Moderation in all things..... especially moderation.

Aside from those of us able to be seelctive because we can afford a healthy diet there is a very large number of people who don't have that latitude, nor the knowledge (let alone appreciation) of scratch cooking that pops up here so often.

Far more often their reality is a very limited budget that can buy 10X as much crap calories as it can fresh and whole and raw and generally nutritious.

It bears remembering by us but it bears remedy by the agencies of the abuse.

Jon Tierney did an interesting article in the NY Times when Bloomberg started talking about salt reduction as a public health strategy. Apparently, it's based on the theory that reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, and therefore lowering salt intake in a broad population would reduce the risk of hypertension-related ailments. The problem is that lowering salt intake only lowers blood pressure in some people, and most of the data show that there's no benefit for salt reduction for anyone else. According to Tierney, some people see their blood pressure go up on a reduced salt diet.

Scold me if you like, but I'm old-school when it comes to certain things, like eating. I believe the choice to eat or not to eat trans fats is mine to make -- not the government's. I know, I know, that's so ... capitalistic of me. I'm just sayin'.

Maybe instead of banning ingredients to make people healthier, they should encourage a culture of healthier eating.

Sam,

Do you also believe you should have a choice to eat poison? Spoiled food? Mislabeled food? Food cooked in an unsanitary kitchen?

I'm trying to determine the extent of your old-school beliefs. In other words, do you object to the government intervening to protect you from anything, or is your objection that you disagree with the government about which things are OK for them to regulate or outlaw, and which things you want a choice on?

Do you advocate banning the USDA, FDA, City Health Inspectors, etc., or merely debate what comes under their jurisdiction?

If the latter, mmk makes a good point that one would hope that there is at least a good scientific basis for whatever public health argument is being made in favor of banning some food-related item.

Gotta' go along with Warthog on this one. Sam's point would be a lot more valid if so much of the transfat wasn't in fast food aimed at teens and kids. Just as the government steps in to stop them from smoking and boozing, I see nothing wrong with keeping the burgers and fries they crave at least moderately healthy. Okay, that takes the choice away from the rest of us. But if it lowers the likelihood of clogged arteries, is that really such a bad thing?

how about banning alcohol too then?
where's the line? just because ny did it, we should too?

there's a great scientific basis for banning smoking period. why not outlaw the sale of smokes?

Warthog -- huh?

To clarify, I object to the government swooping in and deciding for me that I cannot have trans fats because they are unhealthy. Why? Not because I particularly love trans fats. But it encourages a school of thought that I find rather disturbing.

Once the government has banned trans fats, it is easier for the government to justify regulating salt. And high fructose corn syrup. It's a very slippery slope. Personally, I don't believe the government has the right to tell me I can't eat Frito-Lays because they're bad for me. That decision is up to me.

As for your questions about poison and such, just because I'm old school in some of my beliefs doesn't mean I'm nuts. Of course I agree with health inspectors and nutritional ingredients labels. I'm all for transparency in food. I just don't like the direction the government is heading when it comes to this sort of regulation.

You can take my trans-fats when you wipe them off my cold, dead fingers.

Okay.. do you know what a trans-fat is? Companies hydrogenate cheap oils so they can last longer and not need refrigeration.. all those "partially hydrogenated soybean oils" and such in your tastycakes and little debbies.

It's really not what you say it is, or what you think it is (an arbitrary battleground for the government to step on my rights). It's not salt, or even fat, or HFCS.. it's large companies skimming a buck off the consumer by using cheaper, more harmful products. It's like cutting your dial soap with bleach. It's lead in toys.

And it's not the government banning Fritos (which I love), its them fining frito-lay for continuing to use a cheap product.

The word you wanted to use is libertarian, not capitalistic.

Again I really don't mean to jump on you (or anyone) for this, but when you say "GET YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY FRITOS", you're really just saying "it's my RIGHT to eat this cheap unhealthy product" -- and Im sure there are some CEOs laughing about how they suckered the public to actually SUPPORT them on this.

