that if you must have trans fats, you can
move to another city. Everybody wins.
Dan T.: I sort of thought you were sorta losin' it. I stand
corrected. Good'un.
|12.5.06 @ 6:28PM|#
Evil Dr. T,
Please tell me how I can join your low cost weight loss program. I
will send the $14.95 when I can afford to stop eating at
McDonald's.
More importantly, didn't you know that Ramen are deep fried in
saturated fat?
|12.5.06 @ 6:45PM|#
The government has no chance of eliminating obesity. A great example is the Army. It has the power to control nearly everything about a soldier's life- it feeds him, makes him exercise, tells him when to sleep, when to work, etc. Yet, there are still fat people in the Army. So it has a weight control program to make them non-fat. This subjects the soldier to medical and nutritional counseling, constant weigh-ins, extra exercise, and the threat of getting kicked out if he doesn't shape up in a certain amount of time. Yet, there are still fat people who then get kicked out. Some people just eat too damn much.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.5.06 @ 6:46PM|#
Tasty trans fats? I don't think so. Now, fry up some donuts in
lard and you've got something tasty.
Best tostada I ever had was Indian fry bread I bought from a Papago
woman the size of a Winnebago in front of San Xavier Mission. The
tortilla and the beans were fried in lard. Dam, it was a
heart attack on a paper plate.
I remember when trans fats (they weren't called that back then)
were going to save us all from the scourge of animal fats and now
they've been banned in the Big Apple.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.5.06 @ 6:51PM|#
Thowrow:
Beer & Yogurt, man.
1 yogurt for breakfast
1 yogurt for lunch
2 beers for dinner (takes away the hunger pangs and you get a quick
buzz because you haven't eaten anything but two yogurts all
day)
Guaranteed to melt the pounds away in no time.
thoreau|12.5.06 @ 7:01PM|#
kwix-
Holy shit, ramen is deep fried? Wow.
All I know is that I lost a lot of weight on ramen. 13 pounds in 6
months, 23 pounds in 11 months.
|12.5.06 @ 7:05PM|#
Those who stupid and undisciplined enough to eat themseleves into poor health aren't going to be helped by a ban on transfats or any other unhealthy substance. If they can face the consequences of their actions with a modicum of dignity and pay their own medical bills, that's enough for me.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.5.06 @ 7:05PM|#
Kwix, you make a good point. All those package noodles like Top Ramen are loaded with fats like Palm Oil. May as well mainline 90 wt gear oil.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.5.06 @ 7:09PM|#
Thowrow, cutting down on total calories to the point where you
burn more than you take in will result in weight loss even if your
eating food that is horrible for you. You could lose weight eating
french fries if you didn't eat much of them.
It's kind of like how an F-4 Phantom jet proves that if you push
anything fast enough it will fly. Even a brick.
|12.5.06 @ 7:42PM|#
Dan T. | December 5, 2006, 4:55pm | #
Ugh, the impersonations are quickly becoming tiresome.
Oh, wow, someone's impersonating Dan T.?
Is there some way to tell the difference?
|12.5.06 @ 7:57PM|#
Our Bodies, Ourselves!
(snort)
I love living so long as to see the left become a parody. Anyways,
what's next health fascists?
|12.5.06 @ 8:10PM|#
Paul
If you live long enough, maybe the cliches you use will be fresh
again, but don't count on it.
|12.5.06 @ 8:40PM|#
I have visions of the Big Apple's greatest chefs and restauranteurs disappearing overnight; and the only thing the disappearances have in common is some guy named Galt...
Garth|12.5.06 @ 9:56PM|#
I don't care. Just leave me and my Grandma Utz potato chips*
alone
*these be the ones still fried in lard....
|12.5.06 @ 10:09PM|#
Jim Walsh,
Then they bitch about no longer having prep cooks, wait staff,
dishwashers, etc.
|12.5.06 @ 10:11PM|#
"But it appears that people are not always able to practice
moderation (and to some extent in our society good food and the
means to exercise is a luxury that not all can afford)."
