Arnold Schwarzenegger to attack fast food

[Demi]

From The Times
London, UK
16 July, 2008


Arnold Schwarzenegger to attack fast food

First cigarettes, now flaky pastry: Arnold Schwarzenegger is being asked to train his sights on another health hazard by outlawing the use of trans fats from all restaurants in California.

There is rising concern that trans fats - a key ingredient in food such as margarine, biscuits, crisps and other snacks - poses a public health crisis on the scale of smoking.

Although there is a general scientific consensus that trans fats clogs arteries, other less conclusive studies have claimed links between the ingredient and cancer, diabetes, obesity, liver dysfunction and infertility.

If the California Governor signs off a law to ban trans fats, it could result in the ingredient disappearing from all American food.

The ban would be the biggest of its kind in the United States and force all restaurants and bakeries in California to remove trans fats from non-baked products by July 1 next year and from baked products by July 1, 2010.

Establishments that failed to comply would be fined $25 to $1,000 (£12.50 to £500). Chefs would still be allowed to use oils, margarines and shortenings that contain less than 0.5g of trans fats per serving, and packaged food products - which are sold across state lines - would be exempt from the ruling.

Opponents of a ban, led by Californian restaurants, say that the move would be another example of government interference.

They also point out that trans fats can be crucial in some baking recipes, especially when it comes to making fluffy, flaky pastry crusts.

“The government ban of artificial trans fats will not accomplish the goal of improving the overall health of Californians and takes a very narrow and misleading approach to a much larger health issue,” the California Restaurant Association said in a statement.

“Such a proposal ignores personal responsibility and the complexities and true causes of obesity and heart disease.”

A trans fats ban has already been put into effect in New York City, forcing fast-food outlets such as Dunkin' Donuts, Burger King, KFC, McDonald's and Pizza Hut to remove the ingredient from their menus.

So far, American customers appear to be happy with the results and many now believe that a nationwide ban on the artery-clogging ingredient is inevitable.

The proposal to ban trans fat in California - known as Assembly Bill 97 - was suggested by the Democratic Assembly member Tony Mendoza, a former teacher, who says that he felt compelled to take action after witnessing first-hand the health problem of obesity in schools.

“This is more than just legislation. This is a call to action that takes into consideration the health of our families,” he said. “We are taking a risk when we consume food and products that contain trans fat. This is an invisible and dangerous ingredient and it has to be eliminated.”

The Bill was passed by the Californian legislature on Monday and now awaits Mr Schwarzenegger's signature. It is supported by the California Academy of Family Physicians, the American Heart Association and the American Academy of Paediatrics.

Mr Schwarzenegger, a progressive Republican, has not yet taken a position on the issue.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4340206.ece

[KvonM]

They also point out that trans fats can be crucial in some baking recipes, especially when it comes to making fluffy, flaky pastry crusts.
um... last i checked, butter did the same thing. and hey! no trans fats! what a concept!

[Dodger]

Lard is the best thing to use to make fluffy, flaky pastry crusts.

[Wifezilla]

Yup...lard works best, but it isn't shelf-stable for 400 years like transfats.

[capmikee]

Chefs would still be allowed to use oils, margarines and shortenings that contain less than 0.5g of trans fats per serving, and packaged food products - which are sold across state lines - would be exempt from the ruling.
I'd like everyone to do something for me.

Next time you're in a store, or your pantry, or anywhere there is packaged food, try to find a Nutrition Information label that lists more than 0g Trans Fat. 0g Trans Fat, of course, really means "less than 0.5g of trans fats per serving," and now that this labeling is required, every serving size and ingredients list has been adjusted to show this magic number. Even for Crisco.

But if you see 1 or more grams of Trans Fats on a label, I'd really like to hear about it. Because I can't find it. I'd like to know that this wonderful new ruling is actually going to make a shred of difference.

In my long time of label-scrutinizing, I have actually found the elusive >0.5g on exactly one label. It was a label for Coleman hamburger patties. I was so excited I called the company. They told me they were looking at an identical label and it said 0g trans fat. They confirmed that no hydrogenated oil, in fact nothing at all, was added to the beef in the hamburgers. They also told me that some fats found naturally in beef do occur in the "trans" form. There is no evidence that naturally occuring trans fats pose any of the health hazards that manufactured Trans Fats do.

