Trans Fat forums Tue & Thu at Metro Health

Back in the '60s my mom had some health problems, and her doc told her to drop the butter and replace it with margerine because, you know it's better for your heart. What they didn't know then is it was a source of transfats along with another one of our favorite food groups, Crisco.

Science marches on and we keep making new discoveries. So yes, I believe educating the populace is a good thing.

But they can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

This really isn't about science at all. The facts are that simple carbs, sugar, white flour, potatoes especially potatoes, have much worse long term consequences for health and health care expenses than transfats. Compared to simple carbs, transfats are health food.

Now the question is, when will the government ban simple carbs, FOR OUR OWN GOOD?

I'm with Leah. I remain a registered Democrat, but I'm drifting more (small 'L') libertarian everyday.

Only in an Orwellian nightmare could someone advocate that the government force me to give up my unadulterated Krispy Kreme donut while explaining that we live in a "free country". Free in what sense? Free to do what the "kool kids" say is good for us?

We already see in this thread that we have no "right" to unhealthy habits that will shift costs the government Medicare health plan when we get old. This proposed government universal health care plan is just going to make it worse.

So ultimately the busy bodies will ban any and everything they can think of. So, what?

No more motorcycles or rock climbing? (injuries raise mediacal care costs)

No more BBQ? (charring meat creates carcinogens)

Heck there are studies that show that just digesting foods creates free radicals in the body that accelerates aging. Maybe we should all be on near starvation diets to reduce those effects!

It never ends with goverment busy bodies. Never.

I think what it all comes down to is education. I am thoroughly convinced that educated people will tend to make good decisions. Notice the word "tend." Not all decisions will be good. If, after learning how bad certain foods are for your body, you still want to go for it, then that is your right. But just like we require certain health and safety standards in restaurants, why should foods that kill you slowly be ok? There is a big grey area.

Cheers!

I agree with this...."tend" is correct. Doesn't the leader of the free world and champion of healthcare reform still sneak smokes in private? (such an irrational decision makes me question his judgement in terms of healthcare policy)

Labeling is fine and as consumers we deserve full disclosure so we can make informed decisions. BTW...with the exception of smoking, genetics plays a much more significant role in primary heart disease risk as opposed to diet. Not down playing diet, I just want the facts clear.

edited for style

Pulling out the genetics card is kind of lame. We have no control over our genes. But we do have control over what we put into our bodies. So what is your point? (yeah, genetics are important, and so do we just neglect the other factors? That would be kind of silly. Look at what you can control seems logical to me)\

Peace....no trans fats for me, thank you....

I'm just lame....but honest I suppose.

Clearly you either didn't understand or completely read my post - "I'm not down playing diet."

Only in an Orwellian nightmare could someone advocate that the government force me to give up my unadulterated Krispy Kreme donut while explaining that we live in a "free country". Free in what sense? Free to do what the "kool kids" say is good for us?

This is kind of funny. You haven't been able to get an "unadulterated" Krispy Kreme donut for over a year because they switched to a 0 trans fat shortening in January 2008! Welcome to your Orwellian nightmare.

See trans fat FAQ
Krispy Kreme trans fat announcement

So, if KK and McD can switch from trans fats, what is the loss if all restaurants do? I'm assuming pastry/bakery items are difficult.

Only in an Orwellian nightmare could someone advocate that the government force me to give up my unadulterated Krispy Kreme donut while explaining that we live in a "free country". Free in what sense? Free to do what the "kool kids" say is good for us?

This is kind of funny. You haven't been able to get an "unadulterated" Krispy Kreme donut for over a year because they switched to a 0 trans fat shortening in January 2008! Welcome to your Orwellian nightmare.

See trans fat FAQ
Krispy Kreme trans fat announcement

So, if KK and McD can switch from trans fats, what is the loss if all restaurants do? I'm assuming pastry/bakery items are difficult.

Dang! It's been a couple years since I ate a Krispy Kreme. If this chnage does for them what it did to the taste of Moby Dick's and McDonald's fries then it's not good.

I'd ask a slightly different question though. Why do we need a government ban, if the market is already taking care of this "problem"?

Steve H queried:

I'd ask a slightly different question though. Why do we need a government ban, if the market is
already taking care of this "problem"?

In response I'm re-quoting the first few paragraphs from Leah S's post. Note that she attended the meeting, and unless I read this incorrectly there is no talk about banning anything.

I just got home from the transfat forum. The room was about half full. If they were talking about an education push, that would be great. The Health Department said it was a 'strategy' they're considering. Also perhaps requiring menu labels, much like the little chili pepper when a dish is spicy. Another 'strategy'.

