Re: California bans trans fats

[Guest guest]

Once again freedom of choice falls by the wayside.

Belinda

>

> California becomes the first state to ban restaurants, bakeries and

> other

> retail food establishments from using oil, margarine and shortening

> containing *trans fats*. The law affects oil, shortening and

> margarine used

> in spreads or for frying. Restaurants can continue using trans fats to

> deep-fry yeast dough and in cake batter until Jan. 1, 2011...

>

>

> http://tinyurl.com/y94od25

>

>

[Guest guest]

Are you saying restaurants and such should be free to poison us in

any way they see fit? I certainly think that you, as an individual,

should have the choice to ingest (or not) all the poison you want, as

long as you are fully aware that is what it is. I want that same choice.

-------------------------

Once again freedom of choice falls by the wayside.

Belinda

--- In , Carolyn Graff <zgraff@...>

wrote:

>

> California becomes the first state to ban restaurants, bakeries and

> other

> retail food establishments from using oil, margarine and shortening

> containing *trans fats*. The law affects oil, shortening and

> margarine used

> in spreads or for frying. Restaurants can continue using trans

fats to

> deep-fry yeast dough and in cake batter until Jan. 1, 2011...

>

>

> http://tinyurl.com/y94od25

>

[Guest guest]

Why not allow restaurants to use arsenic?

Is it really freedom of choice if consumers aren't warned that the

restaurants are using trans fats? Is it really freedom of choice if

they don't know that the stuff is poison?

> Once again freedom of choice falls by the wayside.

>

> Belinda

>

>

> >

> > California becomes the first state to ban restaurants, bakeries and

> > other

> > retail food establishments from using oil, margarine and shortening

> > containing *trans fats*. The law affects oil, shortening and

> > margarine used

> > in spreads or for frying. Restaurants can continue using trans

> fats to

> > deep-fry yeast dough and in cake batter until Jan. 1, 2011...

> >

> >

> > http://tinyurl.com/y94od25

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

This is where I think the law should require labeling or have it stated on the

menu. Then people have a choice. To ban it means they can ban anything they deem

is not healthy. Would saturated fat be next?

[Guest guest]

Thank you. That is exactly what I mean. If you allow gov't control over your

choices then you best be ready to have your favorite/healthy food banned, mine

already is in many places - Raw Milk.

We have seen so many regulations come down from above, it's really time to stop.

I do not want anyone telling me what I can or cannot eat. If I happen to think

horse manure is healthy and want to it horse manure then for heaven sake let me!

If a restaurant wants to serve " unhealthy " fats, let them and let the customer

decide where they will and will not eat. If enough consumers decide to avoid the

place because of the menu then they will either change the menu or close.

I vote NO to gov't regulation of my food choices (as well as many other choices

to numerous to mention here).

Belinda

--- In , " toffeejacket " <toffeejacket@...>

wrote:

>

> This is where I think the law should require labeling or have it stated on the

menu. Then people have a choice. To ban it means they can ban anything they deem

is not healthy. Would saturated fat be next?

>

[Guest guest]

I just love the reasoning that because governments do some bad things, that we

shouldn't have any at all.

I really doubt that restaurants are going to start listing all  of their

ingredients, and wouldn't there then be a need to inspect whether these lists

were accurate (government)?

True - 'government' has made it hard to get raw milk in many places, but to me

the ideal solution would be to have a government that succumbed to pressure and

allowed it, rather than a government that allowed predators to poison people

without any way of regulating it.

Re: California bans trans fats

 

Thank you. That is exactly what I mean. If you allow gov't control over your

choices then you best be ready to have your favorite/healthy food banned, mine

already is in many places - Raw Milk.

We have seen so many regulations come down from above, it's really time to stop.

I do not want anyone telling me what I can or cannot eat. If I happen to think

horse manure is healthy and want to it horse manure then for heaven sake let me!

If a restaurant wants to serve " unhealthy " fats, let them and let the customer

decide where they will and will not eat. If enough consumers decide to avoid the

place because of the menu then they will either change the menu or close.

I vote NO to gov't regulation of my food choices (as well as many other choices

to numerous to mention here).

Belinda

--- In , " toffeejacket " <toffeejacket@...>

wrote:

>

> This is where I think the law should require labeling or have it stated on the

menu. Then people have a choice. To ban it means they can ban anything they deem

is not healthy. Would saturated fat be next?

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...>

wrote:

>

>

>

> I just love the reasoning that because governments do some bad things, that we

shouldn't have any at all.

And just who said we shouldn't have gov't?

>

> I really doubt that restaurants are going to start listing all of their

ingredients, and wouldn't there then be a need to inspect whether these lists

were accurate (government)?

Some restaurants have already begun listing ingredients, it's not as unheard of

as you seem to believe.

> True - 'government' has made it hard to get raw milk in many places, but to me

the ideal solution would be to have a government that succumbed to pressure and

allowed it, rather than a government that allowed predators to poison people

without any way of regulating it.

Gov't has already " succumbed to pressure " from big business, big ag, big pharma.

They have the money. Ideal would be nice but it's not reality, at least not

right now.

Belinda

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I¹m wondering what changes will result. Since my husband tested my knowledge

of trans fats upon hearing about the new law.

