October 03, 2006

• *Takes a bite out of his Big Mac Monte Cristo, and waits for the poo fat to fly.*
• Monte Crisco?
• Not to offend, but if your diet is reliant on fast food (or the laziness that is dining out) and you can't identify the source of your obesity problem, you need waking up or educating—not over parenting. That the content of the food being served has changed doesn't matter? Or what if you live in a neighborhood where healty options are not availible? Is it still an individual's fault for poor diet? Some (of many) things to consider when going the personal responsiblity route of blame for obesity. A pregnancy tax? Isn't that called making 75 cents on the dollar?
• A pregnancy tax? Isn't that called making 75 cents on the dollar? Haha! And I'm being facetious with the "vice" tax remark, right? But if you are going to argue that there are no healthy dietary options (i.e. making it yourself) in some neighborhoods and that it is impossible to eat out in moderation then I'd like to know where you live that you can't make or afford your own healthy food. That the content of the food being served has changed doesn't matter? In some cases it has, but according to press reports for the major fast food chains it is for the better trans-fat wise.
• *cranks up the electric butter churn*
• *rubs his washboard abs, and takes a bite of his butter/cheese hot dog, washed down with death by chocolate shake*
• InsolentChimp, I think the idea is that transfats are starting to be understood as a poison, rather than simply an unhealthy food. The interesting question is how and where do we draw the line.
• I tend to think that effort and money would be better spent on education/PSA programs - most people wouldn't know a hydrogenized fat from a hole in the ground. Or provide some kind of incentive to businesses who use/produce hydrogenized ones. Some kind of seal of approval, maybe. Or require a sign at the restaurant telling which kind of fat they use. Nobody gets fat on purpose, and if the healthier food cost and tasted the same I think people would eat it. Or maybe I'm just a naive Pollyanna.
• InsolentChimp, I think the idea is that transfats are starting to be understood as a poison, rather than simply an unhealthy food. The interesting question is how and where do we draw the line. Isn't that the theme of what I said? I'm not trying to be rude, but did that not come across? As far as poison goes, the NAS suggests that you do not eliminate trans-fat from your diet due to it being present in small amounts in animal foods (vegans 1, the rest of us 0) in order to retain a nutritionally beneficial diet (despite trans-fat having no nutritional value). Instead, they suggest, keep the intake as low as possible. My beef, as it were, is with government attitudes toward informed decision making. There is a sort of habituated taste (more of a texture, apparently) with trans-fats that people may prefer to kill themselves with rather than letting time do all the work. Hey, I like to take walks in the city to stretch my legs, but it doesn't mean breathing the carbon monoxide is healthy. Still, if you are aware of the dangers you can go ahead and do your extreme sport-eating and feel all the more hard-core for it. Screw helmet laws, I want some nasty-ass french fries.
• I'm wondering when it became fashionable to protect and watch over BigAgCorps profits made with their damn trans-fats and high-fructose corn syrup rather than watch out for the little guy. We all should be more self-controlled, better educated, spend more for quality food, yadda yadda yat. TUM, you don't understand Pollyanna. Pollyanna is when GramMa thinks plentiful local grown good quality nutritious natural/healthful/organic foods should be avaliable to everyone world-wide at a very very reasonable cost. Pollyanna is believing that people are worth more than profit. Our world is going to hell in a cooporate shopping basket.
• I think trans-fat should have been made illegal when it was invented. It is NOT FOOD. There are a few meat products that naturally have a trace of some trans-fats in them; everything else is a human invention and should have, had we known better at the time, been banned on the spot. Atropine and ricin are also present in a few plants, you don't see it being used as a food additive.
• I mean, my God, who had the bright idea of taking hydrogen gas and bubbling it through fat! How is this part of cooking? How did this appear to be safe? Trans-fats are used (to address posters question) , IIRC, because they don't go rancid. Bacteria don't have the enzymes required to eat them. Its all part of increasing the shelf-life and, since they are thicker than oils, improving the consistency of mass-produced foods. Why you would want to secure the right to have crappy mass-produced foods with a long shelf life when there are safe, time-tested ways of preserving natural foods, I don't know.