Matt queries: "why not outlaw the sale of smokes?"

the cops can't keep things under control when only 5% (at most) of the population wants something illegal... can you imagine the destruction when nicotine fiends start committing crimes to support their habit?

Don't get me started on the double dealing USDA policies

I must have missed the study that linked consumption of trans fats and salt with commission of homicides.

Sam,

Forgive me following things to an illogical conclusion for effect. The point is that you are saying that there's a slippery slope, and I'm asking where you believe the slope starts.

Your reply indicates a support for labeling and transparency, but if you substitute the word "carcinogen" for the word "poison", things start to get muddy. In what dosage? And what if it's not cancer, but some other known health risk?

I'm not knocking your position. In fact, I suspect we probably agree more than you may think. It's just that it takes some careful thought as to where we wish to draw the line between "Let the market decide" and "This must be regulated"

in keeping with the idea thet the government is here to "protect you" why not just let us know that "it's bad" instead of just prohibiting us from making a decision on our own.
if we are talking children, how about parents keeping them from eating trans fats. if we are targeting adults....well, if some fool sees a skull & crossbones on something and eats it anyway...that's just natural selection.
like Sam, i have to believe that (given its track record) letting the government tell me what i can and can't choose to eat on my own falls way up there on the list of invasive government and can only lead to eventual loss of very basic freedoms. (remember FREEDOM?)

"Let the market decide" implies that an informed consumer is making a free choice absent any other (market, producer, etc) factors; which we know is simply not the case. Even if some of those conditions exist for some of us at different times... they NEVER all exist for all of us at all times.

Which leads to policies of "This must be regulated" to compensate for that not quite free market reality.

that last post leads me to believe that MrRational is that attorney in the "urinated upon" commercials

It doesn't make sense to me that I can go to the grocery store and buy a prepackaged product (Fritos, for example) with transfats in it, but I can't buy a prepared food (French fries) that has transfat in it from that same grocery store.
For the record, I buy the Richfood brand of Crisco because it has transfat - and Crisco without transfat doesn't work properly in my favorite cookie recipe.

First of all, I'm glad turkeybone posted that reminder of what trans fat is. Too many people assume it's something that makes food taste better, and it's not.

On one hand, I think it's a splendid idea to totally eradicate trans fat from the things we eat, and to give the government the right to enforce that.

On the other hand, I am very much wary of the "slippery slope" that Sam Sessa is afraid of.

I think the difference between regulation of trans fat and regulation of salt is that the former is unhealthy in ANY circumstance, and salt is only unhealthy when it's consumed in excess.

So, Warthog, I think THAT is where we draw the line (always unhealthy vs. unhealthy in moderation), and that is where the slope starts.

Cindy hit the nail right on the head. This law only helps if you get most of your food from restaurants. The muffins made in the store, no trans fats. Walk ten feet, buy muffins in a bag and I can get all the trans fats I want. How does this protect me?

Once again, Im sure all the large companies that actually use trans-fats are getting a real good laugh out of everyone FIGHTING for them.

unbelievaboh, I'm at a loss since I don't know that reference you made but I have this vague notion I've been insulted.

If you've got something to say... say it.

Most of the time, governments decide to do things like prohibiting what you can eat and drink when they realize they can't perform their basic responsibilities--things like protecting us from criminals, educating our kids, preventing water main breaks, etc.

..but the bakeries are perfectly free to go back to lard, right?

This should be part of the Health Care overhall. I would rather pay for illegals than pay for somebody to knowingly eat themselves into a problem.

Agree with turkeybone on trans fats.

Also, with HFCS, the issue is that we already pay for this unhealthy garbage in the form of corn subsidies and sugar tariffs. In this case the question is not should the government ban it but should the government subsidize it.

If you buy cookies in the supermarket, the manufacturer is required to list the ingredients and nutritional information. Restaurants have vigorously resisted any attempts to require them to provide the same information. The supermarket customer is therefore making an informed choice; the restaurant customer is not.

