Trans Fat forums Tue & Thu at Metro Health

So much for the " no way to enforce" arguments. Of course you can enforce. It is called inspections, which we all get already.

I beg to differ with you on this point...I'm more than certain that some folks in the "Bizz" have had some of these knee jerk reactions when the health inspector arrives...Find and put on a hat, throw out your drink, make sure everything's off the walk in floor, get some sanitizer water buckets out in plain sight, etc., etc. And now add to the list.... Hide the Salad Dressing and Shortening. Some inspectors will over look things already. Do you honestly think they are going to be on a witch hunt for this? Some people will keep using these products anyway because the are usually cheaper and in the case of baking, provide better and more consitstant results. I highly doubt a ban would be practical to enforce much less actually change people's health all that much. Is there any substantial documented proof of that where these bans are in place in other municipalities? And as far as the bans in NYC and other places I'm sure there are ways to get around them there as well. I'm not against a good healthly diet by any means...I'm just being the devil's advocate here.

Well, NY City banned trans fats years ago. It became mandatory last year. They're down from 50% to 2% in trans fat usage in restaurants. So much for the " no way to enforce" arguments. Of course you can enforce. It is called inspections, which we all get already.

And guess what, no big deal! Restaurants didn't suddenly go out of business. People still eat out. The food is just as good. Just healthier.

Lets move into the new century and be a progressive city. A role model for others. A healthier population benefits us all.....

As a candidate for Mayor, I'd like to know your position on banning refined flour, sugar, and potatoes for their contributions to the diabetes epidemic. The prevalence of diabetes has a much larger impact on public health than any other disease or health issues and it's growing rapidly. Why advocate banning transfats and not simple carbohydrates?

I'd have to see the evidence. Like most things, balance and moderation are the best solutions. Some sugar is ok. Some refined flour is ok. And I've never heard anything wrong with potatoes. (well some folks are against the whole nightshade family, but I don't think it is sound science).

I'm all for self-discipline and self-responsibility. The problem is, it doesn't always work. The gov't should only step in when there is overwhelming evidence of public harm.

I'd oppose a ban on the foods you mention. That'd be crazy!

To make for a "healthier" populace, how about a ban on trans-fats and mandatory flu vaccines!

Better health by fiat!

Well, NY City banned trans fats years ago. It became mandatory last year. They're down from 50% to 2% in trans fat usage in restaurants. So much for the " no way to enforce" arguments. Of course you can enforce. It is called inspections, which we all get already.

And guess what, no big deal! Restaurants didn't suddenly go out of business. People still eat out. The food is just as good. Just healthier.

Lets move into the new century and be a progressive city. A role model for others. A healthier population benefits us all.....

What happens when it's decided that caffeine is bad? As Mayor, would you be for a ban on that, as well, since it would be for a healthier population?

Caffeine is good! It keeps you awake, and some of the substances that contain it, like coffee, tea, and chocolate are incredibly tasty too! Nope. I'd oppose a ban.

I feel like the debate here is going off track again.

This ban is not about making regulating the diets of people or forcing the off "bad foods." It has nothing to do with simple sugars, caffeine, or other "bad" things we consume.

The question of trans fats has to do with the harmful side effects that are created when we modify vegetable oil to remain solid at room temp and discovering after some time that it is way worse for us than the saturated fats we used to use. Again, this is much more analogous to the banning of certain kinds of food additives. What do you think?

There's no philosophical difference in the making of transfats vs. bleaching and refining flour, refining sugar, force feeding geese, or roasting, grinding, and brewing coffee. They're all unnatural processes for making food that tastes good or has other desirable qualities.

McDonald's, Kingfish, and Krispy Kreme have figured out how to get rid of trans fats--and it's not like their menus are the paragon of health food. Their food is still full of fat. I can't imagine a trans fat ban would result in any less consumption of fat or fatty foods. Why would it?

I haven't tried one of the trasnfat free versions of these foods. If the results mirror those of things I have tried, like McDonalds frys and Moby Dicks fish sandwiches, then I'll take a pass thank you very much. At least the government didn't force them to drive a paying customer away.

There are a lot of issues with the trans fat ban that folks have raised. I'm just not getting the passion over a trans fat ban.

Not everyone shares YOUR passions Charles. In America folks should be free to eat what they want. I would never, ever eat Fois Gras. I don't understand it. It's not healthy for the goose or the foodie. I do not begrudge folks their passion for it though, so I would never support it's banning.

I don't like slippery slope arguments. Because we act in this case does not inevitably mean that simple carbs and caffeine are next.

I was responding to a justification for a transfat ban presented in this thread based on the collective medical costs imposed in society (Medicare and Medicaid) by those who choose to consume transfats. The collective medical costs imposed on society by those who choose to consume simple carbohydrates are even higher than those of transfats. The science and economics are clear here.