I understand that Œhydrogenated¹ oils create trans fats. Oils are

hydrogenated to give them a longer shelf life, right? So, we shouldn¹t get

excited and expect that everyone will begin using lard, palm and coconut

oil, right? They¹ll just begin using vegetable oils that have not been

hydrogenated, right? And even though the latter oils are better for us ­ are

the new vegetable oils not as harmful? Finally, is there a chance that the

soy industry will be in a position to benefit because this may mean that

more manufacturers will opt for soy oil?

So many questions. . .

On 1/1/10 9:00 PM, " Carolyn Graff " <zgraff@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> California becomes the first state to ban restaurants, bakeries and

> other

> retail food establishments from using oil, margarine and shortening

> containing *trans fats*. The law affects oil, shortening and

> margarine used

> in spreads or for frying. Restaurants can continue using trans fats to

> deep-fry yeast dough and in cake batter until Jan. 1, 2011...

>

> http://tinyurl.com/y94od25

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I understand that Œhydrogenated¹ oils create trans fats. Oils are

> hydrogenated to give them a longer shelf life, right?

Right.

So, we shouldn¹t get

> excited and expect that everyone will begin using lard, palm and coconut

> oil, right?

Right.

They¹ll just begin using vegetable oils that have not been

> hydrogenated, right?

The same ones they've been hydrogenating - soy, sunflower, safflower, etc.

At least, this is what food manufacturers have done - continued to use the

same oils, but not hydrogenating them (that we know of).

>And even though the latter oils are better for us

Probably they're not. They will be partially rancid.

are

> the new vegetable oils not as harmful?

Probably are.

Finally, is there a chance that the

> soy industry will be in a position to benefit because this may mean that

> more manufacturers will opt for soy oil?

Probably.

Suze

[Guest guest]

There is. no. perfect. solution. Aint' never gonna be no Utopia,

either. Government will do what enough people demand of it -- or

what enough MONEY tells it to do, which can then be negated by enough

people telling it what to do. It's gonna go back and forth, back and

forth, never satisfying everybody. The alternative is total chaos,

total bully-rule.

------------------

Thank you. That is exactly what I mean. If you allow gov't control

over your choices then you best be ready to have your favorite/

healthy food banned, mine already is in many places - Raw Milk.

We have seen so many regulations come down from above, it's really

time to stop. I do not want anyone telling me what I can or cannot

eat. If I happen to think horse manure is healthy and want to it

horse manure then for heaven sake let me! If a restaurant wants to

serve " unhealthy " fats, let them and let the customer decide where

they will and will not eat. If enough consumers decide to avoid the

place because of the menu then they will either change the menu or

close.

I vote NO to gov't regulation of my food choices (as well as many

other choices to numerous to mention here).

Belinda

>

> This is where I think the law should require labeling or have it

stated on the menu. Then people have a choice. To ban it means they

can ban anything they deem is not healthy. Would saturated fat be next?

[Guest guest]

They will be and already are using Canola oil, the oil being touted for no trans

fats? It binds the iodine in mother's milk in animals. It isn't a big leap to

assume it might do the same to homo sapiens.

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/105072502761016520

Even my local health food store uses canola in their deli.

Joan

> I understand that Œhydrogenated¹ oils create trans fats. Oils are

> hydrogenated to give them a longer shelf life, right? So, we shouldn¹t get

> excited and expect that everyone will begin using lard, palm and coconut

> oil, right? They¹ll just begin using vegetable oils that have not been

> hydrogenated, right? And even though the latter oils are better for us ­ are

> the new vegetable oils not as harmful? Finally, is there a chance that the

> soy industry will be in a position to benefit because this may mean that

> more manufacturers will opt for soy oil?

[Guest guest]

On Jan 5, 2010, at 5:27 PM, coloredoctave wrote:

>

> Even my local health food store uses canola in their deli.

>

>

So does mine Occasionally for cooked things and for salad dressings they'll

use EVOO. But for most things (especially baked goods), they use canola oil or

(ick) Earth Balance. I'm guessing that it is because (a) they are attempting to

address their veg*n customers (my town has an enormous veg*n community for its

size) and ( they are concerned about cost.

-jennifer

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the responses, Suze and Joan.

On 1/5/10 2:27 PM, " coloredoctave " <joanlulich@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> They will be and already are using Canola oil, the oil being touted for no

> trans fats? It binds the iodine in mother's milk in animals. It isn't a big

> leap to assume it might do the same to homo sapiens.

> http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/105072502761016520

>

> Even my local health food store uses canola in their deli.

>

> Joan

>

>> > I understand that Œhydrogenated¹ oils create trans fats. Oils are

>> > hydrogenated to give them a longer shelf life, right? So, we shouldn¹t get

>> > excited and expect that everyone will begin using lard, palm and coconut

>> > oil, right? They¹ll just begin using vegetable oils that have not been

>> > hydrogenated, right? And even though the latter oils are better for us ­ >>

are

>> > the new vegetable oils not as harmful? Finally, is there a chance that the

>> > soy industry will be in a position to benefit because this may mean that

>> > more manufacturers will opt for soy oil?

>

>

>

>

>