NYC Trans Fats Ban: A Good Thing?

As a fat man and humanitarian, I think not.

Trans Fats Ban in NYC

HI,

Borrowing from the Chicago playbook of attention grabbing headlines when there are more pressing issues.

Regards,

I have heard that the human body doesn't know what to do with trans fats, so I think this is a good thing.

(And I am not at all opposed to fat - I love butter, REAL butter, and eat it every day without qualms. But I don't allow margarine in my house (except what sneaks in in the form of crackers and such *sigh*).)

Saint Pizza wrote:I have heard that the human body doesn't know what to do with trans fats, so I think this is a good thing.

If you know it isn't healthy and you choose not to eat it that's one thing, but I don't need Big Brother telling me what I can and can not eat. What's next? A ban on foie gras?

The last few paragraphs of the linked article seem worth citing:

«For the Board of Health, the trans fat plan is the latest in a series of regulations that have placed New York City in the forefront of regulating behavior and products’ content in order to benefit public health.

Three years ago, the city banned smoking in restaurants, a measure angrily protested by some restaurant owners, but it led to similar bans in several other cities. Yesterday, health officials compared the restrictions on trans fats to the city’s 1960 prohibition on the use of lead paint, years before it was banned in most of the country.

“Like lead paint, artificial trans fat in food is invisible and dangerous, and it can be replaced,” said Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, after the Board of Health vote yesterday. “No one will miss it when it is gone.”»

I don't think they're following the lead of Chicago's aldermen (NY started taking steps on trans fats several years ago), though I wouldn't want to claim that developments here and there are wholly unrelated: I'm sure various interest groups have been busy bringing their issues to the attention of governments at various levels throughout the country and lobbying for sympathetic legislation. In any event, New York City's government has been -- for better or worse -- more active than Chicago's in this general sort of legislation, I believe. Indeed, as a concrete example, the smoking ban here still has so many softeners attached to it that it has not affected smoking in bars at all, so far as I can tell, and won't for some time to come yet.

I find the analogy cited above to the elimination of lead in paint here interesting and something which points up the differences between this issue and that of foie gras. Of course, the two issues are similar at one level, but at another they are very different. In the case of foie gras, it was not the health of the consumer that was the driving concern but the treatment of the geese. In this case, it is a question of human health. And whereas one can say that there are lots of people who find foie gras delicious, I can't imagine anyone would argue for the direct culinary value of trans-fats (indirect value, perhaps, regarding preservative qualities, cost of products, etc.).

I dislike intensely the trend we see for governments to meddle more and more with every aspect of life and at that level I am inclined to regard this move with great suspicion, but the elimination of trans-fats from our diet (actually, I doubt I get too much of the stuff as it is -- home cooking, few packaged goods, nothing but olive oil) would, it seems, be a very good thing from a health standpoint. If the argument in favour of trans-fats boils down to just one of greater profits for the fast- and junk-food industries, then it is an issue which deserves intelligent analysis and discussion by interested parties and people with genuine expertise in the relevant fields.* Certainly, the marking of packages for trans-fat content, something which the food industry resisted and resists, I believe, is unquestionably a good thing -- it gives the consumer freedom of choice. Perhaps rather than banning the stuff altogether, restaurants should similarly be required to state in a clear and prominent way that they use this form of poison.

Antonius

* Let's remember too that part of the reason this issue seems to be more of a concern to the governments of certain large cities has to do with the fact there are legitimate worries about diet and health in the large and ever growing urban poor population. Fast food and junk food is more of a health concern for some socio-economic groups than others and with the deals now being made between big food corporations and, for example, school districts, I think it not only reasonable but quite necessary for government to look into certain of these outstanding matters. Again, anyone who thinks that this case is similar to the one of foie gras is looking at only one, superficial aspect.

Antonius wrote: Again, anyone who thinks that this case is similar to the one of foie gras is looking at only one, superficial aspect.