• But if you are going to argue that there are no healthy dietary options (i.e. making it yourself) in some neighborhoods and that it is impossible to eat out in moderation then I'd like to know where you live that you can't make or afford your own healthy food. There is plenty of research on food availibility in low income neighborhood, perhaps google (or even pubmed) can help you if you'd like to know more.
• Trans-fats are so insinuated into most prepared foods that it is difficult to find healthy options. Go to the supermarket and try not buying anything with partially-hydrogenated oil in it. You'll find yourself cooking all your own food very quickly, because short of some frozen vegetables and bread products, almost everything prepared contains some.
• Haha! And I'm being facetious with the "vice" tax remark, right? Haha, I was making a joke to your joke, but your reaction is even more hilarious! In some cases it has, but according to press reports for the major fast food chains it is for the better trans-fat wise. That's a rather recent change and a result of people becoming more aware of the harmful effects of trans fats. What are you trying to get at here? You seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing, which is not why I come to MoFi. Seriously, trying to say that trans fats are not harmful because they are found naturally in much smaller amounts? It's like a riff off the old argument about how pesticides aren't harmful because there are so many naturally occuring toxins in plants that are far worse.
• There is plenty of research on food availibility in low income neighborhood, perhaps google (or even pubmed) can help you if you'd like to know more. So low income people are eating out at fast food joints constantly because it's cheaper than cooking their own meals at home? None of the research you suggested brought me to that conclusion, but I may have overlooked something. A single meal at McDonald's is more expensive to me than something I cook for two with groceries from my hideously overpriced supermarket (in supermarkets trans-fat will still remain available according to the legislation the New York City Board of Health proposes). There is a major difference between food insecurity and the people who I am addressing who do not (out of laziness or ignorance—not poverty) find healthy alternatives to eating out in excess. I thought my original statement ruled out poor people due to the lack of luxury monies, but maybe it doesn't. Haha, I was making a joke to your joke, but your reaction is even more hilarious! Thank you! Laughing is so contagious! (My original line, "Touché!" seemed so cliché in comparison.) Seriously, trying to say that trans fats are not harmful because they are found naturally in much smaller amounts? mandyman, I'm not trying to argue for the sake of argument. At no point in this thread did I state that trans-fats are not harmful. In fact, I repeatedly did the opposite. The reason the NAS suggests not eliminating trans-fat entirely is because some people would not get the nutrition that they would get from eating animal products. Are you reading all my comments as sarcastic? Regardless, my intention is not to espouse any benefits of eating trans-fat, but the attitudes of "watchdog" beauracracies toward herding and corraling the masses rather than educating and allowing freedom of choice. Notice the decisions they have made are somewhat elitist by statistical measures: i) Wealthier people eat out more frequently ii) Poorer people eat in more frequently iii) Food establishments must watch their trans-fat content while supermarkets have no regulations Likely result: higher chances of heart disease amongst the poorer classes.
• The reason the NAS suggests not eliminating trans-fat entirely is because "some people would not get the nutrition that they would get from eating animal products." What an ever-lovin' crock of shit. The reason the NAS suggests not eliminating this poison is because CorporateAmerika stands behind it as a momumental moneymaking scheme. Exactally what are the figures here? Some pure vegans may not get their trans-fat? How many pure vegans are there out there? A fast Google says less than 2% Exactally how MUCH trans-fat is needed how often for a healthy body anyway? 100% of the population eating trans-fats are at risk. Doesn't sound like a credible statement to me.
• Isn't that the theme of what I said? I'm not trying to be rude, but did that not come across? Well, would you hold the same attitude if the city decided to ban trace amounts of certain metals, which, while perhaps adding a certain quality to the taste, are poisonous to the body? I'm not saying metals taste good, but in this thought experiment, they do.
• The call is for a trans-fat ban in restaurants. So you'll be free to cook up as many trans-fat-containing delicacies as you want in the privacy of your own home. And if it makes you feel better, you can not wear a seatbelt on the way to restaurants.