There was a lot of talk about personal responsibility. If consumers understand what transfats are, where they are and still choose to consume them perhaps that should be their own decision without the government telling me what I can and can't eat.

Steve A, then let me clarify. They was plenty of talk about banning transfats. I was just incredulous that both education and menu notification were 'strategies' but banning seemed more like the 'action plan'.

The presentation was fairly slanted, the before and after surveys definitely slanted and, lets see, the name of the website where the Health Department provides info about transfats is www.TransfatFreeLouisville.com. hmmm . . . no agenda there.

If the goal were really to get out info, then the name of the website would be TransfatInfoLouisville or something similar.

When one audience member actually thanked the HD for "protecting us from ourselves" I almost fell out of my chair.

I'm in a mood.

Thanks for the clarification, Leah.

That website is really strange - if you click on Who We Are, then the Committee Members link it lists everybody from the American Heart Association to Walmart! On top of that, WHOIS for the domain transfatfreelouisville.com is anonymous.

I think we could use some sunlight here, I'm not getting a clear view of their real agenda.

Say, Cake Flour is on their list as a committee member. Hasn't somebody from there posted on HotBytes in the past?

Louisville restaurants may soon be trans fat free

http://www.whas11.com/justposted/stories/whas11-localbus-091027-transfat-forum.25c0033af.html

I'm listed as "on the committee" but the "committee" is actually "stakeholders" who have participated in a couple of meetings since the Council asked the Health Department to perform education on trans fats. In a LEO interview this week, I said restaurants are voluntarily using less and less trans fats. KRA does not support a ban on trans fats. I agree with Leah.

As a chef, I have seen that there are some huge differences in taste, performance and cost of trans-fat free products. A lot of places have been voluntarily moving in this direction already.

But that's not what really concerns me. I just don't like the fact that the only option on the table that seems like it's being actively pursued is a total ban. With this in mind, I will try to bring up these two questions when I attend Thursday's public forum.

1.If a ban becomes is passed by the Metro Council, How will it be effectively enforced?

According to the C-J, there are only 14 Health Inspectors assigned to the 3,750 food-service operations in the county. Counting all of the C-Stores with food, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, grocery stores, schools and yes, restaurants, that's a lot of places. They can barely keep up with what they have to do now just inspecting all of these establishments twice a year. So will they become the de-facto Trans Fat Police too?

In my opinion, I don't think this is the best use of our public's health inspecting resources. I'm way more concerned with getting sick from eating something unsafe that wasn't handled or prepared properly. I feel the probability of getting sick is much more likely from that. So why would we waste our health inspector's time looking for something that is perceived as not healthy and the hazards of said product take many years to have any detrimental effects? How many documented food borne illnesses have we had in the past five years compared to the documented heart attacks solely attributed to trans fat intake? I'd like to see a comparison of those statistics if they do in fact exist.

2.What sort of timeline are you looking at if a ban becomes effective?

Some people who do large volumes of business may have purchased product in a great quantity that may be banned. I can think of a local South-End establishment that buys oil buy the truckload. That might be enough to last six months or so for them. Will they get stuck with something they can't use if a ban becomes effective immediately upon passage? The profit margin for your average restaurant is pretty tight, so not only will they be stuck with a "banned" product, they will have to replace it with usually more expensive one.

I can sort of see where Dr. Troutman and his group are coming from, but I don't think it's possible to mandate good health through governance. People will do what they are going to do no matter what. Do you think that there is no alcohol being consumed in dry counties? Has the indoor smoking ban really made that many smokers quit? I think that there are more important health issues to be concerned about. The air quality in our city is always on some sort of worst of list, but are they going to ban breathing outdoors next? I think this is a hot topic because it can be perceived by many in the community as an accomplishment for everyone's welfare if it passes; instead of actually addressing a REAL problem. Why are we wasting time and taxpayer money on this issue?
This whole thing "leaves a bad taste in my mouth".

::standing ovation for Dan::

Well said, sir.

A blob of trans fat free shortening kooks *exactly* like a blob of trans fat included shortening. No inspector could ever tell the difference. But they do not perform the same in baking and pastry work.

And yes, I too use both TFF and regular. Depends on the recipe and the end result I need.

Sing it Dan! Hope to see you at tomorrow night's forum.

1.If a ban becomes is passed by the Metro Council, How will it be effectively enforced?

Good point, and my gut says enforcement is along the lines of the smoking ban - 90% policed by customer complaints, and otherwise subject to the honor system. Obviously, whether you are about to or just did ingest a trans fat is a bit more difficult to know than watching someone smoke at the next table. So, effective enforcement seems nearly impossible.