May 16, 2007
MoCo Makes Being Unhealthy Much Harder
First New York, then Philadelphia, and now Montgomery County. The trans fat ban bandwagon just got a little bit longer.
According to the Post, yesterday MoCo became the first county in the nation to ban trans fats, endorsing restrictions that have become all the rage in recent months with health advocates. The ban will kick off next January for restaurants and in 2009 for establishments offering baked goods, and will force food providers to use healthier oils such as canola or soy for baking and cooking purposes.
MoCo's ban will surely raise fears among civil libertarians that the District is next. And it might be. Debate on whether or not to ban trans fats from the city's restaurants has been simmering since 2005, and only last month Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) introduced legislation that would effectively do so. Some retailers, notably Starbucks, even jumped the gun and announced earlier this year that ban or not, they'd be doing away with trans fats altogether.
We know how passionate you all are when it comes to bans. After all, pretty much every post we had on the smoking ban resulted in a deluge of comments, divided rather evenly between the "If you don't like it, don't come to my bar" camp and the "Cancer and smelly clothes should not be the consequence of a night out" crowd. What's the feeling on the trans fat ban, especially for those of you living in MoCo? Is this one more step in the nanny-state gone wild, or a necessary protection for our health?
|
I know trans fat is bad for me but if I want to have trans fat I should be able to have it. It doesn't pose a risk to those around me in the restaurant the way smoking does.
Seriously, what's next? If this, then why not ban all fast food?
So in MoCo it's nearly impossible to find a liquor store and soon it will be impossible to buy a trans-fat cooked donut.
Doesn't the MoCo Council have more pressing issues to address, like the rising gang activity in Wheaton or the increasingly frequent Metro robberies at the Forest Glen station?
Meh. Non-hydrogenated oils don't affect the flavor/texture of deep fried food, so there's no real loss there. Restaurants used transfat cooking oils because they're cheaper, so costs will probably go up negligibly.
They need to go back to deep frying stuff in pure lard. Anybody who's ever had a potato chip or chicken or fish fried in lard knows what I'm talking about. Go pick up a bag of Grandma Utz' Kettle Chips and see for yourself. It's like there's a party in my mouth and everyone's invited!
If New York voted to secede from the Union, Montgomery County would follow and then try to force the rest of Maryland to go with it, because they know what's best for everyone.
Eating transfats affects everyone around you because you are driving up their healthcare costs. Until we have universal health coverage, the government should do what it can, within reason, to keep health care costs from rising. If that means regulating two preventable, pointless, and ridiculously unhealthy behaviors--smoking and the consumption of transfats--than so be it. It's not like their banning dancing and ice cream...
'Scientific Evidence! We don't need no stink'in scientific evidence! As long as you like trans fat then we have to ban it. You all must live as miserable as the rest of us tinfoil hatted bimbos in MoCo. You have a duty to be "healthy"! We know whats good for you. Tomorrow...mandatory tofu for you!'
Sure are a fun group out there. Ever notice no one smiles in Montgomery County. Look around you will see what I mean.
If that means regulating two preventable, pointless, and ridiculously unhealthy behaviors--smoking and the consumption of transfats--than so be it. It's not like their banning dancing and ice cream...
Yeah, but where is the line Macie? Americans excessive consumption of refined white flour has been linked with our rising rates of obesity and diabetes should we ban that too?
Can they ban high fructose corn syrup so I can get some Mexican Coke?
And add corn syrup too. Be nice to get rid of those health care costs associated with diabetes, and an increase in corn syrup consumption has been linked to diabetes.
Heck- to really cut health care costs, why don't we just make things like Logan's Run? Make 60 the cutoff, and we can all party and go watch the "carousel" at the new Nat's stadum, or some such venue.
This is just the shape of things to come. When President Clinton institutes Universal Health Care in her first term, the federal government will have to impose healhty living standards to keep down the cost of a national health care plan. Or perhaps in an Orwellian twist Newports and quarterpounders will be given to the Proles in hopes they "self-regulate" their population. How gruesome.
I believe that I should be able to make my own choices, but the government should help in those choices for people who don't know the best answers, who can't make the decision or who don't even know there is a question being asked. For people who can only afford cheap food, trans fats will kill them and they don't have the option to upgrade. Alot of people don't even know what to look for when reading labels.
A second problem exists, and it's the same question that is asked when we talk about smoking bans or legalized marijuana: where do we draw the line? The government says I can't put lead in your paint or mercury in your thermometers. I can't put cyanide in your Advil. Cigarettes are far more deadly and addictive than marijuana, but I can buy cigarettes anywhere. Why should I be allowed to put trans fat in your cookies simply because it is cheaper and stores longer? By using other oils, companies spend a few extra cents, but the flavor, texture and quality remain the same. All MoCo has done is remove a hazardous product from your food.
See FDA and UMD Medical Center articles.
Trans fats are one of the biggest killers in the US considering that they are the leading cause of obesity and heart disease.
Finally, all those people who eat fast food seven days a week won't have to worry about their health.
You know what will happen now, people will start setting up trans fat speakeasies in their basements. Just bring in your fryables and pick which oil you want. They do the work and you get to enjoy all the artery clogging obesity-inducing trans fat you want. For a fee, of course. I wonder what will make more money, the fryers or the people who smuggle the oil in.
