Ban on trans fats may not have a place at city's tables / LJWorld.com

Archive for Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Leaders: Consumers, not government, should make diet decisions

July 19, 2006

Reader poll

Lawrence city commissioners were game for a ban on public smoking. They were willing to consider the tightest cell phone restrictions in the nation. And they have no problem with city controls on garage sale signs.

But, unlike officials in some U.S. cities, they draw the line at the french fry.

Edward M. Burke, a longtime Chicago alderman, is pushing to prevent fast-food and national restaurant chains from using trans fats to cook their food.

But Lawrence city commissioners lack appetite for city regulation of trans fats in the restaurant industry.

"My sense is we have so many things on our plate that I don't know there's much interest," Lawrence City Commissioner David Schauner said.

Trans fats - identified by the Food and Drug Administration along with saturated fat and dietary cholesterol as factors increasing the risk of heart disease - have gained growing national attention.

Photo by Nick Krug

Jason's Deli employee Jenna Sternberger, Lawrence, readies a tray of food Tuesday afternoon at the restaurant, 3140 Iowa. The franchise has had a trans fat-free menu for about two years. Lawrence City Commissioner David Schauner said the city is not likely to follow the lead of a Chicago alderman who is advocating that fast-food and national restaurant chains should be prevented from using trans fats in their food.

Beginning this year, the FDA has required that food companies add the amount of trans fat to nutrition labels.

Trans fats are mostly used to increase shelf life and stabilize the flavor of foods. They can be added to french fries, shortenings, potato chips and other foods made with or fried in partially hydrogenated oils, which are liquid oils turned into solid fats.

Lawrence is home to at least one restaurant, Jason's Deli, 3140 Iowa, that serves no trans fats. The chain eatery phased out partially hydrogenated oils from its kitchen two years ago, and it also changed the fats in its bread, brownies and chips.

"We tout ourselves as a heart-healthy restaurant and for exclusively health reasons," said John Baranski, general manager at the Lawrence deli. "It really doesn't affect taste at all."

Audio Clips

One Jason's customer, Ben Faunce, of Lawrence, said he didn't even know the menu was trans fat-free, but he enjoyed the food. He also said he wouldn't oppose a trans fat ban, should city commissioners decide it was a good idea.

"Trans fat is the hardest fat to get rid of. So why not?" Faunce said while also acknowledging the challenge of mandating a change.

The notion of a ban didn't please some restaurant owners.

"Somewhere along the line, you have to let these decisions be up to the individual consumer," said Bob Schumm, owner of Buffalo Bob's Smokehouse, 719 Mass., and Massachusetts Street Delicatessen, 941 Mass.

Schumm, a former city commissioner, said his restaurants offer salads and other healthy alternatives. Consumers run into trouble, he said, when they do not moderate or balance their diets.

Karl Gehring/Journal-World Graphic

Others in the food business echoed Schumm's opinion that government regulation isn't a good idea.

"I'm sure there's going to be a strong vote against it any time that you legislate dietary or health-type issues before a group of restaurants. They are going to want to make their own decisions," said Richard King, owner of Restaurant Link in Lawrence.

Schauner said recent trends in diets already tend to shape what restaurants offer, such as the boom in organic food offerings.

"Individual businesses will react to what the consumers want," Schauner said. "If consumers want that product, I think it's likely that will cause food retailers to change their product."

Ann Chapman, a Kansas University dietitian, said she didn't think a trans fat ban at restaurants would be practical. But people should check food labels at the grocery store when shopping and be more health-conscious, she said.

When at restaurants, she advised avoiding fried foods or easing back on the amounts eaten.

"At least say, 'I am going to cut down my consumption' because you're cutting the fat in half," she said.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

19 July 2006
at 5:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dex (Anonymous) says…

But what about the danger to the customers and the workers that eat the trans-fatty foods served at these establishments? Trans-fat is not labeled by item on the menu. What about the children?

It's a fact that trans-fatty foods increase the risk of heart disease in those who have yet to evolve the proper precious bodily fluid chemistry. something must be done!
19 July 2006
at 7:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tell_it_like_it_is (Anonymous) says…

Oh no. Don't ban it just yet. First I want to see them tax it to the point that a hamburger and fries will cost you about $15.00 a pop. Just like they did cigarettes. Might as well draw some revenue from the fatties too. Smokers aren't the only ones with health problems that the state has to pay for. Then gradually ban it. I bet you'd hear some complaining then.
19 July 2006
at 7:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

WereAllMonkeys (Anonymous) says…

At least the funeral for the trans-fat eaters will be smoke-free.
Dex; you forgot “Oh the humanity!”
I do think it is a move forward that the City Commision is going to allow us to make a choice what food we eat.

