Chicago's biggest nanny at it again

This time, he wants to ban trans-fats. Sure, it's bad for you, but this guy thinks everything can be solved by legislating and restricting personal freedom. But, I guess it's just par for the course in Chicago politics -- egos that are too big and brains that are too small.

Doesn't the mayor have the power to do ANYTHING except blather on at news conferences ?



http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/transfats28.html

Unbelievable! I'm just disappointed that the Chicago restaurants haven't banded together sufficiently to shut up the city council.

Maybe soon the Aldermen will ban candy bars, red meat, raw seafood, salt . . .

And why not require that restaurants list full nutritional information on menus. . .

What amazes me is that the Aldermen don't realize just how stupid they look.

And why not require that restaurants list full nutritional information on menus. . .

I would love this. I know you are being facetious. But I would love it.

Not to mention that it's illegal anywhere in the U.S. to sell raw milk cheese that hasn't been aged for a certain length of time. Oooh, the hidden killer, raw milk cheese! So much worse for you than smoking, drinking, or any number of other perfectly legal activities. We saw a cheese shop in Montreal that specialized in raw milk cheeses, and I was almost overcome with jealousy.

geli wrote:We saw a cheese shop in Montreal that specialized in raw milk cheeses, and I was almost overcome with jealousy.

So, what exactly kept you on thisside of the brink?

E.M.

geli wrote:Not to mention that it's illegal anywhere in the U.S. to sell raw milk cheese that hasn't been aged for a certain length of time. Oooh, the hidden killer, raw milk cheese! So much worse for you than smoking, drinking, or any number of other perfectly legal activities. We saw a cheese shop in Montreal that specialized in raw milk cheeses, and I was almost overcome with jealousy.

Don't run to the casino on this, but I think (I think) I heard that the US is in the process of relaxing some of the raw milk cheese requirements.

Quoting myself from the thread on the foie gras ban:

What DOES concern me mightily, though, is the precedent that it would establish: if a legislative body is allowed to ban foie gras, what foodstuff(s) might be next? Runny scrambled eggs? Rare hamburger? Traditional aoli or mayo or Caesar salad dressing (made with raw eggs)? Sashimi? Steak tartare?

It's best that this get nipped in the bud, and now.

I guess my rhetorical question (what next?) has been answered.

Trans-fats are bad, I know, and I generally try to avoid or limit them, but some precedents are a dangerous thing.

What do you imagine they'll try to outlaw after this?

Cheers,
Wade

waderoberts wrote:What do you imagine they'll try to outlaw after this?

Veal

waderoberts wrote:What do you imagine they'll try to outlaw after this?

Internet food chat forums.

How many people seeing the news about this understand that the evil-sounding "trans fats" means Crisco?

And that banning it doesn't necessarily force restaurants to stop using saturated fats? Instead, they may go back to cooking with lard, duck fat, palm oil, etc.

Hmm... that's the bright side -- except that the next move of the food nannies will be to try to ban all saturated fats. After all, the reason foodservice moved from using animal fats to hydrogenated vegetable fats in the first place was because of the tirades of self-appointed food police, like Phil Sokolov's campaign against McDonald's in the early '90s, when he targeted them for serving french fries cooked in beef tallow.

There are two agendas going on here: the "I know what's good for you" health police and the "animals are more important than people" PETA crowd. If they keep winning converts among those who control public policy in Chicago, the onetime hog butcher to the world may become the first city to mandate fruitarianism.

Erik M. wrote:

So, what exactly kept you on thisside of the brink?

The price of beer in Montreal (9.99 a six-pack of crud like Coor's Light!). Beer was pretty much the only thing I noticed that was significantly more there than it is here.

Also the fact that I didn't want to cry in public.

LAZ wrote:

like Ray Sokolov's campaign against McDonald's in the early '90s

As much as I admire and respect his book "Fading Feast: A Compendium of Disappearing American Regional Foods," I remain highly miffed about that.

Um . . . is anyone aware of any real beef tallow-fried fries in Chicago?

Cheers,
Wade

waderoberts wrote:Um . . . is anyone aware of any real beef tallow-fried fries in Chicago?

didn't McDonald's get busted by Hindus/vegetarians in the last couple yrs for putting beef tallow/somethingorother in the frying oil, thereby rendering (pun intended ) them non-vegetarian ?

First, it was "beef flavoring," whatever that is:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/05/national/main511109.shtml

Then, it was wheat and dairy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11326937/

What's wrong with just potatoes fried in animal fat, and tossed with salt (as long as salt remains legal in Chicago)? I'm reminded of a short time living in L.A. Shortly after relocating, I stopped by a joint for breakfast, ordering eggs over easy, hash browns, and bacon. The meal arrived, but the counter bore only pepper, no salt. I asked the young waitress for a salt shaker. She exclaimed: You have yellow chicken death, pork death, and grease death. You want white death, too?" "Er, yes, please," I replied, "and could you make sure that the shaker is full."

Cheers,
Wade

Wade,

For beef tallow fried potatoes and a darn good burger:

Top Notch Beefburger
2116 W. 95th St.
Chicago, IL 60643
773-445-7218

Well, I've already written my alderman... not that he'll take me too seriously after our last conversation after the foie gras vote... but I'd recommend that everybody else do the same. The only thing that will stop this is if lots of people get very angry and make it very clear that they're very angry. The only reason the foie gras ban went through was because our aldermen's doors were beaten down by animal activists and they took what they perceived to be the path of least resistance.

The restaurant industry does seem to be remarkably quiet, and I have to believe they'd carry some significant weight if they organized, even loosely so. Chefs for Choice strikes me as a good start, but it's just that... a start. Are they unused to having to defend their turf? Is it that they're too busy working ridiculous hours to create deliciousness for the rest of us?

Is there anything we can do to help?

Dmnkly wrote:The restaurant industry does seem to be remarkably quiet, and I have to believe they'd carry some significant weight if they organized, even loosely so.

They certainly seemed to be able to organize more than loosely when they scared enough aldermen to get them to give them that bogus 2yr moratorium and future copouts on the smoking ban.

The scary thing is, if you want to take Chicago Tribune readers as a snapsnot of public opinion, then the public seems to be for it. I logged in yesterday, and after 3000+ votes, 57% of people were for the ban.

The mind boggles.

Trans-fats = artificial lard.

When I choose to indulge, I'd rather have my fries cooked in the real thing.

waderoberts wrote:As much as I admire and respect his book "Fading Feast: A Compendium of Disappearing American Regional Foods," I remain highly miffed about that.

Oops, sorry, don't be mad at Ray. I mistyped. Phil Sokolov was the french-fry crusader. (I've edited my post.)

Binko wrote:The scary thing is, if you want to take Chicago Tribune readers as a snapsnot of public opinion, then the public seems to be for it. I logged in yesterday, and after 3000+ votes, 57% of people were for the ban.

That's because everyone keeps talking about scary, evil "trans-fats" instead of Crisco and margarine.

This could even affect Mexican restaurants that use lard -- most of the commercial stuff is hydrogenated.