That statement scares the hell out of me and here is why. The same
people who support that kind of thinking also support socialized
medicine. Put the two together and what do you get? You get the
government rationing healthcare based on the lifestyles we lead.
The logic is brutally simple; why should we be using scarce
healthcare resources to care for some fat bastard who couldn't
control his weight? Of course the government will be right there to
help those people through coercive measures. I don't think we are
all that far from the day when there is government mandatd body fat
limits. Of course the whole system will be "voluntary", everyone
will have a choice. Of course you will go to the bottom of the
government healthcare list if you are overweight and don't
paricipate in government mandated diet and exercise program.
Everyone else of course will have to take yearly physical exam and
have their body mass measured and placed on a mandatory diet list
if they don't meet the standard. This is where all this is going
and we will no longer be a free country under any meaning of the
term when it happens.
Rhywun|12.5.06 @ 10:36PM|#
Just leave me and my Grandma Utz potato chips*
alone
Holy crap those are gross. THAT'S what lard tastes like?? Yecch. I
like regular Utz though.
|12.5.06 @ 10:39PM|#
Rywun,
They will get my Salt and Viniger flavored Utz from me when they
pry them from my cold dead fingers.
Rhywun|12.5.06 @ 10:41PM|#
This is where all this is going and we will no longer be a
free country under any meaning of the term when it
happens.
A vision of the TV exercise lady from Fahrenheit 451 just
floated through my head. "Bend and twist! Come on, Montag, you can
do it!" *shudder*
|12.5.06 @ 11:03PM|#
The authoritarian NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
has no right to ban the use of trans fats.
And here is health wisdom:
Trans fats really are terrible for you! In the foods we buy
at the store, they are often in the form of hydrogenated and
partially hydrogenated oils. Read the labels and don't buy anything
with trans fats or hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated
oils!
Their ingestion has been associated with heart
disease:
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/71/81217.htm?pagenumber=2
|12.6.06 @ 12:30AM|#
You know, I really don't get this supposed rationale. Let's
grant that if you eat trans fats, you'll get heart disease, and
since we have semi-socialized medicine, we all pay for your
illness. So if you don't eat trans fats, you'll live forever in
perfect health? No, you're still going sicken and die of something,
and we'll still have to pay for it. So how exactly is the ban
supposed to improve things?
Maybe the Food Nazis would like to think that in the absence of
trans fats, everybody will live to the age of 101 in perfect
health, and then suddenly drop stone dead, but I kind of doubt it.
Are people supposed to live more productive lives without trans
fats? Life expectancy in the US is already about 77 years on
average, so it's not like a huge number of people in the primes of
their lives are dropping dead.
Pepe|12.6.06 @ 3:28AM|#
"You know, I really don't get this supposed rationale. Let's
grant that if you eat trans fats, you'll get heart disease, and
since we have semi-socialized medicine, we all pay for your
illness. So if you don't eat trans fats, you'll live forever in
perfect health? No, you're still going sicken and die of something,
and we'll still have to pay for it. So how exactly is the ban
supposed to improve things?"
Not to mention that people being healthier and living longer costs
the government in other ways. More years collecting Social
Security, for example.
|12.6.06 @ 11:06AM|#
Rhywun,
The Grandma Utz chips are fried in lard. The Utz Kettle crisps are
fried in peanut oil. I prefer the Kettle crisps and you probably
would as well.
If you eat a French fry, can you tell what it was fried
in?"
fuck yeah! you can't?
Robert|12.6.06 @ 12:46PM|#
It is possible to fully hydrogenate oils, but it hasn't been desirable to do so, because people didn't want the fats that hard or that high in saturated fat.
Sir Disgrace|12.6.06 @ 7:00PM|#
Besides, do we really NEED that hamburger? We all would be
much better off enjoying a delicious organically grown salad in its
place. Good for us, and even better for the environment.
And at that point, we realized Dan is just a big ol' jokester. You
really had us going with your liberal act, bud!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245