If you call the intrusion of a government into my life and the diluting of my right to choose what I eat superficial, then I guess I'm a superficial lout. It's not that trans-fats may be bad for me. Of course they are, and I choose not to eat them, but I don't need the government intruding into yet another area that they have no business being involved with. I can't support any type of food bans on general principles. I don't need a nanny, I just need information to be able to make an intellegant choice!

This veers into politics, I guess, but I certainly wasn't the one who brought up damn governments. But I think preventing harmful substances (and Steve, if you won't touch them, you seem to agree on that) from reaching consumers to be a pretty useful pastime for governments.

Bob S. wrote:This veers into politics, I guess, but I certainly wasn't the one who brought up damn governments. But I think preventing harmful substances (and Steve, if you won't touch them, you seem to agree on that) from reaching consumers to be a pretty useful pastime for governments.

I agree in principle, but getting the government to stop at passing only fully reasoned prohibitions is a fool's errand. I'd err on the side of less intrusion rather than trusting our elected officials to use good sense. Once they get a taste of banning certain foods and/or practices, there is no end to the cycle. I'd just as soon make up my own mind about what I may or may not eat or do and let the government wrestle with more important "world view" type issues.

Antonius wrote:I dislike intensely the trend we see for governments to meddle more and more with every aspect of life and at that level I am inclined to regard this move with great suspicion, but the elimination of trans-fats from our diet (actually, I doubt I get too much of the stuff as it is -- home cooking, few packaged goods, nothing but olive oil) would, it seems, be a very good thing from a health standpoint. If the argument in favour of trans-fats boils down to just one of greater profits for the fast- and junk-food industries, then it is an issue which deserves intelligent analysis and discussion by interested parties and people with genuine expertise in the relevant fields.* Certainly, the marking of packages for trans-fat content, something which the food industry resisted and resists, I believe, is unquestionably a good thing -- it gives the consumer freedom of choice. Perhaps rather than banning the stuff altogether, restaurants should similarly be required to state in a clear and prominent way that they use this form of poison.

Antonius

* Let's remember too that part of the reason this issue seems to be more of a concern to the governments of certain large cities has to do with the fact there are legitimate worries about diet and health in the large and ever growing urban poor population. Fast food and junk food is more of a health concern for some socio-economic groups than others and with the deals now being made between big food corporations and, for example, school districts, I think it not only reasonable but quite necessary for government to look into certain of these outstanding matters. Again, anyone who thinks that this case is similar to the one of foie gras is looking at only one, superficial aspect.

Extremely well laid out argument, Tony.
The thing that gets me is that this is a choice issue where the government is basically saying in no uncertain terms that they have no faith in its citizenry to make an intelligent or rational decision about such matters. If you could make a case that eating large amounts of trans fats had an adverse effect on others, like second-hand smoke or drinking and driving, then I'd clearly be in the camp of government intervention. But it's not.
In those situations where people have few outlets to avoid eating large amounts of trans fats in foods, such as school cafeterias, this certainly poises a much more difficult dilemma.
Sweeping legislation such as this, though, is rarely if ever, productive to the health of a vibrant democracy.

Antonius wrote:I find the analogy cited above to the elimination of lead in paint here interesting and something which points up the differences between this issue and that of foie gras. In the case of foie gras, it was not the health of the consumer that was the driving concern but the treatment of the geese.

You're right, Antonius. The banning of foie gras was "for the birds." It does, in fact, make Chicago look sillier than New York, which at least has the semblance of caring about people. Of course, like others who have posted, I agree that having the government interfere is scary. It seems to me that a simple program of education would be better.

However, it does strike me that comparing transfats to lead paint is kind of pushing the limits of plausibility. Sure, transfats are bad for you, but we've been using them since at least World War II, and people are living longer lives, so clearly, like other toxins, our bodies have figured out how to get rid of them. If they want to pick something REALLY bad for you, how about high fructose corn sweetner -- that is far more of a killer. (Though, again, as always, I would ask for education, not a government ban. I'm simply pointing out that they aren't even picking the most dangerous substance, they're just picking the one currently in the news.)