Perhaps the government should force us all to get up at 5 AM and run for two miles. They should also outlaw alcohol, tobacco, butter, white bread, MSG and M&Ms. And when you find someday that's a bright cold day in April and the clocks are striking thirteen, and that you are perfectly healthy but utterly joyless, then maybe you'll start longing for a stroke or a heart attack to take you away from it all.
why should big corporations be allowed to market killer products without explanation? this is about corporations, not choice. sheesh. the astroturf is thick out here.
macie, actually, despite politicized opinion, smoking keeps government health costs down, and helps social security as well. Lung cancer kills fast, heart attacks kill cheaply. Nothing is a greater burden on medicare and medicaid than ripe old age.
What's next, the government requiring that restaurants use clean equipment kept in sanitary conditions? Or that they not serve us undercooked or tainted foods? Really, this intrusion of the government into private business is just far too much!
I don't really understand the "What's next?" or "Where's the line?" way of thinking. Could someone please explain it to me? It just sounds like a weak way to disagree with something that has happened. Like "If we make gay marriage legal, what's next? People can marry their dogs?" or "Sure, banning cigarettes is a good idea, but where's the line? Next thing you know they'll start banning sunshine since that causes cancer too."
I'm being serious, is there a legitimate reason for this argument? Is there any kind of precedent for this? It seems insane to me.
Christine --
The smoking ban in NYC was underscored by "don't worry, it's just a smoking ban...nothing else." Then along comes Bloomberg's trans-fat ban.
That's why people say "What's next?"
Community standards change. Smoking bans are popular. We'll see if no-trans-fat is.
Community standards change. Smoking bans are popular. We'll see if no-trans-fat is.
Necessary protection of health of course.
Christine - Of course there's a good reason for this argument; namely, no one has said what are the metrics being used to decide what to ban and what leave up to consumer choice. If there was an established, agreed upon methodology that MoCo could point to and use to explain their decision making process, then the "what's next?" argument becomes much less valid. Chili Half Smokes from Ben's Chili Bowl aren't anyone's idea of health food, but at what point do they become so injurious to our society that we decide to ban them? Who gets to make that decision and what basis do they make it?
Personally I'd like to know what research has led municipalities to deem trans fats such an unacceptable risk to the population that they should be banned legislatively? Are the relative benefits of such a ban so high and the costs so low that we should use the force of law to stop people from using trans fats? What else falls into that category?
Christine - Of course there's a good reason for this argument; namely, no one has said what are the metrics being used to decide what to ban and what leave up to consumer choice. If there was an established, agreed upon methodology that MoCo could point to and use to explain their decision making process, then the "what's next?" argument becomes much less valid. Chili Half Smokes from Ben's Chili Bowl aren't anyone's idea of health food, but at what point do they become so injurious to our society that we decide to ban them? Who gets to make that decision and what basis do they make it?
Personally I'd like to know what research has led municipalities to deem trans fats such an unacceptable risk to the population that they should be banned legislatively? Are the relative benefits of such a ban so high and the costs so low that we should use the force of law to stop people from using trans fats? What else falls into that category?
Ask anyone in the health or medical industries and they will say trans-fat is a killer. I'm not going to get into the scientific reasons why, but basically your liver can't process it and it goes directly into fat storage without being broken down, which directly leads to obesity and all the other health risks that come with it. OK, so I did get a little scientific...
Point is, as someone else pointed out, the ban won't effect the way the products taste, the only reason they are used is because they are cheaper to produce. And right on to the person who talked about high fructose corn syrup. Just as deadly and for the same reason (cheaper) as trans-fat usage.
I realize that this gets into the realm of civil liberties, but basically, companies that use these products are at least partially responsible for our country's deteriorating health in the pursuit of making a buck.
The smoking ban in NYC was underscored by "don't worry, it's just a smoking ban...nothing else." Then along comes Bloomberg's trans-fat ban.
That's why people say "What's next?"
----
Lead paint? absinthe? let's see... what other things could companies sell rather than take the personal responsibility to stop selling... umm... crack pipes?
Are the relative benefits of such a ban so high and the costs so low that we should use the force of law to stop people from using trans fats? What else falls into that category?
----
Motorcycle helmets? gun trigger locks? fluoride in the water? seatbelts and seatbelt laws? Child safety seats? lawnmower blade guards? pretty much everything you buy for a child under 3. bike helmet laws in DC. DC has a law that you can't exit a car with the keys in the ignition and the car running. There are probably 100 federal laws on the books that follow this logic.
This trans fat scam comes from the Center for Science in the Public Intrest (CSPI). They are a public relations group living off of uber liberal lunatic Teresa Heinz, the worlds richest waitress. A few years ago they (CSPI) scamed restaurants to SWITCH to trans fats. They file law suits for publicity stunts like the one against KFC that was thrown OUT of court two weeks ago because they had no standing and could not prove any harm to anyone. Meaning, the judge said your nuts. Now they just filed the same bogus suit against Burger King. I can understand the horrific fear I see in some of you. Yep, what does the Food and Drug Administration and it's scientists know about sudden death diets when you can be told how to run your life from press releases and newspaper stories filed by idiots? Some of you people are real easy marks for these con artists. MoCo bimbos are the least of your problems. Why be rational? I forgot, that's a conservatives method.
By the way, none other than Robert Wood Johnson, the sole backer of all smoking bans that exist, is the main funding source of the vegetarian Center for Science in the Public Interest. MoCo was the first to accept his bribes and pass the smoking ban so now he completly owns them. Rockville has to do what he tells them to do. Fenty will be next to be told to deliver. Robert Wood Johnson does not care about Courts of Law, not when you are the new reincarnation of Adolph Hitler and his master race (Health Cult).
Banning trans fats is a good idea. You can still eat all the fried foods you like only now they will be trans fat free-so what's the big deal-everyone is a winner.