I am not clear on the reason we can't make a choice about where we work or eat. I wonder if they will legislate the when, why and how.
19 July 2006
at 7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

DanFreako (Anonymous) says…

So …this is what 'The Land of the Free' has become.
19 July 2006
at 7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

amanda_lazer (Anonymous) says…

I second that Dan. Lawrence has just become ridiculous. Smoking, cellphones, trans fat? You know, we should be able to make decision for ourselves how unhealthy we want to be.
19 July 2006
at 8:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Smoking, cellphones, trans fat?”

Since you obviously haven't been paying attention, amanda, of the three in your list, only smoking is banned, and only in the workplace.
19 July 2006
at 8:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

trinity (Anonymous) says…

woohoo let's hear it for jason's deli! (i know a girl who knows a boy who works there, she thinks he's the cat's meow!) ;)

if the ljw “headline” stories continue in this vein-alvamar, golf, class wars, transfatcellphonecigarette/smokingballoonsspittingonsidewalks bans, i'm going to fling myself off the nearest tall building. seriously.

19 July 2006
at 8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ebbenji (Eric Beightel) says…

did anyone bother to read the article - or even the headline? Leaders are resistant to any suggestions to ban trans-fats. You might want to at least glance at the article before you start spewing your reactionary crap.

Trans-fats are evil but it is up to the consumer to look after their own health.
19 July 2006
at 8:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

trinity (Anonymous) says…

yesssss ebbenji, i did read the article. and i'm glad the powers that be are resistant to banning yet another evil element of the world.

and i couldn't agree with you more, it *is* up to the consumer to look after their own health! truer words have rarely been spoken. it's the irony of the whole thing, i guess, that's got me in a funk; somebody somewhere wants legislation to protect the poor dumb ill-informed consumer-but then they'll likely b!tch about their rights being restricted&violated once such legislation comes about! aggghhhh it's all too much for me.

:-/
19 July 2006
at 8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

akuna (Anonymous) says…

One of the problems of with capitalism is, if unregulated, we consumers are at the mercy of the corporations. In this case, I bet most people don't even know that trans fats are bad for you. The businesses aren't going to educate people to tell them the risks involved when purchasing and eating their products. This is where the government comes in. In an ideal situation, the government educates the public or disallows certain, known bad things from being produced and purchased. Is trans fat a known bad thing, yes. Is the goverment going to do anything about it? Probably not for many years. Eventually, the government will ban them, and I hope they do.

As for DanFreako's comment about this is what the land of the free has become, I don't think this is what most people think about when they think about freedom. We have been lucky enough to be endowed with inalienable rights - our freedoms. Choosing to eat transfats is not one of them.
19 July 2006
at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tolawdjk (Anonymous) says…

It is up to the consumer, true.

But really, does Schumm let it be known what foods are cooked in and with what?

My gut tells me the real reason he and others in the industry are against it is cost. the good stuff costs more, so that is why they don't use it.
19 July 2006
at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“ebbenji (anonymous) on July 19, 2006 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

did anyone bother to read the article - or even the headline? Leaders are resistant to any suggestions to ban trans-fats. ”

True - but the fact that they're wasting their time with such patently ridiculous social engineering is what disturbs me. If there is nothing better on the agenda, just call the meeting over and leave. Just push back from the table and say, “I'm full, no more.”

Works for the trans-fatty stuff as well.
19 July 2006
at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…

akuna - I beg to differ; as long as you don't infringe on the equal rights of others, you indeed have a right to the freedom to eat trans fats; it is called an inalienable right to liberty. It is up to the consumer to look out for his/her own health; if he were running through a restaurant throwing partially hydrogenated veg. oil on everyone's food before they ate it, that would be a problem, right smokers?