Also, if they are concerned about the poor, I would think that this is counterproductive. The people who can afford butter and olive oil are probably already using it. It is the poor who will suddenly be faced with higher food costs.

It is, of course, somewhat ironic that transfats are being banned, anyway -- because the reason most places are now using oils with transfats is because of an earlier ban on using animal fats for frying, because of saturated fats and not wanting to deny vegetarians access to McDonald's fries. So we have it on record that government interference doesn't help anything.

So I think the government should get back to doing what they're supposed to be doing: building roads, making commerce possible, keeping the sewers working, enforcing reasonable laws to keep the populace safe from danger, and promoting education, including education about things that will hurt you, such as transfats. But they should otherwise leave us alone -- and stay out of our pantries.

The question, is whether it's an appropriate pastime for municipal governments to be regulating which restaurants can and cannot operate within their area.

We have a federal Food and Drug Administration and a federal Department of Agriculture, both of whom have an appropriate role in regulating food. It might very well be appropriate for them to be looking at trans-fats. But I have a big problem-- and this is where the resemblance to the foie gras foolishness may be only one aspect, but is not superficial-- with city governments, even ones so incorruptible as Chicago's or New York's, getting to pick which businesses can and cannot compete based on alleged public concerns which bear a substantial resemblance to headline-chasing. Call me crazy, but I see an enormous opportunity there for well-connected people to put the squeeze on some businesses, clear the way for themselves to open others, and generally use the machinery of government to make a buck. Of course, it's not like there's any history of a Chicago alderman owning a cola bottler and using his power to get it distributed, or famous civil rights activists with sons in Congress owning beer distributorships, but you have to admit it could happen.

There is one other historical argument which is worth bringing up. Why do we have all these trans-fats, saturated fats, etc. etc. around? Partly because they were profitable or more convenient for big food conglomerates, but also because scientists said they were healthier than known killers like butter or lard. Except, whoops, 40 years later, they weren't. Maybe. But let's use our alleged knowledge, whatever it is today, to put some guys out of business anyway. If city governments had been doing this sort of things 10 years ago, there wouldn't be a carniceria standing in Pilsen.

stevez wrote:I don't need Big Brother telling me what I can and can not eat. What's next? A ban on foie gras?

Another way to look at it... America is full of obese people... more so than any other country. this costs everyone money (increases the need more elevators, escalators, costs more money to operate public transit, leads to more traffic, etc etc.. ). plus its a quality of life issue. you can't ban laziness, but you can stop lazy people from eating some of the worst foods they can find.

you can say that the government should step out, but really they've been doing this for years on end.... how is banning certain drugs any different? or taxing cigarettes to reduce smoking?

...i'm kind of in favor of this ban (perhaps more in favor of the "chicago style" one than the ny ban). mcdonald's doesn't need to use the oils they use. in the netherlands, they banned trans fat.. did mcdonalds disappear? no, they started using oil that doesn't have it. why should american's have to eat it just so mcdonald's can save 50 cents a day on their fry oil?

While I'm not really sure how I feel about a potential trans fat ban, the issue is more complicated than just the government not allowing people to eat what they want to. As Antonius noted, there are significant public health issues, particularly regarding low-income populations, that cost the government large amounts of money.

More importantly, trans fat - unlike, say, not wearing a seatbelt or inhaling second-hand smoke - isn't an obvious danger to most people. After, you don't know that a particular food item contains trans fat unless you read the ingredients, something many (most?) of us don't necessarily do.

Again, I'm not sure that the ban is a good use of government resources, but, as noted, keeping dangerous ingredients out of products, especially when consumers are largely unaware of them, is a legitimate government activity in my book.