Those who argue from the position of collective medical costs should either retract their advocacy for a ban, or be logically consistent and extent their advocacy to a ban on simple carbohydrates.

On top of this, the research results concerning harmful foods changes over time. On this very issue, we've seen margarine go from health food to evil transfat. We've seen eggs go from good, to bad, and back to good again. We've seen lard go from good, to bad, to not so bad. If the government were telling folks in the 60's what to eat, they would have banned eggs, butter, and lard and then everyone would have been forced by mandate to eat transfats! The only "safe" fat around!

And as they say on late night TV, That's not all...

Coffee seems to ping-pong back and forth between good and bad so often that I get dizzy trying to keep up. And somehow, red wine has turned into a health food all of a sudden. Good thing it didn't get banned before we figured that out, Prohibition excepted of course.

Sorry if we all don't jump right on board this latest "progressive" food scare train just because the "Kool Kids" in New York are telling us to. And by the way, what do the really "Kool Kids" in France think about transfats? Would this change the calculus for a Louisville transfat ban at all?

Leah mentioned the use of trans fats in her work. I get that (as a sometimes cake decorator). For others of you, what trans fats do you want to consume and why?

Why should anybody have to justify the foods they like to eat to defend against a government ban? Shouldn't the emphasis in America be on personal freedom and personal choice?

"Why should anybody have to justify the foods they like to eat to defend against a government ban? Shouldn't the emphasis in America be on personal freedom and personal choice?"

Because some people have all the answers to all of lifes problems....we just don't listen.

There is very little survivial data on FDA approved drugs....there's none on any food group as far as I know. It's essentially all conjecture based on today's science...which clearly is not static. The molecular basics of heart and vascular disease are not fully elucidated - no telling what we find out next!

There are some studies quoted by the HD, which frankly sounded like so much "fuzzy math" to me that New Yorkers were healthier after the transfat ban. Most people, by far, get their transfats via fried foods and commercially prepared crackers and cookies.

Kingfish is a case in point. There are readily available frying oils that are TFF. They work. Reportedly they break down quicker and must be changed out more frequently, so that makes them more expensive, only because you're using more of them. As a consumer, you may not taste much of a difference. However, even Kingfish got complaints about their baked goods prepared with TFF shortening - their hush puppies. Customers loudly proclaimed their sudden dislike for them after the switch.

Baked goods are a category unto themselves. Transfats produce a superior product, a soft but durable crumb and icing that stays on the cake. These foods should be eaten in moderation to begin with. As the owner of Nord's said in his tv and newspaper interviews, anyone looking for health food at the bakery is in the wrong store to begin with. What I produce is intended as a treat, a celebration food designed to be consumed in modest amounts.

I have tried other fats. My customers didn't like the product. I've been online with bakery owners from other states where TFF is mandated. They have all said, their recipes needed to be reformulated and their expenses went way, way up. I'm flabbergasted that the only way to get a great tasting product with enough shelf life to be practical may be to increase the use of egg yolks and butter. ::shakes head::

If there is truly a need to moderate transfats, then perhaps require them for fried foods, or for commercially prepared foods sold here. And possibly an exemption for bakeries. We're just not the main source of transfats in anyone's diet.

Well, NY City banned trans fats years ago. It became mandatory last year. They're down from 50% to 2% in trans fat usage in restaurants. So much for the " no way to enforce" arguments. Of course you can enforce. It is called inspections, which we all get already.

And guess what, no big deal! Restaurants didn't suddenly go out of business. People still eat out. The food is just as good. Just healthier.

Lets move into the new century and be a progressive city. A role model for others. A healthier population benefits us all.....

As a candidate for Mayor, I'd like to know your position on banning refined flour, sugar, and potatoes for their contributions to the diabetes epidemic. The prevalence of diabetes has a much larger impact on public health than any other disease or health issues and it's growing rapidly. Why advocate banning transfats and not simple carbohydrates?

I'd have to see the evidence. Like most things, balance and moderation are the best solutions. Some sugar is ok. Some refined flour is ok. And I've never heard anything wrong with potatoes. (well some folks are against the whole nightshade family, but I don't think it is sound science).

I'm all for self-discipline and self-responsibility. The problem is, it doesn't always work. The gov't should only step in when there is overwhelming evidence of public harm.

I'd oppose a ban on the foods you mention. That'd be crazy!

This is from about 10 minutes of Googling....
Glycemic Index
Good Carbs/Bad Carbs
Refined carbs linked to diabetes
Carbohydrate nutrition, insulin resistance, and metabolic syndrome
Glycemic index table
Glycemic index table explanation
Metabolic syndrome
Prediabetes
Diabetes

You should support good, progressive action to remove these deadly refined carbohydrates from our food supply!

It's interesting to me, that folks that want to ban something, are usually the ones that don't like or need whatever it is. If it's something related to their income, business, or personal preferences, then it's obvious that a ban is unreasonable.