[TheCaveman]

114377. (a) Every food facility shall maintain on the premises
the label for any food or food additive that is, or includes, any
fat, oil, or shortening, for as long as this food or food additive is
stored, distributed, or served by, or used in the preparation of
food within, the food facility. The label described in this
subdivision refers to the label that is required by applicable
federal and state law to be on the food or food additive at the time
of purchase by the food facility.

(b) (1) Commencing January 1, 2010, no oil, shortening, or
margarine containing artificial trans fat for use in spreads or
frying, except for the deep frying of yeast dough or cake batter, may
be stored, distributed, or served by, or used in the preparation of
any food within, a food facility.

(2) Commencing January 1, 2011, no food containing artificial
trans fat, including oil and shortening that contains artificial
trans fat for use in the deep frying of yeast dough or cake batter,
may be stored, distributed, or served by, or used in the preparation
of any food within, a food facility.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply to food sold or served in a
manufacturer's original, sealed package.

(d) For purposes of this section, a food contains artificial trans
fat if the food contains vegetable shortening, margarine, or any
kind of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, unless the label
required on the food, pursuant to applicable federal and state law,
lists the trans fat content as less than 0.5 grams per serving.

(e) This section shall not apply to public elementary, middle,
junior high, or high school cafeterias.

(f) Notwithstanding Section 114395, a violation of this section
shall be punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars
($25) or more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_97_bill_20080715_enrolled.html

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

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the California
Association of Environmental Health Administrators (CAEHA),
ensuring a safe and healthy environment at food facilities
is a significant and important responsibility of county
environmental health officers. CAEHA states that though
its members do all they can to ensure that food is stored,
prepared and served in a clean and safe manner, a safe and
healthy food environment cannot ignore the nutritional
value of food itself. Supporters point out that the
negative impacts of trans fats are well-established and
recognized by public health experts and the FDA.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Restaurant
Association opposes the bill and writes: "Ethnic
foodservice establishments -- who provide such an
extraordinary range of dishes from around the world --
would be particularly impacted by a ban on trans fats.
While it may be easier to find trans fat-free substitutes
for some foods, ethnic dishes are more difficult to prepare
in this way. The characteristics of partially hydrogenated
oils are hard to reproduce without using oils high in
saturated fats, like butter or lard. Unless you use an
alternative with saturated fats, trans fats are proving
difficult replace without changing the taste and texture of
many products. The particular oil used in a food affects
product taste, appearance, texture, performance and
stability."

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_97_cfa_20080513_095811_sen_floor.html

[madeyna]

I love the idea these companys have been poisening the public for years jsut to save a few pennies per serving. I would rather pay a little extra to get a healther produce.

[Felicie]

The California Restaurant
Association opposes the bill and writes: "Ethnic
foodservice establishments -- who provide such an
extraordinary range of dishes from around the world --
would be particularly impacted by a ban on trans fats.
While it may be easier to find trans fat-free substitutes
for some foods, ethnic dishes are more difficult to prepare
in this way.

Oh yes, transfat - that traditional Chinese ingredient widely used by the Imperial cooks of the Qin Dynasty! :lol:

[anyway...]

But if you see 1 or more grams of Trans Fats on a label, I'd really like to hear about it. Because I can't find it. I'd like to know that this wonderful new ruling is actually going to make a shred of difference.

Walmart's baked goods. They are the only ones I've ever seen with a number higher than 0.

[Dodger]

(e) This section shall not apply to public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school cafeterias.Why don't they want to protect the children?

[TheCaveman]

Why don't they want to protect the children?

Because it would have cost the state money, and the chances of a bill with money in it being passed and signed is slim, in these budget-crunched times. So the question becomes, "Do we include schools and run the very high risk of veto, or do we exclude schools and have a chance to pass to law?"

Don't think we didn't try. The introduced version of the bill allowed jail time for violations!

[Wifezilla]

Government always likes to exempt it self from potentially expensive legislation.

[eryalen]

Yup...lard works best, but it isn't shelf-stable for 400 years like transfats.
Yeh, It only lasts a couple of years.

[dansonya]

I'd like everyone to do something for me.

Next time you're in a store, or your pantry, or anywhere there is packaged food, try to find a Nutrition Information label that lists more than 0g Trans Fat. 0g Trans Fat, of course, really means "less than 0.5g of trans fats per serving," and now that this labeling is required, every serving size and ingredients list has been adjusted to show this magic number. Even for Crisco.