Mike G wrote:The question, is whether it's an appropriate pastime for municipal governments to be regulating which restaurants can and cannot operate within their area.

that is a good point. sometimes its hard to get the bigger government on board and start with smaller pockets, no?

to rehash an old issue.. how many people are really opposed to a cell phone ban while driving? yet somehow chicago has it and the rest of the state doesn't.

stevez wrote:

Antonius wrote: Again, anyone who thinks that this case is similar to the one of foie gras is looking at only one, superficial aspect.

If you call the intrusion of a government into my life and the diluting of my right to choose what I eat superficial, then I guess I'm a superficial lout. It's not that trans-fats may be bad for me. Of course they are, and I choose not to eat them, but I don't need the government intruding into yet another area that they have no business being involved with. I can't support any type of food bans on general principles. I don't need a nanny, I just need information to be able to make an intellegant choice!

Steve,

Hopefully I'm wrong but you seem angry, perhaps because you seem to have transformed into something personal my statement that an equation of the foie gras issue with the trans-fat issue is -- to my mind -- possible, if one looks only at the obvious, superficial similarity (government regulating availablility of foodstuffs). I didn't call anyone 'superficial', that is, attribute to them as a permanent quality, 'superficiality', and I certainly didn't imply, much less state, that I think those who disagree with me on this are necessarily louts.

Anyway, I believe the similarity between the two issues is really superficial, strikingly and unmistakably so. Trans-fats are pretty much universally recognised as being bad for humans but are included (presumably for reasons of profitability) in foods that are agressively marketed to sectors of society that may be less able to appreciate the danger (e.g., kids) or less able to find viable alternatives (e.g., the poor) than you or me, as we exercise our freedom of choice. In effect, the stuff is poison with no real redeeming culinary value, either taste- or health-wise.

As I said above, I dislike government meddling intensely, but there are times when government needs to act on behalf of the well being of the general population or parts thereof and to protect them from products that are profitable for some but deleterious to many. The removal of lead from paint was good, no? The elimination of DDT was good, no? Control of heavy metal levels in foods is good, no?

The trans fat issue has more in common with these than it does with the foie gras ban.

***

Rob,

I just saw your post as I was about to let the above go up on the board. Government micro-managing of lives is something I really hate and every day there is more of it. But I think with this particular issue, there is a legitimacy to the intervention. For Steve and you and me, who are in a position to make informed decisions about what we eat and whether or not it likely contains trans-fats or whatever other toxins and to turn easily to other, healthier foods, it seems like an affront. But not everyone -- at least at the current time -- is in such a position to choose. I feel sure that many of the people who eat large amounts of the stuff in their fast and junk food are not aware of the issue. Is it fair for us who can choose to avoid the stuff to allow corporations to feed it to others who can't?

saluti amichevoli,
Antonius

The elimination of DDT was good, no?

Actually no, it was utterly disastrous for Africa, even if it was good for the American bald eagle, which is why WHO has now endorsed it for indoor spraying (where it is likely to affect malaria-bearing mosquitos but not large birds).

Not that that's even remotely on topic, except to demonstrate that the science on all this stuff is always a moving target. Remember, the trans-fats in which a Mickey D fry is fried were the healthier alternative to the beef lard in which they were fried just a short time ago.

In the NYT article PIGMON linked to, the first paragraph goes:
"The New York City Board of Health voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with plans to prohibit the city’s 20,000 restaurants from serving food that contains more than a minute amount of artificial trans fats, the chemically modified ingredients considered by doctors and nutritionists to increase the risk of heart disease."

I think the key point is the ban on artificial trans fats. In this regard, I (too) think the comparison to lead paint is interesting.

stevez wrote:If you call the intrusion of a government into my life and the diluting of my right to choose what I eat superficial, then I guess I'm a superficial lout. It's not that trans-fats may be bad for me. Of course they are, and I choose not to eat them, but I don't need the government intruding into yet another area that they have no business being involved with. I can't support any type of food bans on general principles. I don't need a nanny, I just need information to be able to make an intellegant choice!

