California Bars Restaurant Use of Trans Fats

saltwn · #1 (**permalink**) 07-27-2008, 01:07 AM

Quote:

LOS ANGELES — California, a national trendsetter in all matters edible, became the first state to ban trans fats in restaurants when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill Friday to phase out their use.

But having the requirement imposed on the most populous state’s 88,000 restaurants, as well as its bakeries and other food purveyors, is a major gain for the movement against trans fats.
Under the new law, restaurants, bakeries, delicatessens, cafeterias and other businesses classified as “food facilities” will, in the preparation of any foods, have to discontinue use of oils, margarine and shortening containing trans fats.
Those purveyors will have to keep the labels on their cooking products so that the products can be inspected for trans fat, a process that will become part of the duties of local health inspectors. Violators will face fines beginning at $25 and increasing to as much as $1,000 for subsequent violations.

In many high-end restaurants in this state — where the organic foods movement began and where many a food trend has been born — chefs would no more use trans fats in their cooking than use paper tablecloths in their dining rooms.

Some restaurateurs, however, say the change has been costly, because there are fewer distributors of the alternative oils.
“The only effect it is going to have on the consumer is that we are going to have to raise our prices,” said Tina Pantazis, the manager of Dino’s Burgers, which operates two hamburger outlets — one in Los Angeles, the other in Azusa. Ms. Pantazis said the price of those restaurants’ French fries, which now cost $1.75 an order, would most likely be bumped up to at least $2.75

“I think this is good for the health of the consumer,” Ms. Pantazis said. “On the other hand, people who eat French fries are not concerned with their health that much.”

To many health policy makers, though, trans fats have become almost the enemy that cigarettes became long ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/us...html?th&emc=th

Told ya!
Give them an inch they'll take a mile.
I don't doubt these oils are bad for you, but so is alcohol. Let's see them ban wine in the state of California. How about bread which is made with sugar which has been found to be very bad for your health?

So if you don't have any fresh pig lard laying around how do you make biscuits? the reason I ask is because Crisco is the first trans fat ever invented.
Also you get a certain amount of trans fat naturally by cooking meat.

What if Idaho bans wine made in Nappa Valley cause Cali-fu_king-fornia messes up every body else's life every time they get a curl cross ways.

cnredd · #2 (**permalink**) 07-27-2008, 02:39 AM

I'm surprised no one mentioned the job loss and the outsourcing of the trans fat industry...

Mikeyy · #3 (**permalink**) 07-27-2008, 09:32 AM

We outlaw poison here too. It a good idea considering the cost of treating the sick people. And you can't smoke in restaurants either. Oh the burden. Poor us.

saltwn · #4 (**permalink**) 07-27-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

We outlaw poison here too. It a good idea considering the cost of treating the sick people. And you can't smoke in restaurants either. Oh the burden. Poor us.

If it was just you guys, I would be O.K. with you doing whatever you want over there. But you do realize California eventually exports all these ideas to other states. Not because it's necessarily a great idea, but because of the economics plus a lot of California people eventually get fed up with the rat race and move and then want the state they move to to be like Cali.
If 88,000 restaurants are asking for another kind of lard, then lard makers are going to go where the money is. Thing is it's not everybody's dream to dictate personal eating and smoking habits - it's a few really annal retentive types who happen to have an inside track to law making. You talk to the average Joe from California he could care less about these issues.
Fine.
You want your state that way. But keep it to yourself and if you ever do move to a more normal state, try to blend.

Mikeyy · #5 (**permalink**) 07-27-2008, 05:10 PM

I do blend. I don't eat at McDonalds. But I eat pounds of butter at home.

I get plenty of smoke in my lungs without putting the burden on people trying to eat. I am happy that health inspectors tell people what they can and can't cook. I hope your OK with that part of telling folks what to do.

saltwn · #6 (**permalink**) 07-27-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

I do blend. I don't eat at McDonalds. But I eat pounds of butter at home.

I get plenty of smoke in my lungs without putting the burden on people trying to eat. I am happy that health inspectors tell people what they can and can't cook. I hope your OK with that part of telling folks what to do.

I'm not (of course

).
A person who wants to allow smoking in his restaurant or bar should have that right and allow the market to dictate if he opens a non smoking one or not.
I don't eat at McDonald's because the quality of their food has never been that good. Once in awhile I try a fast food place to see how their burgers are. I'm almost always disappointed.
I am not happy with health inspectors at all. They should concentrate more on cleanliness and hair getting in food, but they don't. Also old or practically rotten stuff is passed off everyday in buffets and on sandwiches, because (I think) people have gotten used to non fresh stuff.
But as I indicated, Crisco was invented so lard would not spoil. You have to have lard -not oil or butter- to prepare certain foods. Gravy is one. Biscuits are another. If you don't want to eat those foods you don't have to, but I really can't see the fairness in not allowing folks who like biscuits and gravy to have the real deal instead of some powdered substitute which I'm sure someone will invent.
How is this better for us all?
Do you know they are putting a chemical in cigarette papers now for a slower burn and to make the cigarette go out if you don't constantly puff on it. In a few years I'm sure some study will find that chemical isn't all that handy to be putting in the lungs either.
See when we dictate what others do we need to be very careful. Just a few miles away someone may not see your point at all that "Can't we all agree that this is bad for us so let's outlaw it"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos, tristanrobin