And tell it-

“Smokers aren't the only ones with health problems that the state has to pay for. “
No, the state doesn't HAVE TO pay for health care; the state hijacks our incomes to pay for it. I pay for my own health care; the state has no duty and should have no role in providing health care; imagine a world where we all paid for our own health care…. perhaps it might give incentive to be healthy (or not, afterall, you are paying for it.)
19 July 2006
at 8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Alfred_W (Anonymous) says…

“imagine a world where we all paid for our own health care”

jayhawks71, if you can imagine a world where everyone can afford their own health care you've got yourself a deal.
19 July 2006
at 8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

I think that allowing the trans-fats to continue is part of the progressive party to tighten its death grip on Lawrence. See, we all know that most Republican/Conservatives are obese. As long as we don't impede their access to the death ray that is trans-fat, they will continue to die off of heart disease.

AND, because they aren't banning anything, those people are going to thank them for it.

“Thank you for trying to kill me. I have so much more respect for you now.”

19 July 2006
at 9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

jayhawks71-

“you indeed have a right to the freedom to eat trans fats; it is called an inalienable right to liberty.”

I would go even further to state that it is your duty as a patriotic American, lover of freedom, and gaurdian of the constitution to eat as much of the stuff as possible.
19 July 2006
at 9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

katybleu (Anonymous) says…

In the first place the FDA should have NEVER allowed the use of these oils. I am for not being tempted to buy fast food cooked in something that will eventually harm me, but golly-gee this should be something the FDA should remove across the board. It's nice this town cares about it's people but this is just getting out of hand - this conservatism. You have to draw the line somewhere - too much invasion into people's choices. This is America, Land of the Free, Freedom of choice even if it hurts. This concept is what America was built on. You want mega control and life invasions go live in a communist country. OMG - let me off this soap box. Well, that's my piece for today.
19 July 2006
at 9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

1derer (Anonymous) says…

Just 1dering

Is anyone else getting tired of posts stating “most people don't even know”……(enter topic here)…… in this case “that trans fats are bad for you?” I know, and unlike the self appointed sages of the LJW comment areas, I think most people know. I just don't think they care.
19 July 2006
at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hawklet21 (Anonymous) says…

woohoo for jason's deli! they may not have trans fat, but man those delivery boys are cute!
19 July 2006
at 9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

biggunz (Anonymous) says…

i'd say we're lucky the commissioners aren't interested in this otherwise there'd be another ban.
19 July 2006
at 9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

prioress (Anonymous) says…

tell_it_like_it_is : Good points on the $15 hamburger.
Selective discrimination is wrong; cigarettes are evil, but the govt. is addicted to the revenue. If “health” is really a concern, heavy taxes would be levied on all harmful substances, including foods that can kill you.
19 July 2006
at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

the fact that the com. would even think about this is just plain dumb. The fact that the gov. might really try to do this is just plain scary.
19 July 2006
at 9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ace_Ventura (Anonymous) says…

Thats stupid.
I cant wait till they ban taking a crap in a public place.

19 July 2006
at 9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

Is there a risk from second-hand trans fats?

“Edward M. Burke, a longtime Chicago alderman, is pushing to prevent fast-food and national restaurant chains from using trans fats to cook their food.”

Say goodbye to McDonald's. How do you think those fries taste so good?
19 July 2006
at 10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

trinity (Anonymous) says…

;)
to hawklet21!

geesh ace, i can't wait until they ban that too-oh wait, isn't that already illegal??
19 July 2006
at 10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HDcustom (Anonymous) says…

Ban it, just like smoking . Maybe every business will go under and farmers can once again plow and plant there again and we can all forget Lawrence ever was there.
smoke em if you got em
I am so glad i smoke and live in another area where your goofas s city leaders have no say.
What a bunch of crap, you all should oust your city leaders and get someone with at least a pea size brain in power.
Your population is shrinking due to the stupid idiotic laws and the cost of running a business , due to your stupid city leaders.
Get a grip , you all need to make a change for the beter with your city before it go,s totaly down the crapper.
19 July 2006
at 10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Looks like they've considered banning somebody else's sacred cow now…

Those nice proposed bans won't stop until they step on the toes of somebody rich and powerful.

Don't think the issue is over, either. Sometime in the future, when banning trans fats becomes the “in” thing to do across the country, the city will cave and ban it, too.
19 July 2006
at 10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says…

Isn't it discriminatory to not allow transgendered fat people to eat in a restaurant? I thought this kind of thing ended in the '50s.
19 July 2006
at 10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jafs (Anonymous) says…

Interesting comments, but I'm surprised so few (I note 1) people commented that perhaps restaurants and fast food chains should be required to inform people of their use of trans fats. This would allow consumers to make educated choices.
19 July 2006
at 10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“someone with at least a pea size brain in power.”