• * Does something funny in between asterisks in a vain attempt to pretend he understood or read the conversation thus far *
• The statement made sense. They don't want people to suddenly give up meat and go vegan in an attempt to eliminate ALL trans-fat from their diet. Yes, it is possible to do so, and its probably good for you. But I don't think it has anything to do with the body requiring trans-fatty acids. It doesn't.
• So low income people are eating out at fast food joints constantly because it's cheaper than cooking their own meals at home? Actually you can feed a small child for $3 ($1 dbl cheeseburger, $1 small fries, $1 small soda, all of it crap)at McD's, but health risks go beyond fast food. Poverty moves people to cheaper foods in the super market as well. Just look at your juice isle, there are two types of juice you can buy, cheap sugar water with "some" juice in it, and 100% juice that is expensive as hell ($3 to $4), or you could get a 2 liter bottle of Coke/Pepsi for $.99 to $1.50 Then there are all the other cheap foods that are awful for you, such as hot dogs, bologna, corn dogs, burritos these are all cheap and have a high caloric yield with a low cost. The caloric yield is not the only issue. Most low income homes also have the problem of time. People working two or three part time jobs as a single parent, hell even one full time job as a single parent, have to balance time, so they also have to be able to expedite meals, because they only have so much time in the day.
• What an ever-lovin' crock of shit. The reason the NAS suggests not eliminating this poison is because CorporateAmerika stands behind it as a momumental moneymaking scheme. I don't think so, GramMa. If you read the links to their website there is absolutely nothing that would lead you to believe that they want you to buy Crisco. Well, would you hold the same attitude if the city decided to ban trace amounts of certain metals, which, while perhaps adding a certain quality to the taste, are poisonous to the body? It's not an all encompassing ban. Did anyone read the links? I'm tired of sounding like a misrepresented twat here so I won't be commenting further.
• Exactally how MUCH trans-fat is needed how often for a healthy body anyway? None.
• Most low income homes also have the problem of time. In an ideal world without welfare, sure. I've seen far fewer low income double income single parent earners than welfare collecters (and for good reasons which I'm not getting involved in (also for good reasons)). Whatever, off topic, and my ludicrous last comment for this. I will be gravely misrepresented for that by someone who has only read that comment and has fuck-all for context. I'm getting the fuck out of here; I can't carry on a conversation that is constantly straying indignantly from the topic. It becomes a grotesque monologue in the theatre of the political which demonizes the speaker by transforming him (in this case) into a preacher through needless repetition. I'm tired of this. Thank you, HawthorneWingo and TUM for attempting to maintain the topic.
• Why do you hate poor people InsolentChimp. *throws hands up*
• It's not an all encompassing ban. Did anyone read the links? I'm tired of sounding like a misrepresented twat here so I won't be commenting further. My responses are directed towards this statement of yours: can people not make choices about where they will or won't eat for themselves? I agree with reducing trans-fats or identifying trans-fat items on the menus, but legislating it seems too much. Would you hold this same attitude if there was a similar ban proposal on dangerous, but tasty, metals? EYE fuckin EEE, would you then turn around and say: "can people not make choices about where they will or won't eat for themselves? I agree with reducing metals or identifying metallic items on the menus, but legislating it seems too much."
• Lead is tasty, sweet usually. Difference is lead kills you in weeks or months instead of decades. Not that I have any special importance, but *my* opinion on both is identical. They aren't food, and shouldn't be on the menu. Anywhere. If people want to eat lead, they have to do it in the privacy of their homes. Industry shouldn't be helping them commit suicide no matter how financially lucrative it is.
• I fry my chips in Valvoline It makes them taste quite fine My tummy's making noises Like a Chevrolet en-gine.
• TUMmy's on a poetry binge this week! Brava!
• Indeed! So she's having an en-gina attack?
• Industry shouldn't be helping them commit suicide no matter how financially lucrative it is. Not even the supermarkets, huh? Whatev, I'm not trying to argue whether trans fats are death or not. I agree with you about the poison. I try not to use them, myself. I was wondering why we can't make educated boycotts of the trans-fatty restaurants rather than legislate their change; something democratic. Meh. I'm done.