http://www.sacbee.com/749/story/1109963.html Trans fats should be banned - period. Then, health care costs would decrease and fewer people will have an early demise.
California may be the first *state* to ban trans fats, but haven't they been banned in NYC for the last couple of years?
Schwarzenegger really confuses me at times, i remember when he had is hummer re-painted to advertise being eco friendly, which in its self was a complete joke. having said that i dont think a toyota prius could shift a man of his size...
Schwarzenegger had his hummer modified to run on vegetable oil. So in a way, it is eco-friendly, as far as biofuels can be eco-friendly. -monkey
Yes, NYC did do that. NYC has a population of about 8 million. While California has a population of over 36 million, the nation has a total population of 300 million. California is the most populous U.S. state. California ranks amongst the ten largest economies in the world, and were it a separate country, it would be 35th among the most populous countries, just behind Kenya. Unlike NYC, California's new law applies to town and countryside business alike. This is likely to cause a different cost for the same level of compliance among less populated areas. Enforcement will need to traverse across many city and county jurisdictions.
Wow, the average sedentary overweight person will be so much healthier if they replace a few grams of trans fat in their diet with regular fat The legislation isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. Anyone consuming enough crap to get a significant amount of trans fat will be consuming enough total fat and calories that the trans fat itself will be the least of their problems. And anyone eating remotely healthy won't be getting enough trans fat to matter in the first place. As the article says: Banning trans fats, without taking other steps, will not significantly improve Californians' health, the restaurant association said in a letter. Reducing use of trans fats could increase the use of saturated fats and other alternatives that "may have the same negative health impacts," the group said. If your product requires fats that are solid at room temperature, you've got 2 choices: trans fat or saturated fat. And while normal sat fat might be "natural", the effect on the body is the same in either case.
He's also a Republican that cooperates with the Democrat controlled state legislature. He is considered to be very pragmatic in many areas including taking positions on environmental issues that hold against his own party. If I still lived in Cal then I wouldn't be unhappy with him as my governor. In fact, given his positions, I think I might actually have voted for him. His wife, Maria Schriver, who is a daughter of the Kennedy family, is a Democrat that holds some sway over him I'm sure.
I've been saying this for over 10 years. No one listens to me in my immediate family, and I find it funny this now becoming the norm. And glad. Hydrogenated oils are the silent killers. Fast food uses it a lot, and they're now getting rid of it. These oils are a big reason why the US is so damn overweight. Not to mention the US has a lot of lazy people.
How about doing something about tobacco-related deaths? Surely, that's the single largest expense in healthcare. Oh, and its 100%, consciously and voluntarily self-induced.
Hydrogenated oils aren't responsible for anything. They are no different healthwise than saturated fat. The only reason hydrogenated vegetable oils came into being was so manufacturers could use them instead of shortening and thus claim "cholesterol free" on the label -- the cholesterol scare being another retarded waste of time by people who don't understand physiology.
America - Don't worry about watching your health. Once enough people die from being dumbasses, we can LEGISLATE you on your way to health!
There is good and bad cholesterol. Just like oils. Hydrogenated ones being the latter. Article Article Wikipedia Article
The way I see it, nobody is forcing anyone to eat unhealthy food, in the same way as nobody is forcing anyone to smoke. I don't see why they have to ban something that people already know is bad for them. Why don't they just avoid buying it?
it is difficult to eat healthy whilst out and about, i find myself walking into a McDonalds to grab a big mac, tho i do get them to make it without the cheese, not because i am being health i just dont like that cheese, its like plastic and tastes like plastic, actually it must be plastic! i do try to take food where ever i go so i dont have to spend out on food considering thats its cheaper to make it home.
The difference being that people know smoking is bad for them and can avoid tobacco, but food was being made with these substances for years and they are just now starting to tell people. Labels are nice, and the informed consumer can make whatever choice they want, but using the substances in manufacture and not tell them is just wrong.
To manufacture the food with trans fats (and tell the customers what's in it) isn't much good either. It doesn't present a real choice as there are no other healthier foods available. Only when the playing field is level for all businesses, not to use the least expensive fat, will it be possible for the new price competition to satisfy demand.
There are plenty of foods I buy personally that do not have these substances in them, which I buy on purpose. There are companies that are aware of the issue, and I'm fine with paying a couple more dollars to get a cleaner product. I've been virtually trans-fat free for over 10 years, and it was a personal choice. I'm glad the ugly truth is now making it into the mainstream in regards to this.