Too bad you don't live here any more. You have just the pea-sized brain this city needs.
19 July 2006
at 10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

“We have met the enemy and he is us!”

Pogo Possum.

Thanks.

Marion.

19 July 2006
at 11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

brfts (Anonymous) says…

As for the earlier comment from “HDCustom”…Lawrence has already gone to the crapper a long time ago. Just 10 years ago it was a really nice place to live and raise and family but I wouldn't say so now.
19 July 2006
at 11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

“Interesting comments, but I'm surprised so few (I note 1) people commented that perhaps restaurants and fast food chains should be required to inform people of their use of trans fats. ”

Don't most of them do that already?
19 July 2006
at 12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“Marion (Marion Lynn) on July 19, 2006 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“We have met the enemy and he is us!”

Pogo Possum.

Thanks.

Marion.”

Larrytown version:
“We have met the enemy and he is the Progressive Coalition!”
19 July 2006
at 12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tir (Anonymous) says…

The FDA requires most packaged food at grocery stores to state how much transfat they contain (it's on that white panel that has the calories per serving and various other things), but I don't think restaurants are required to provide customers with any of that information.

I think chain restaurants that have fixed menus probably ought to make the information available voluntarily so people can make informed choices. Restaurants that have menus that change on a daily basis might find it impossible to do that, but I think if they serve fried food, they should be able to tell you whether or not the oil they use for frying contains transfats if you ask. Restaurants that don't use transfats could use that fact as a selling point.
19 July 2006
at 12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

OldEnuf2BYurDad ponders:

“Say goodbye to McDonald's. How do you think those fries taste so good?”
––––––––––––––––––––––––

Here's an article from the University of Maryland School of Medicine, “Trans Fats 101”:

http://www.umm.edu/features/transfats…

According to the article, “Many manufacturers started including trans fats in their processed foods about 20 years ago to prolong their products' shelf life, but public health experts warn that these kinds of fats clog arteries and cause obesity.”

So, trans fats first started popping up in the early 1980s. I remember many summer bicycle rides to McDonald's with my friends in the late '70s. The fries, burgers, ice cream sundaes… they all tasted great. Are you suggesting that trans fats somehow make foods *taste* better? 'Cause according to the article, taste has nothing to do with it. Did you only start eating Mickey D's in the '80s, OldEnuf?

I also remember a lot of the homemade cookies, cakes and pies baked by my mother. Land'O'Lakes butter was the #1 choice for fat; Crisco was #2, and it usually wound up in pie crusts.

My point is that you can't find trans fats occurring in nature, any more than you can plant an old Tupperware container in the backyard and expect to grow a plastic tree. Trans fats are engineered in the laboratory. They're engineered for profit, not nutrition. Or even taste.

It'll only take a handful of cities and/or states to ban trans fats. McDonald's and their industry partners will then find it easier to ban the use of trans fats across the board, rather than have two or three different kinds of french fries for different geographic regions.

Which means that, in the end, the industry will decide… and that's what everyone wants, anyways. ;)

Thanks

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
19 July 2006
at 1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sixtwelvewest (Anonymous) says…

How about instead of banning foods we instate mandatory exercise and nutrition classes? Schools used to have those…
19 July 2006
at 1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Mandatory this, mandatory that. Ban this, ban that.

Are we all a nation of robots now, and need to be told every waking moment what we should and shouldn't do? Do we no longer have ANY choices? Are we all so stupid that government needs to tell us how to live?
19 July 2006
at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

Oldenough is right. Nutritional information is provided online. Read em and weep!

Big Mac
http://app.mcdonalds.com/bagamcmeal?p…

Small Fries
http://app.mcdonalds.com/bagamcmeal?p…

:-[

19 July 2006
at 2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…

Alfred, what deal do I need to make with YOU? You have no say in what I do to myself. What does whether people can afford health care have to do with liberty? You have no right to health care, nor do I. You have no right to force a doctor to perform treatment for free just as one has no right to force a farmer to grow and pick cotton and get nothing in return (sound enough like slavery for you?). Your right to life does not extend to create a right to health care.