Stevez, as you note, information is crucial to making a choice. I don't think the right information is out there if the trans-fat (ban) is being compared to the foie-gras (ban) – though I do not purport to claim I know what the right information is. If the ban serves to get information out then that's probably good.
If something is known to be bad and artificial, then I fail to see why it should not be minimized. In what case then is government intrusion or regulation (leaving asides issues on capability to regulate) alright? [I don't seek or wish for a political debate (here)]

http://www.tfx.org.uk
I found the above site interesting. I read through a bit and it seemed sound and informative. Some interesting points from the site:

(from the Natural trans fats page)
"However the broad evidence that natural and synthetic trans fatty acids are not alike has not prevented the food industry and its advocates from conflating the two. By failing to distinguish between the 'good' or at least 'not harmful' natural trans fats, and the unquestionably 'bad' synthetic trans fats, they purport to show that:
1. our intake of synthetic trans fats is only adding an additional fraction of trans fat to what has been in the natural human diet for millennia.
2. even if we stopped eating all the synthetic trans fats, we would still be eating trans fat anyway, so what's the point?. "

I think I liked the site a bit because of this (from the Alternatives to trans fats page):
"If you are eating margarine on your bread and toast, or using it in cooking and baking, there is one excellent and readily available alternative, healthy, nutritious and delicious: butter."


Oh, lots of posts before I typed this up... I don't think DDT is/was good - in the case of Africa it may not have been worse than not using it - this is a totally different issue (than the effects of DDT itself). Science may or may not be a moving target - I wonder if one may label it 'progress' ?

Antonius wrote:Hopefully I'm wrong but you seem angry, perhaps because you seem to have transformed into something personal my statement that an equation of the foie gras issue with the trans-fat issue is -- to my mind -- possible, if one looks only at the obvious, superficial similarity (government regulating availablility of foodstuffs).

A,

You're right. I am angry, however my anger is not directed toward you, but at the spectre of our government further intruding our lives. These types of bans are not why I vote in every election and send people to the City Council and Congress. I want them to stay out of my pantry and my panties.

In fact, the government already regulates what we eat every day, in ways that I think most people find acceptable. Known carcinogenic substances have been banned, there are limits on levels of insect parts allowed in processed food, certain feeds have been outlawed for cattle; freshness dates and ingredients must be posted on food; and etc. These regulations are designed to protect consumer health and safety, and in most cases were the result of organized consumer movements overcoming industry pressures to resist government oversight. To argue that the government shouldn’t “meddle” in what we eat would be to roll back the clock to 1904, before Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, when meat packers routinely processed rotting carcasses, sawdust off the floor, and the occasional severed human finger into their meat products. The creation of the Food and Drug Administration, which followed the uproar over the publication of Sinclair’s book (and thus federal oversight was initiated by popular demand, not imposed on an unwilling public by the government), was good for all of us, I think – without it, for instance, we would have little hope of getting to the bottom of the e. coli spinach outbreak to address the problems that brought it about. Trans fats are bad foods, and they serve principally to make prepared foods more profitable. (In the early 20th century, the meat packers claimed that cleaning up their plants would put them out of business; it didn’t. McDonalds now says that it can’t afford to eliminate trans fats, but I don’t believe that one either.) Public officials who make it their business to obligate the food and restaurant industry to value human health along with their bottom line are doing what they ought to do. If you don't think this is an ongoing battle, think again: the food industry is behind a new bill (passed by the House; pending in the Senate) called the National Uniformity for Food Act. This would require food safety regulations to be the same in all 50 states, pegged -- no surprise -- at the lowest levels of intervention. 80% of food safety enforcement actions are taken at the state and local level -- and I assume those who dislike government interventions would at least agree that the closer the government is to the people, the more it can reflect popular will. If this Act passes, it would nullify 200 state laws, including, for instance, California's limits on lead in candy and Alabama's standards for mold in pecans. It would eliminate milk safety standards in all 50 states. State agencies would not be allowed to intervene in local food safety matters -- even those representing immediate danger -- until the federal government gave its okay. The National Association for State Departments of Agriculture, and the Association of Food and Drug Officials, are opposed to this bill. This Act could also wipe out any action taken by the NY City Council, needless to say. This is Consumer Reports (and other consumer groups') take on the legislation; if you want the industry's side -- and the long, long list of powerful manufacturers and groups lobbying for it, see http://www.nationaluniformity.org). I agree with Antonious that though this move sounds akin to the fois gras ban, it’s really a different thing: this is not about taking an optional, and only occasionally consumed, menu item away from high-end diners; this is an effort to remove an invisible danger from a broad range of foods that millions consume daily.

