Musings on the recent ban on transfats in New York eateries.
Yep. Really.
Trans fats are chemically-modified food ingredients, long used as substitutes for saturated fats (which are found in foods like whole milk, butter, cream, and the like.) Trans fats have a longer shelf life than saturated fats. Trans fats have also, like saturated fats, been squarely linked to heart disease. [For the curious, trans fats are also known by the term “partially hydrogenated vegetable oils” — so be aware of what you’re eating.]
I love me some good baked things, with real butter and whole milk. I love a good pasta with creamy cheese sauce. Cheese sauce is officially a condiment, at least in my kitchen. I love rich desserts, too: Waldorf-Astoria cake (aka red cake, aka red velvet cake) with creamy white icing; cheesecake; chocolate cremes and caramels. (And snickerdoodles. And the recently-discovered eggnog snickerdoodles.) These things do not a healthy diet make. But I *know* this. I don’t eat these things every day; and I don’t eat them to excess. [Well…occasionally. Usually during the winter holidays.] But you know what? It’s my choice to eat these things. I didn’t like it when well-meaning relatives tried to dictate what, and how much, I would eat when I was a small child. My advanced age has not made me any more fond of having my menu determined for me.
I agree with the second part of the law, which requires restaurants (particularly fast-food restaurants) to prominently post caloric values for the foods they serve. McDonald’s whole “healthy choices” chicken sandwiches campaign is an exercise in misdirection. Those chicken sandwiches can have as many, if not more, calories than the fast-food giant’s burgers (yes, Virginia, even the grilled chicken sandwiches.) If consumers knew how many calories they were consuming with each meal, they might be a little less inclined to get the fast foods as frequently, or in the large quantities many now purchase. But…how does a government body, at any level, come to the conclusion that its job includes policing its citizen’s food choices?
I believe that New York, along with many US cities, has banned smoking in public places. I can see the logic in this because of the effects of secondhand smoke on others, even on those who have never smoked. But…trans fats in foods…unless trans fats make someone extremely and instantly gassy, the secondhand effects are a bit less direct. One argument made is that since trans fats significantly increase the possibility of, and severity of, heart disease, having a large percentage of the population on a diet that runs down their heart health means that as these people fall ill and require care (including angioplasty, artificial hearts, and other similar measures) consumers pay the cost in increased costs for health services. It’s a very chaos-math argument: a man in the boroughs eats a Triple Bypass Burger with Poutine Fries and Lil’ Jimmy’s parents can’t buy him new school clothes that year because they have to pay their increased health insurance rates. Not only is that argument a bit shaky — there are several methods that should be used to lower the cost of acquiring, and of providing, health services — but the other question is, just how far will this be taken? At what poing does the state stop carrying and tell the individual, Okay, from now on you need to walk for yourself? And the individual takes responsibility for their actions?
Just how far might this food-regulation go?
Keywords: | laws | health | consumer rights | alternate history |
Posted by Laughing Muse • 662 views • Share this link • Newer • Older
Click here to join