Banning Trans Fats in California - 2
Yesterday I started discussing some of the flaws with laws regarding the banning of trans fats in California restaurants. Today I am adding a few more comments about the new law.
The new California proposed bill defines limiting trans fat "containing 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving", which is already in effect with packaged foods. My comments: 1.This is NOT eliminating the trans fats! People still tend to get a few servings of trans fat without even knowing it. There can be a half a gram in EACH serving and most people have several servings. And yet the government and health officials state that no amount of trans fat is healthy to consume.
2. Kevin Westlye of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, states that "California restaurants hardly use any trans fats." Maybe the better restaurants don’t use them as much but I wouldn't count on the fast food restaurants not using them. Also 47% of the population eats out regularly. When people go out that much they are not going to those finer restaurants, especially now with our economy being in a slump.
3. Still another issue has to do with enforcement of of the trans fats law. The fines are too low - $25 to $1000. That's not high enough to stop most restaurants. As the Chronicle listed, there is no funding for implementation and enforcement. Lastly how can you even verify what kinds of oils/fats are used in all the thousands of foods exist on a menu?
So California, we have more work to do! Any suggestions readers?
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Refreshingly Low-Cal and Low-Carb | | Diet & Weight Loss Blog | | Health Scare: Top 10 Signs Employees Are Stressed Out! |
Posted by: james | Jul 21, 2008 4:24:40 AM
I agree. Tran’s adipose tissue should be a nixed additive. They ceased adding deoxyephedrine to bread. They try not to use liquid in dentifrice.
_____________________________
james
http://www.addictionrecovery.net/north-dakota
Posted by: Wilson | Jul 20, 2008 8:52:09 PM
I agree. Trans fats should be a prohibited additive. They stopped adding chalk to bread. They try not to use antifreeze in toothpaste.
The problem is that the government does as little as possible to protect consumers. Supposedly done to respect individual freedom, it's really done to maximize corporate profits. While they're anti-regulating, they might as well let companies add strychnine for that great almond flavor. I'm sure once the price of almonds go up they will. But just a little.
Posted by: mark | Jul 20, 2008 7:49:26 PM
There seem to be just two views on this matter. One group, consisting of anti-regulation folks and front groups for the food industry will vigorously say the government has no place interfering with private businesses and that it will just be a waste of money. The other, consisting of pro-consumer groups and health authorities will say it doesn't go nearly far enough and that if an artificial ingredient is clearly toxic to the human body, it has no place being used in food.
This law seems like more of the "compromise is the answer to everything" approach that lawmakers take to try to please everyone, but that end up being ineffective and wasteful and in the end please no one. We're in the middle of a public health crisis. They should just get rid of trans fats already. Or else just admit they've sold out and have no intention of doing their jobs. But quit fooling around, afterall they aren't fooling anybody.