Yes, scientific knowledge changes over time and we try to take new findings into account. In this case, it's clear that the early, partly wrong decisions were made when the general science on fats and human health was still in its relative infancy. There is no guarantee that further mistakes won't occur but the field has advanced enormously over the past 40 or 50 years and I doubt the scientific community will announce one day soon that (synthetic*) trans fats are actually really good for you. I think it more likely they'll discover that tobacco is somehow beneficial...

Antonius

*Thanks to Sazerac for getting needed precision into the discussion.

I think the selectivity of the bans is also an annoyance. High fructose corn sweetener and corn oil are highly carcinogenic, but they are just too widely used for anyone to think they'd have any success banning them. And cell phones -- sure, use of a cell phone while driving has been found to equate to the level of impairment of driving while legally intoxicated -- but what about the fact that overuse has been shown to be an important risk in developing brain cancer. But again, they are just too widely used and too useful for anyone in government to go after them. And as for the FDA, they approved all those fake fats, despite horrendous side effects noted during testing.

It's all about money and power. There may be a few politicians who actually care about people, but on the whole, they go after things that will make them look good while not upsetting too many people.

And given that the leading cause of death among teens are car accidents and suicide, it seems to me that going after transfats is kind of beside the point. But again, solving real problems is not the point. Politicians want to look like they're solving something, so they go after minor problems that make them look like they've accomplished something so they can get re-elected.

Cynthia wrote:I think the selectivity of the bans is also an annoyance. High fructose corn sweetener and corn oil are highly carcinogenic, but they are just too widely used for anyone to think they'd have any success banning them.
<snip>
Politicians want to look like they're solving something, so they go after minor problems that make them look like they've accomplished something so they can get re-elected.

I agree about the selectivity to a point - one must start somewhere though. I guess we're haggling now
Cynthia, I'm curious* - what's the basis for your statement about HFCS and corn oil being carcinogenic? (*a cursory search led me to this on HCFSand this on corn oil).

gotta run now - see you kind and wise LTHfolk soon

stevez wrote:

Bob S. wrote:This veers into politics, I guess, but I certainly wasn't the one who brought up damn governments. But I think preventing harmful substances (and Steve, if you won't touch them, you seem to agree on that) from reaching consumers to be a pretty useful pastime for governments.

I agree in principle, but getting the government to stop at passing only fully reasoned prohibitions is a fool's errand. I'd err on the side of less intrusion rather than trusting our elected officials to use good sense. Once they get a taste of banning certain foods and/or practices, there is no end to the cycle. I'd just as soon make up my own mind about what I may or may not eat or do and let the government wrestle with more important "world view" type issues.

So you wouldn't dismantle the FDA, but you'd eliminate the GRAS list?

With people dying because they ate spinach, I don't see this being a time when less regulation makes sense to me.

[Edit: I'm not at all surprised that ToniG made the same points more fully and eloquently than I did. But I am genuinely curious, Steve, about where you're drawing this line.]

In fact, the government already regulates what we eat every day, in ways that I think most people find acceptable.