My thought is that the moral judgments that used to apply to sex now apply to diet. The laws against cohabitation and adultery are no longer enforced, but new laws are appearing about food. In both instances it's the impulse to remove temptation from sinners. Mayor Bloomberg is a Republican, so I don't think this is a left/right division, except that the farther right wing usually reverts to wanting to regulate sex instead of food.

What I haven't seen mentioned is why the trans fats and other ingredients were introduced in the first place: Because the consumer (not the folks who comment here, but the other folks out there, the ones who think "The Biggest Loser" is for people who are already slim) wanted tastykakes and other commercial foods that stayed fresh longer. Years ago when I lived in Turkey one of the joys of being there was the local bread, baked with only flour, water, salt, and yeast. My DW and I would buy two loaves hot out of the oven because we know one of them would not make it back home. Contrast that with the feeling of the Turks I deployed with who wanted us Americans to bring along Wonder Bread because it always was soft. Yes there is a difference between not wanting government to interfere with our choices in food and the reducto ad absurdum that we must also not want general health and safety rules enforced.

Education works, but is far more expensive than just passing another law that will be ignored.

The do-gooders are at it again. The Nanny state lives. We are raising our kids to be a bunch of sissies. They will be lost and scared once they are out in the real world. Maybe that's part of the plan. Coddle everyone with an overbearing government that they'll always depend on and you'll have democrats for life. Brilliant!

And yet another reason that the people will DEMAND their trans fats! Make something illegal and the allure is there!

Perhaps there will be trans fat speakeasies, and trans fat dealers on the sidewalks outside of city buildings. You'll know them because they'll smell like McFood!

This law is supposed to reduce obesity rates in people...but I highly doubt this will happen. I'm afraid this will lead the government to start banning other types of food to achieve this goal. Do we really need the government to tell us how to eat? I think people know that eating fried food and soda everyday isn't the ideal diet.

Not so sure about regulating sodium in food, but I would very much appreciate required disclosure (not just of sodium content, but all nutrition info, so we can make informed choices all around while dining out).

Thomas, are you serious? Like, would you ever actually say that in public. Giving kids health problems, yeah, way to make them sissies! Come on guys, lets get our guns and religion and feed our 12 kids little debbie and PBR -- that's what a-mur-ca is all about!

Honestly, all you are saying is you want corporations deciding whats best for you instead of the government, when really it should be YOU. If you have children, consider adoption, PLEASE.

perspective:
"Home economics, though primarily concerned with foodstuffs, is an important part of the picture of 1920s consumerism both because it was predicated on the assumption, or hope, that homemakers could be "educated" in how to become better consumers, and because it was premised on the belief that items made at home, whether canned goods, clothing, or radios, could help break the cycle of extravagance in the marketplace."

source and more:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov:8081/ammem/amrlhtml/dthomec.html

Once this was recognized as being of value. For a variety of reason this knowledge was not passed along very effectively by generations.

It's not rocket science, most of us cook as recreation, but for far too many people planning let alone executing a nutritious meal from scratch is just about impossible.

Does anyone actually remember when trans fats became such a big deal in the public eye, and every single restaurant and vendor began advertising the fact that none of their foods contain trans fats, rendering the legislation unnecessary? No?

Maybe you'll remember this nugget from the city council draft agenda last year:

Trans Fats - Exemption for Retail Bakeries

FOR the purpose of exempting certain bakeries from the provisions governing food containing trans fat; conforming certain language; providing for a special effective date; and generally relating to the regulation of food containing trans fat.

Yup, certain bakeries complained about the fact that their products aren't as good without margarine and exceptions were proposed. So, maybe they should go back to lard, then.

Honestly given the choice between being an educated consumer with a choice and having the government legislate my decisions for me, I think I'll opt for personal responsibility every time.

Perhaps we should all just give up and eat beans, lentils and raw green vegetables and forget having choices that please us. Sorry bad idea, then Al Gore and the greenies would take those things away from us because of greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

Interesting discussion. On the one hand ... on the other hand--we're running out of hands.