But if you see 1 or more grams of Trans Fats on a label, I'd really like to hear about it. Because I can't find it. I'd like to know that this wonderful new ruling is actually going to make a shred of difference.

In my long time of label-scrutinizing, I have actually found the elusive >0.5g on exactly one label. It was a label for Coleman hamburger patties. I was so excited I called the company. They told me they were looking at an identical label and it said 0g trans fat. They confirmed that no hydrogenated oil, in fact nothing at all, was added to the beef in the hamburgers. They also told me that some fats found naturally in beef do occur in the "trans" form. There is no evidence that naturally occuring trans fats pose any of the health hazards that manufactured Trans Fats do.

Show me too, lol. I remember reading a thread on here last year sometime, concerning sugar free coolwhip, and all the transfat it contained. I happened to have a container of it in my freezer, went and looked, and it said zero trans fats. I was checking out the peanut butter, and it said real big on the front, zero trans fats, so I started reading the labels on all the others, and none of them had any. Same with the margarines. Even the cheap store brands have zero trans fats.

[rightnow]

The Bill was passed by the Californian legislature on Monday and now awaits Mr Schwarzenegger's signature. It is supported by the California Academy of Family Physicians, the American Heart Association and the American Academy of Paediatrics.

Mr Schwarzenegger, a progressive Republican, has not yet taken a position on the issue.

So if he agrees, he's a traitor to his own beliefs about government not over-interfering in the free market and the freedom of the people.

If he vetoes it, he's allegedly the bad guy supporting corporations that make trans-fats, and all those official medical groups cry foul.

Talk about a no-win situation for the guy.

[ruthla]

I'm torn on this one. One one hand, trans fats aren't "food" IMO and don't belong in food products at all. OTOH, do we REALLY want the gov't to decide what's healthy or not healthy? Is this a slippery slope that's going to lead to the gov't banning saturated fats from things like butter and lard?

On the third hand (yes, I am a 3-handed Martian) is this legislation really going to do anything anyway, if it still allows trans fats to be used 'if it's less than 0.5g per serving"? Does this mean that they can use 10 "servings" of Crisco in one serving of food, and it's OK because it's listed as "less than 0.5g per serving" on the original packaging, or does this mean that they need to keep the trans fats to under 0.5g per "completed, prepared serving"?

I'm really OK with excluding school cafeterias from this particular bill- they can do this in baby steps and deal with school cafeterias with separate legislation.

[capmikee]

OTOH, do we REALLY want the gov't to decide what's healthy or not healthy? Is this a slippery slope that's going to lead to the gov't banning saturated fats from things like butter and lard?
We're already tumbling down that slope! The government already makes hundreds of decisions about what's ok for us to eat: corn subsidies, states banning raw milk, whaling treaties, and court rulings on "intellectual property" laws for genetically-modified plants that pollinate neighboring fields. I don't know the status of this one, but I've heard that the government was considering a bill that makes it illegal to label food "non-irradiated."

I can't imagine taking the government out of the food question - I'd much rather see the government put more restrictions on newfangled industrial foods and remove restrictions on traditional foods.

[ruthla]

Yeah, but there's a difference between the gov't deciding how foods can be labeled and the gov't restricting what ingredients restaurants can use in food that's sold ready-to-eat.

I still don't "get" why raw milk is banned when we can still buy raw eggs, meat, fish, etc, albiet with warning labels to cook thoroughly before consumption. Why not just sell raw milk with a little label on it telling you to cook it?

[capmikee]

The story of pasteurized milk is long and complicated. To put it briefly: In New York City dairies started keeping cows in close confinement and feeding them "slop" - spent grains from the brewing industry. These cows were extremely unhealthy and babies died from drinking their milk. Pasteurization made it possible to sell their milk without immediate health repercussions. It gets more complicated after that, but I think essentially we've never had such large-scale health disasters with eggs, meat and fish.

Sandor Katz says his next book is going to be about food saftey scares. I can't wait!

[rightnow]

But this doesn't apply to PACKAGED foods.

WTF is the point? Aside from a few products, the vast, vast majority of transfat are in packaged foods!

I was at a restaurant the other night and they gave me 'margarine light' in a little container. (Appalling.) So does that mean that if transfats are no longer allowed, that the entire margarine shelf in the grocery store -- and crisco -- vanishes??

I mean, why would it be ok to NOT sell foods with transfats, but still sell pure transfats?