The federal government does. The City Council of Chicago does not. (Edit: That's where I draw the line, Bob.)

There is all the difference in the world between large federal agencies having a day-to-day responsibility for meat, food quality, etc., funding thousands of research studies and with thousands of agents and inspectors in the field, and a municipal government getting to choose, on hastily gathered information, which businesses are allowed to operate and which aren't within its borders.

One is appropriate and practical, the other is political grandstanding and a nightmare for businesses to deal with (once they have to start dealing with a million muncipalities). What do you think will happen when Chicago tells Coke they can't use corn syrup here and Iowa tells Coke they aren't allowed within its borders unless they use corn syrup everywhere? Hell, Coke wouldn't have that problem, they'd still be using cane sugar if not for the sugar tariffs forced through by a few rich growers in Florida to keep domestic sugar prices up. And so on and so on... That's what happens when you start letting local politicians decide these things. The FDA and USDA are far from perfect, or immune to political pressure, but at least they have some grounding in science, unlike Alderman Cletus J. Grabmorski, graduate of night law school and former chauffeur to the late Alderman Walter "Collection Box" O'Flynn.

In any case I have to disagree that once we were clueless and now we understand how everything works, so it's safe to ban stuff. It's obvious that we are still very much in a stage of discovery when it comes to how nutrients work in the body and things that were thought to be bad are discovered to be good all the time. Luckily, olive oil wasn't banned in the meantime, back when we learned it raised cholesterol but before we realized that it raised the "good" cholesterol. (Not that we're entirely sure what effect cholesterol has, anyway.)

Hopefully some court will see that this is exactly the sort of foolishness that the Commerce Clause was created to prevent, and strike it all down.

Malaria kills one in 20 children in Africa-- and nearly 3 million people a year, almost exactly the same as AIDS. It sickens half a billion people a year, with enormous economic and social losses. Interior spraying of DDT is hugely effective against that. That's what we're talking about when we say using DDT might be worse than not using it.

sazerac wrote:I agree about the selectivity to a point - one must start somewhere though. I guess we're haggling now

Cynthia, I'm curious* - what's the basis for your statement about HFCS and corn oil being carcinogenic?

The point about selectivity was not that they should start elsewhere, but rather that they are picking easy battles to score points, not really exhibiting true concern for the health of the populace.

As for corn oil and HFCS.

From my own experience, I can drink soda with sugar but not with HFCS, so I can tell that there is a difference in how the two are metabolized. HFCS hits me like a freight train. I know that’s anecdotal, but it makes it easier for me to believe the research, which is not perfectly conclusive. As for corn oil, I don’t “feel’ that, but the research is more conclusive there.

I’ve been reading about this stuff for years, but a quick search turns up a lot of articles on the Internet. For the sake of brevity, I’ve just listed a few.

Here’s a balanced article that acknowledges that some disagree on how bad HFCS is for you
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 4VKMH1.DTL

Corn oil is more roundly condemned. It promotes cancer, which was discovered when universities began testing how switching to corn oil affected cholesterol levels. Cholesterol dropped, but cancers increased.

Most research today is not about whether corn oil promotes cancer but how. It is implicated in increases in prostate cancer, colon cancer, and breast cancer. (Actually, all the polyunsaturated oils have some danger – you’re much better off with the mono-unsaturates, such as Canola and olive oil.)

Here are some articles:
http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/ab ... 29/10/1017

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/n ... ate-cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

And a brief item from a long list of fat-related woes:
“Corn oil: A risky choice, high in omega-6 fatty acids. In a six-month study by Harvard researcher George L. Blackburn, daily doses of corn oil doubled the odds of recurrence and spread of colon cancer. Corn oil is also rapidly oxidized (saturated with oxygen), releasing floods of disease-causing free radicals inside the body. Experts say nearly everyone should cut back on corn oil, regular safflower and sunflower seed oils (all laden with omega-6 fatty acids).”

