HOME > Chowhound > Not About Food >

Discussion

Just Days til Trans Fat Ban in effect (moved from L.A. board)

  • 16
  • Share

No more trans-fats in L.A. restaurants, but donut shops and bakeries have another year before they have to comply

http://www.calrest.org/go/CRA/news-ev...

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
Posting Guidelines | FAQs | Feedback
Cancel
  1. We are cursed with the worse nanny-state politicians here in California...

    1 Reply
    1. re: Kevitivity

      actually we have been preceded in this by NYC and probably many others.

      fwiw, i am pretty happy about this since i avoid trans-fats anyway and now i won't need to make specific inquiry every time i order fried food.
      also, the suppliers of institutional cooking oil will probably start to reduce the trans-fat offerings in their line, which, in the end, will be good for me.

    2. I try to avoid them as much as possible, I never eat them at home, so eating out will be much simpler. I do not know why anyone would want to eat them, they are toxic to your body.

      1. I remember hearing about this proposed ban in NY a couple of years ago. It went into effect I take it? And now LA, too. Well I guess this is what the rest of America has to look forward to. It's good that people here seem to take care of their bodies, but is anyone concerned with government entities mandating what people put into their own mouths?

        10 Replies
        1. re: Agent Orange

          They're not mandating what people can put into their mouths. They are regulating what businesses can sell. Businesses are not people, and should not have the same rights as individuals.

          1. re: danieljdwyer

            That is an incredibly specious bit of logic. Using your same logic it would be perfectly legitimate for the government to regulate which books a bookstore can sell. Hey they aren't censoring what you can read, just what a business can sell!

            1. re: kmcarr

              Go to the supermarket. Buy a tub of Crisco. Eat it with a spoon. See if the government tries to stop you.

              1. re: kmcarr

                First off, that depends completely which "the government" we're talking about. Governments on various levels in the US absolutely do have the authority to regulate what books a bookstore can sell. It is, however, far more difficult to convince a local government that a published work is a danger to the public than it is to convince them that a consumed substance is a public health hazard.
                Every level of government in the US has the authority to regulate commerce. This is nothing new; it's been this way since we were colonies.

              2. re: danieljdwyer

                My right as an individual is violated when I cannot walk up to a restaurant in New York or LA and purchase FDA-approved consumables which that business is willing to serve me in exchange for currency. The restriction was created precisely to regulate the things we put in our bodies, the restaurants are simply the intermediaries. There's no logical reason not to ban trans fats from grocery shelves as well.

                1. re: Agent Orange

                  Is this a constitutional right or just an intrinsic human right?

                  1. re: KTinNYC

                    The only type of right which is relevant. My corndog does not endanger your safety or property.

                    1. re: Agent Orange

                      It's illegal for me to sit down in a park in LA and smoke a joint, or even to do this in the privacy of my own home (well, if my home was in LA anyway). This doesn't endanger your safety or property.

                      1. re: danieljdwyer

                        <<This isn't a matter of individual liberties. Your argument amounts to saying that your rights as an individual are violated when businesses you wish to engage in commerce with are restricted by the government. I have no problem with this idea as a general philosophy, but it runs completely counter to American law and the British common law it derives from.>>

                        I'm not appealing to some perfect law system which existed before our rights to gargle trans fats were trampled. Although I wouldn't personally smoke marijuana, I see no reason to curtail your right to do so in an safe environment (ie not behind the wheel.) Just looking at the incarceration rate in this country is enough to suggest that something is flawed with our drug policy.

                        I have appreicated your opinions and insights.

                  2. re: Agent Orange

                    Honestly, I'm not at all a fan of government regulation, but I don't see the harm here. This isn't a matter of individual liberties. Your argument amounts to saying that your rights as an individual are violated when businesses you wish to engage in commerce with are restricted by the government. I have no problem with this idea as a general philosophy, but it runs completely counter to American law and the British common law it derives from.
                    The purpose of the law is not to regulate what you put into your body. Restaurants have long been excluded from legally serving materials that a government has decided pose a serious health risk. I seriously doubt that anyone in LA's government cares one bit if you eat spoiled chicken, for instance. That doesn't mean restaurants can legally serve it to you. There are many things restaurants cannot serve. They can't even serve alcohol in some parts of the country.
                    There is plenty of logical reason not to ban trans fats from grocery stores. The food service industry and food products have never been regulated the same set of rules, usually not even by the same board or department, and clearly aren't even taxed the same. Food is a necessity; food service is a luxury.
                    There is also a substantial difference between what is acceptable to sell in a store versus in a service or entertainment facility. Stores can sell pornography everywhere as far as I know. But cities and counties (and maybe states) regularly ban strip clubs, and, where strip clubs are allowed, there are very strict regulations on what performers are allowed by law to do. You can buy pornography, but you can't pay for a live sex show (not legally anyway). Keep in mind also that, if they decided to pursue such a course, the city of LA has every right to get rid of the restaurant industry entirely, or even to completely ban all commercercial establishments.

              3. The enitre ban has been in affect in NYC for over a year and food is just as delicious as before.

                1 Reply
                1. re: KTinNYC

                  And it turns out, in NYC it was not that painful. Most of the big national chains are switching without the regulations, the supplier pricing has been reduced with the increase in volume in healthier products, so it is not just eliminating a toxin from your diet, it has not been the big evil government horror story some people predicted -- the costs have NOT gone up, and the food tastes great. (Regulations standardizing and enforcing food manufactures' labelling of their food is a horror to many of these same people.)
                  I have been cutting down on transfats since the late 70s and my spouse, kids, and I all have very low cholesterol and low blood pressure. Just like cigarettes, they have known for decades that that transfats are bad (early research from the 40s in fact suggested this).