I'm intrigued by this discussion, both sides make very valid points. The thing that worries me is that we (as a society) appear to be unable to have a reasonable discussion without putting down the other side.

Why do I have to be a commie pinko you-know-what because I think bad things should be regulated? And should I be a bible-bashing gun-toting neo-con because I believe there's a certain aspect of personal responsibility that's appealing? I find it very hard to take seriously any comment that degrades someone for what they believe.

The plain truth is that there is some truth to both sides of the argument. Anybody unwilling to see that loses all credibility with me.

/slinking back into the corner to watch

"They will be lost and scared once they are out in the real world."

I don't know about that. I wasn't raised to be a macho tough guy, but things have worked out okay for me - I'm responsible, reasonably successful, and quite able to cope with the real world.

If your world is so hard-bitten and threatening that it's not for "sissies", maybe you've made some questionable choices that have resulted in your "real world" being a difficult place.

Evan proclaims: "Honestly given the choice between being an educated consumer with a choice and having the government legislate my decisions for me, I think I'll opt for personal responsibility every time."

And I suspect everyone reading this blog will agree with you entirely.

Unfortunately (for us) the law and it's intention is not meant for us. It is about and for those people who have NOT been given or are disinclined to use the basic education required to be that educated consumer and to a lesser degree (affecting the rest of us) the raw data needed for those choices to be made from.

All I know is that when cleaning out my pantry recently, I found a bag of potato hotdog rolls that were purchased for a Memorial Day [yes, Memorial Day, not Labor Day] cookout, and I was highly disturbed to find not one spec of mold growing on them.

MrRational, the problem I have is with the idea that if someone does not conform to the "generally accepted ideas of nutrition and health" we have to legally force them to. Among the many discussions of changing our Health Care system I hear people citing "studies" that say if we were to ban unhealthy foods and lifestyles such as (insert your favorite here) we could save Umpty-ump billion dollars in the next 10 years. Yes we could, but every so often I like to smoke a cigar (say every year or two) and banning tobacco and other smoking materials would therefore diminish my enjoyment. Ditto for eating prime steaks (all that marbling is fat), and enjoying "Death by Chocolate" for dessert (shared with my DW of course). Passing laws is the easy part. Changing peoples' habits is the hard part.

RiE: Please don't confuse my commentary as approving the measure per se or that I believe it to be the best approach to handling what I see as the larger problem. As you mention (what has become) the habits are the real issue.

I was sensing and reading objection to it that didn't seem to account for any other aspects or factors that affected folks outside the more exclusive and rarefied environs of the educated.. who genuinely have the option to make those choices they insist the others should also be expected to make. Ya know?

Whadda ya know, the heading of this post was my EXACT thought on reading the article. The arguments presented here have value, but I still don't believe legislators can LEGISLATE the populace into good health. It'll happen when they realize they must EDUCATE said populace.

To those of you who feel trans fats should be illegal, I wonder what you think about cigarettes? Cigarettes are known carcinogens and are legal for purchase by adults who wish to partake.

The fact that their medical care will be astronomical when they get cancer has not forced it to become illegal yet.

On the other hand (yes Dahlink, still other hands) why is marijuana Illegal? It's not addictive, doesn't harm health, has never killed anyone and could be a good source of sin tax revenue. Not to mention emptying out the jails and pulling the plug on Mexican drug cartels?

BTW, there is a food connection with that last thought as well. Grocery and snack items will be purchased more frequently as a positive by product.

Joyce: Marijuana was made illegal (in large part) because of the interests of business owners like Hearst who couldn't make any money from his newspapers and needed the income/wealth from his wood pulp business to float the enterprise. The wood/pulp business was threatened by hemp products. The other parts of why it was made illegal have similar histories.

Dottie: Hear, hear!

mmk, since you referred to Mayor Bloomberg, the NYTimes has published this article about how his own dietary preferences have little to do with his public health preachiness. He appears to be especially fond of over-salting everything from popcorn to bagels.

hmpstd - Thanks. Isn't it typical for someone to seek to regulate behavior in everyone else that they can't control in himself?