I wrote, above:

In fact, the government already regulates what we eat every day, in ways that I think most people find acceptable.

And then Mike G responded:

The federal government does. The City Council of Chicago does not. (Edit: That's where I draw the line, Bob.)

There is all the difference in the world between large federal agencies having a day-to-day responsibility for meat, food quality, etc., funding thousands of research studies and with thousands of agents and inspectors in the field, and a municipal government getting to choose, on hastily gathered information, which businesses are allowed to operate and which aren't within its borders.

In fact, as per my argument above, the City of Chicago, through the Board of Health, regulates restaurants on a day-to-day basis and decides all the time which businesses are allowed to operate -- didn't we discuss the Board's shut-down of Sabatino's sometime recently? Local and state inspectors are the ones on the front lines ensuring public safety in the food industry; what oversight that's provided by the feds is being sucked dry by the current administration -- see today's article in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/dining/27well.html?_r=1&ref=dining&oref=slogin
You can quarrel about whether a local ban on trans fats will be effective (in many ways, this argument is akin to the recent City Council effort to regulate big box stores) but it's wrong to say that the city plays no current role in food regulation.

I'd say health inspection and food regulation are two distinctly different things-- and in fact the redefinition of health inspection to take in basic ingredients (as opposed to sanitation) demonstrates the point about creeping nannyism as a worrisome trend.

Cynthia wrote:From my own experience, I can drink soda with sugar but not with HFCS, so I can tell that there is a difference in how the two are metabolized. HFCS hits me like a freight train. I know that’s anecdotal, but it makes it easier for me to believe the research, which is not perfectly conclusive. As for corn oil, I don’t “feel’ that, but the research is more conclusive there.

Thanks for the informative links.
I didn't know HFCS had effects such as on you. Not that you should try to find, but do other foods (not soda) that have HCFS (annoyingly too many do) affect you? Just curious if this is a direct effect of HCFS and/or metabolic issue.

Regulation is a thorny issue I suppose. Many issues gain critical mass at the local level before federal rules. Sometimes local goverments step in because federal regulation (but not necessarily law) is ineffective.
It's a frightening world - chemically and politically speaking. Every so often I seek solace in a stiff drink (like I must now).

The well-known lobbying group, Center for Science in the Public Interest has been asking that restaurants post information about what's contained in their foods for a long time, especially fast-food conglomerates who already offer this information if you know where to get it. We have signs posted everywhere about the dangers of eating raw fish, meat, or eggs in the city; cigarettes require informational by-lines about the health risks. Why not require trans-fat signs and let everybody choose the risk for themselves?

Truthfully, bad as trans-fats are for you, it's probably overall diet that's causing the abovementioned health issues. Part of the problem is that no matter how hard it tries, the government can't make people eat healthy food, which is what really needs to happen. Going after unhealthy foods one by one won't solve this problem.

Mike G has made most of the arguments that I would make on this subject.

I'd just like to add that, despite all the supposedly evil stuff we eat nowadays, life expectancy has risen dramatically in the last 100 years. In 1900, before the invention of trans-fats, chemical pesticides, synthetic preservatives, trans-fats, fast food, high-fructose corn sweetener and sedentary activities like TV and surfing the Internet, and when -- so some people say -- levels of obesity were lower than today, the average American could expect to live to be 49.2 years old. In 2001, average life expectancy was 77.2 years.

dddane wrote:America is full of obese people... more so than any other country. this costs everyone money (increases the need more elevators, escalators, costs more money to operate public transit, leads to more traffic, etc etc.. ). plus its a quality of life issue. you can't ban laziness, but you can stop lazy people from eating some of the worst foods they can find.

I resent deeply claims that fat people are lazy, prone to eat unhealthful foods and/or an expensive drain on society. (Compared to what? How about old people? Think of the savings in Medicare and Social Security if we just stop people from living so long.)