Further, are you suggesting that we continue the government subsidy of and restrictions on health care providers? The “we are going to tell you what you can charge for your product” mentality? The government has a knack for being the reason things like health care are more expensive and then uses collectivist solutions to address the “skyrocketing cost of health care” further driving up the costs!

I (or my employer, as compensation for my work) pay for my insurance and my insurance company takes a risk on me (that my deposits will exceed my withdrawals). If I want to eat lard, then I eat lard. What I put into my body harms or benefits ME. I own ME. If I kill ME by what I consume… I have harmed ME.
19 July 2006
at 2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

Ah yes, lard! I remember lard! That's the ingredient that made Mickey D's fries the best in the world — no wait — they made them quit using it. This is just another step toward more and more governmental control. Big government is greedy and hungry, it never get's its fill of control!

hmmmm, did that sound like I'm a cultural activist? it sounded a little like cultural activism to me — hmmmm
19 July 2006
at 3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bennyoates (Anonymous) says…

And, big business is greedy and hungry, and it never gets enough profits to satisy its appetites.

Yes, consumers should look after their own health, and should be responsible for making their own choices.

However, businesses also have responsibilities to do all they can to ensure that customers make informed choices. There is no reason to believe that most businesses will facilitate informed choices over their own profits.

So, I believe that yes, businesses that use products like trans-fats, whose dangers are well-documented, should be required to inform customers of those dangers if they don't do so already.

Those who find such requirements to be evidence of a totalitarian tyranny are a bunch of drama queens and kings, who are naive enough to believe that corporations will act in the public interest of their own volition.

Mc Donald's is a good example. Not too long ago, McD's used a great deal of styrofoam and other packagings that harmed the environment. As a result of pressure, much of it from schoolchildren writing letters, McD's changed its packaging materials. McD's didn't do it because they're nice people. They did it because of public pressure. As representatives of the public, political leaders should apply pressure to businesses that endanger the health of the public.

Again, I find nothing unreasonable about requiring businesses to inform the public of the presence of hazardous substances, like transfats, in their establishments.
19 July 2006
at 4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

GardenMomma (Anonymous) says…

Don't ban trans-fat or resturants that use it. require that the trans-fat information be available, either on request or by public posting. People can make their own decisions, but they have to have the information available to make those decisions. Perhaps if more people request that their favorite restuarants serve only foods made without trans-fat, the restuarants would follow. Then there wouldn't be a need to ban.
19 July 2006
at 10:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Yes but you should all takae a look at this liitle know but yet deadly substance and begin to advocate for the banning of the stuff!

Killer s+++!:

http://www.dhmo.org/

Thanks.

Marion.
19 July 2006
at 11:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

Ceallach, campaigning for more LARD!?! I agree:
“this campaign intends to put *lard* back into every true american home, because it damned well tastes better!”
20 July 2006
at 12:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…

benny, your logic makes zero sense.

You said “Mc Donald's is a good example. Not too long ago, McD's used a great deal of styrofoam and other packagings that harmed the environment. As a result of pressure, much of it from schoolchildren writing letters, McD's changed its packaging materials. McD's didn't do it because they're nice people. They did it because of public pressure. As representatives of the public, political leaders should apply pressure to businesses that endanger the health of the public.”

You state that pressure from “the public” and letters from “school children” led them to change. How does it follow that we need governmental force? You just gave examples of why we DON'T need the government involved; it seems there was success without governmental force! Let the market decide.

What you put in your body is your business as long as you do not infringe on the equal rights of others. Clog your arteries and drop dead, why is it government's “job” to make you live according to someone else's idea of “good living?”
20 July 2006
at 1:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

I looked it up…lard is NOT trans fat, but Crisco is.

I also looked up that McDonald's fries info. Not a nutritionist or anything, but someone explain to me, please, how something with trans fat in it can not have any cholesterol? And if it doesn't have any cholesterol, even with trans fat, then how can it add cholesterol to your body?

20 July 2006
at 3:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…

Crazy, my understanding, and also not a nutritionist is as follows:

There are two sources of cholesterol in our bodies: diet and body synthesis (of which the latter is the primary source of cholesterol). Trans fats act as saturated fats by increasing the LDL (bad) cholesterol synthesized by the body. However, trans fats also LOWER the levels of HDL (good) cholesterol made by the body. For health, one wants a higher HDL:LDL ratio. So, saturated fats increase LDL; trans fats do that but also lower the level of HDL, thus throwing that ratio toward the unhealthy (sort of a double whammy).

