Decision ‘08

Most Ridiculous Story Of The Day

Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.

The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city’s 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.

Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.

Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.

“Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable,” said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city’s chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.

He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.

The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald’s french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin’ Donuts.

Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy.

“It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient,” Frieden said. “No one will miss it when it’s gone.”

A similar ban on trans fats in restaurant food has been proposed in Chicago and is still under consideration, although it has been ridiculed by some as unnecessary government meddling.

The latest version of the Chicago plan would apply only to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million, a provision aimed exclusively at fast-food giants.

I’m glad New York and Chicago have solved every major problem they face so they can spend their time babysitting millions of Americans…

13 Responses to “Most Ridiculous Story Of The Day”

1 relish Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Smoking bans make sense because they prevent individuals from affecting the health of others in order to engage in their personal destructive habit, but unless someone can show a link to second-hand cholesterol or diabetes, trying to dictate an individual’s food choices is just silly, not to mention an infringement of individual rights.

It would be far more reasonable, as well as a lot less expensive, if restaurants were required to indicate menu items with trans fats. Let individuals make an educated choice, but don’t make the choice for them!

We are clearly on the path to a nanny state with moves like this!
2 Dennis Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 10:42 am
I think Bloomberg is a bit of a health nut in his own life. In all seriousness, this is one of the chief reasons I’m a bit cold to the prospect of Mike Huckabee running for president. I’m afraid he’ll spend most of his time lecturing us, and no one has more zeal than a convert.
3 Dmac Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Don’t get me started on the City Council of Idiots here in Chicago - but we’re already seeing the effects of market pressures regarding the use of trans fats in everyday grocery products. Quite similar to the concern over the overall fat content in foods about two decades ago - the food industry responded to the consumer pressures then, and is slowly doing it today with the trans fat concerns. No reason to think this evolution won’t eventually spread to the restaurant industry as well.
4 peter Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Is Bloomberg considered to be a RINO?
5 Mark Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 11:21 am
I would say so (but not a Raging RINO, like certain bloggers I know)…
6 mtl Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 11:27 am
I don’t think you can use a RINO or DINO tag on a state or local leader…mayor and governors tend to be their own people, with their own agenda.

Take Bill richardson a supply sider, or Phil Bredesen cutting social welfare programs and refusing to institute an income tax-they are beholden to no one.
7 peter Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Well, he is certainly a much different Republican than his predecessor –
8 megapotamus Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Bloomberg has a special qualification for the RINO label in that he switched from a lifelong Dem affiliation to Rep after it became apparent he would lose the mayoral primary to uber-lefty Mark Green. It might well have been better for everyone except the city of New York, long term, had Green prevailed. This guy makes Lindsay look like Hoover and would have rapidly returned the city to Dinkins levels of despair, giving a valuable lesson in the wages of collectivism. With Bloomberg they get a muddled message with this insipid do-gooderism wedded to more or less Rudy-ism in economic and L&O matters. But yes, Bloomberg is notoriously a former inhaler and inbiber converted to the new health-concious Puritanism and an eager missionary in that regard.
9 mtl Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Considering the population of NYC, wouldn’t it be fair to say that Bloomberg is actually a governor of a polis?

The city’s population alone makes it bigger than 40 state govts.
10 jpe Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Well, he is certainly a much different Republican than his predecessor –

That’s a good thing. On most issues, Rudy was a classic Rockefeller Republican - liberal on social issues, moderate elsewhere. Bloomy isn’t quite as shrill.

At any rate, the smoking ban doesn’t bother me, a smoker, at all. It’s a nice excuse to get out for a few minutes, and you tend to meet people outside you otherwise wouldn’t.

Re: the health effects of second hand smoking: bah. The jury’s still out on ambient smoke.
11 Fargus Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
So why is this in the Progressive Nonsense section?
12 Mark Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Because it IS progressive nonsense…even if it isn’t ‘progressive’ nonsense, if you get my drift…
13 mtl Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
process of elimination leads to me that it could only be progressives.

Even if they are not actual progressives, their correlation for voting for democrat would be 1:1.

Take em, be proud…