I'm flabbergasted that the only way to get a great tasting product with enough shelf life to be practical may be to increase the use of egg yolks and butter. ::shakes head::

Surely this is sarcasm. I'm having a hard time understanding how this has a down side!

I'd have to see the evidence. Like most things, balance and moderation are the best solutions. Some sugar is ok. Some refined flour is ok. And I've never heard anything wrong with potatoes. (well some folks are against the whole nightshade family, but I don't think it is sound science).

I'm all for self-discipline and self-responsibility. The problem is, it doesn't always work. The gov't should only step in when there is overwhelming evidence of public harm.

I'd oppose a ban on the foods you mention. That'd be crazy!

So what's wrong with using transfats in balance and moderation? Of course it doesn't matter to you, as a transfat ban won't affect your business at all. What about the other local indies (Dan, Leah) whose business would suffer if such a ban were to pass?

If the city passes a trans fat ban and it messes up the perfection that is Nord's maple-bacon donuts, the ensuing violence will make the Watts riots look like a joke.

In all seriousness, lots of baked goods just aren't as good without trans fats. I've had baked goods from boutique bakeries that don't use trans fats, and I find their products to be lacking in both flavor and texture.

If the city passes a trans fat ban and it messes up the perfection that is Nord's maple-bacon donuts, the ensuing violence will make the Watts riots look like a joke.

In all seriousness, lots of baked goods just aren't as good without trans fats. I've had baked goods from boutique bakeries that don't use trans fats, and I find their products to be lacking in both flavor and texture.

Last time I was in NYC the ethnic and specialty bakeries were still turning out damn fine products that tasted just as good as they did when I grew up there as a kid. Not to suggest the ban is a good or bad idea, but it is possible to reformulate many recipes and still have food that tastes good.

I still have a hard time believing that a transfat ban/regulation is seriously being considered because law makers are concerned about the public's health. Pleeeze! With several dozen other products out there that do much more serious harm to the public (again, cigarettes - and the're addictive, alcohol, refined sugars - the list goes on and on) this sounds like little more than an eaborate marketing plan. Who really benefits from a ban? And don't say the public because those that honestly care about things such as transfat and their diet already successfully moderate their intake.
So, who wins if a ban goes through?

In case their agenda was not clear, here is their mission statement:


Trans Fat Free Louisville ...



is dedicated to achieving our vision of improving cardiovascular health in Louisville through eliminating the effects of artificial trans fats!


Our mission is to empower consumers to make healthier decisions regarding the foods they consume, by providing education regarding the harmful nature of trans fats and information about establishments that have eliminated artificial trans fats from their products.



We have partnered with the Louisville Metro Department of Public Health and Wellness and a group of committed stakeholders to increase consumer awareness of the harmfulness of artificial trans fats and intend this website to be an evolving community resource for both consumers and businesses.

Trans Fat Free Louisville was started in 2008, and exists to do the following:

* Educate consumers and businesses about the harmful nature of trans fats and about healthier options that exist.



* Provide consumers a listing of establishments that have gone trans fat free or are on their way to becoming trans fat free.



* Provide businesses a resource to aid in the transition away from products containing trans fat.

I attended last night's forum.
From the tone of the presentation it seems like they have more than likely have a ban lurking on the horizon. They sighted examples from NYC's voluntary ban saying it was "ineffective" and they didn't get the lower trans-fat results until a manditory ban was in place. I for one am very skeptical of the examples that were used.

I don't just don't think that there is a way to properly enforce a ban here or anywhere for that matter. I beleve that some establishments would simply just say they are trans-fat free to avoid a citation. Whose going to really know? Will there be random spot checks? Will we have to hire more inspectors to be Trans-Fat Police? Whose going to pay for all of this? I went hoping to have these questions answered by the panel and was met with the response of," We don't write or enforce policy, we just make recomendations to the Metro Council based upon our findings". Yeah, whatever.

Most of the commnets from the crowd in attendance last night were not in favor of a total ban. There seemed to be a common theme where more people were interested in making more education available about trans-fats, so consumers can make better choices. I made the suggestion that Trans-Fat information could be part of the Food Service Managers certification that some of us have to get every three years, so that the ones preparing food actually have information presented to them.

There also seemed to be a lot of interest in a menu labeling program as well. There were at least three local bakers and cake decorators present and all pretty much had the same comments echoed by Leah and myself. That you don't get the same results with a lot of trans-fat free products and that they are often times more expensive. They all commented at one point or another, that they would have no problem with labeling products that contained trans-fats. Claudia was present from Cake Flour as well. She does run a Trans-Fat free bakery that I've never been to(mostly because of the location)and I'm curious to try her products to see how they compare in price and quality to other bakeries.

So there you have it. I went to make sure my voice was heard. We should find out what they are going to recommend about the first of the year.