Cholesterol is typically found in animal products, and to a much lesser extent, in plants. So, most trans fats, which are hydrogenated vegetable oils, aren't going to have cholesterol or will have very little. But again, dietary sources of cholesterol are the lesser of the two sources.

Finally, the latest incarnation of Crisco does NOT have trans fat.

Hope all that answers your questions.
20 July 2006
at 9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Yeah, it helps, jayhawks, but I will probably never totally understand it.

I don't totally understand the cholesterol thing, either. For years and years, doctors and everyone else were telling everyone that the reason people had high cholesterol is because they were eating the wrong stuff, and not exercising enough. Now we're flooded with ads on TV for cholesterol lowering drugs that say, “when diet and exercise changes aren't enough”…Why wouldn't they be enough, if that was supposedly the reason for your high cholesterol level to begin with??

It wasn't until fairly recently that they added the part about cholesterol levels being partly hereditary. Which you have absolutely no control over.

All those statin ads also state that lowering your cholesterol won't always prevent heart attacks or strokes. Well, why not? Haven't we been told ad nauseum that cholesterol is the main reason they occur in otherwise healthy people?

Could it be possible, just maybe, that there are people out there who have what doctors would consider a high cholesterol level, and they're perfectly healthy? All “normal” levels of anything are based on averages, not hard and fast rules. Maybe, just maybe, there are people for whom supposed high cholesterol is normal, and it doesn't increase their chances of heart attack or stroke.

Averages are fine and dandy, and medicine uses them all the time, but I wonder if they always apply. I had an uncle who had to have his gallbladder removed, and it took them awhile to find it on his left side. All people don't conform to the norms.
25 July 2006
at 11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jimbo4584 (Anonymous) says…

Wendys is eliminating trans fats this year and i am sure others will follow.

“The trend is for a bit healthier,” said Lori Estrada, Wendy's senior vice president for research and development. “We wanted to look at our products and improve our nutritional profile.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13201013/

Also there is no reason that resturants shouldnt change cooking oils because they will be able to offer a more healthy product to there consumers and i am pretty sure i would feel better about eating fries that are somewhat better for you. Who would want to eat fattyer food when there is a way that it could be avoided.
26 July 2006
at 10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

If they eliminate it, I'm happy. If they post warnings about it, I'm happy. If they tell me it's in their food, I'm happy.

I avoid trans fats. I don't require a ban or any more education to do so, just openness from restaurant owners and food producers about what is in their products.

I don't believe in forcing people to make healthy decisions, just in giving those of us who choose to the tools we need to make them.

Oh, and the difference between trans fats and smoking? If I work someplace that cooks its food in trans fat, I can bring my own lunch and not eat the food at my workplace. If I work someplace with a smoking section, I'm not able to bring my own air and not breathe the air at the workplace. If I am eating at a restaurant that fries its fries in trans-fatty oil, I can order selectively to have a garden salad or fruit cup instead. If I'm eating someplace where the air is smoky, I can't selectively breathe only the air without polllutants in it.
26 July 2006
at 1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

You might have to re-think that salad thing, too, Badger. I just found out about the outbreak of e-coli from packaged salad in Minnesota (I think!) in Oct. 2005.

The FDA can't seem to figure out if the e-coli got in the salad from poor packaging procedures, or if it was in the lettuce through the roots. If that's the case, no amount of washing will remove it.

Makes you think long and hard about salad, though.
26 July 2006
at 1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jersey_Girl (Anonymous) says…

Hmmmm, here's a more moderate suggestion. What if (hold your breath) restarants simply changed their menus to notate the “heart healthy/trans fat free” selections (you can breath again)? You know, put one of those cutsy litte hearts next to the item? And allow the consumers (GASP) to choose to eat or not to eat trans fat. That is the question.
27 July 2006
at 2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

As long as they're designated one way or another, J_G, I'm happy.

Crazy, way to kill the salad lobby!

Personally, I worry more about preservatives and trans fats because they have longer-term effects. My immune system is fairly fierce, so e. coli is most likely to just cause me an unpleasant day or two. I've had food poisoning a time or two, and I can live with it a lot better than I can with arterial plaque.