digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at news.bbc.co.uk

Trans-fats banned in California

news.bbc.co.uk — California has become the first US state to ban restaurants and food retailers from using trans-fats, which are linked to coronary heart disease.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 27, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

547 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • humanerror, on 07/26/2008, -31/+240People aren't banned from eating trans fats (or paint chips or thumb tacks) in their own homes if they want to.

    Restaurants are being banned from putting that ***** in the food they serve, as they should. It's not suitable for human consumption.
  • Jeremyz0r, on 07/26/2008, -41/+200http://msp226.photobucket.com/albums/dd223/cameron ...

    No.
  • bobsbones, on 07/27/2008, -6/+149Still no ban on fat trannies though.
  • gogog0, on 07/27/2008, -20/+99california ahead of the pack as usual
  • inactive, on 07/27/2008, -16/+68Seriously, I'm a libertarian, but you guys even freak me out sometimes. This ***** is poison. It's not a personal choice like getting high on nicotine. It's not the government telling you not to get high. It's not a personal choice issue. It's a (bunch of corporate guys poisoning you) issue and not caring enough about you to not poison you.
  • AmyVernon, on 07/26/2008, -2/+51omg those photos were about the most disturbing thing i've ever seen....
  • Idgit, on 07/27/2008, -2/+50There was an innocent time in my life when I would have said the same thing. Then the Internet showed me Goatse, Tubgirl, Lemon Party, and 2Girls1Cup. I now have been desensitized for life. Or until the next really gross internet meme.
  • cadmiumpaint, on 07/27/2008, -16/+60All of the crazy libertarians on here need to chill out.

    The state sees a significant threat to public health, and they make laws to protect its people. I see this as being similar to an MSG kind of issue.

    The fact of the matter is, that
    1. we'll probably never taste a difference in our food but trans fats are horrible ingredients that can harm people. Obesity is a legitimate health threat and the state has done is part to help its people combat it.
    2. most people have not educated themselves enough to understand the problems with trans fats and are not able to make the choice.
    3. why is it wrong for the state to force restaurants away from unhealthy ingredients? thats what a health department is for.

    i think its a public service and as a California resident I applaud the decision.
  • Murrabbit, on 07/27/2008, -7/+51I'm usually against banning things we can put in our bodies (I'm for complete legalization of marijuana and de-criminalization of other drugs) but at the same time I still support what California has just done here.

    Banning Trans-fats in Restaurants is akin to banning a restaurant from stuffing your porkchop with sawdust. . . er like poison sawdust. It does nothing for the flavor, it's just a cheap and very harmful additive. More power too 'em I say - keep lead off my kid's toys and trans-fats out of my food, there's no downside to this measure what so ever.
  • TheMachine1, on 07/27/2008, -5/+46Saturate fat is a 100% backward compatible substitute for trans fat. The difference in cost is trivial. While saturate fat is not ideal either at least it does not lower good cholesterol (HDL) like trans-fat. People complaining about civil rights violation are missing the point.

    This is not the equivalence of the government banning milk its the equivalent of banning milk that is preserved with formaldehyde(a past preservative for various foods). People are getting no functional benefit form trans-fat other than trivial cost savings.
  • geoboy, on 07/27/2008, -4/+45Exactly. Trans fat is more akin to a poison than a guilty pleasure. Skipping trans fats isn't some kind of diet craze like skipping carbohydrates is. Trans fat is scientifically proven to be harmful to the body and has absolutely no nutritional benefit whatsoever.
  • longtext, on 07/27/2008, -0/+39YOU CAN PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS
  • sockpuppets, on 07/27/2008, -5/+39I could go for a paint chip and thumb tack salad right about now.
  • inactive, on 07/26/2008, -54/+86Oh boy the "Ron Paul" right-wing niche on digg really is showing its true colors.

    On one hand, overturn RoeVWade because the issue of Abortion is a "states right" (even if states want to ban it)
    On the other, states shouldn't be able to tell people they can't eat trans-fat (they can't tell us what to do with our bodies!)

    Sorry, you can't have it both ways, guys.
  • redcolumbine, on 07/26/2008, -12/+44Maybe they don't want to pay for your bypasses/stents/wheelchair/oxygen/home care attendant/drugs/hospitalization. But they will, once medbiz sucks your family dry. I figure they have good reason to want to postpone it, though.
  • AngelBunny, on 07/27/2008, -6/+35unfortunately, no. I don't recall the last time I went into a restaurant and knew I was eating trans-fats.

    The problem is people don't know when they are or are not eating them. Also, some people are to poor to be able to pay double the price for the same thing that has alternative ingredients in it.

    I think the only way not to ban the stuff would be to add a law that says they have to make an alt non trans fat version at no extra price and they are not allowed to sell he trans fat version without this alt non trans fat version available.
  • dannyboy3020, on 07/27/2008, -4/+33Would anyone chose foods with trans-fats than those without if they had a choice?
  • sublingo, on 07/27/2008, -12/+38Yes that is correct. You can't smoke in privately owned restaurants, you have health codes privately owned restaurants have to pass, and privately owned restaurants aren't allowed to serve you something that is known to be toxic.
  • insomniac8400, on 07/27/2008, -1/+26Anyone find it odd we are getting news about California from a UK source?
  • paulmer2003, on 07/27/2008, -5/+28As a libertarian, meh @ that. However...

    As a foodie, ***** packaged food and such. So.. Good :D
  • Ch0chi, on 07/26/2008, -12/+33What do you expect? Arnold's a bodybuilder!

    I think it's a great idea!
  • btschul, on 07/26/2008, -29/+50What the hell does this have to do with Ron Paul? Did you run out of Ron Paul related articles to troll, so now you are going around to completely unrelated articles and bashing RP and his supporters?
  • persecutor, on 07/27/2008, -6/+28You do realize that burgers and french fries CAN be made without trans-fat....right? They want to ban trans-fat because it does more damage than good old-fashioned fat.
  • pintomp3, on 07/27/2008, -5/+27wouldn't mandating the labels be "nanny-ing" too?
  • Animal, on 07/27/2008, -13/+33John Sparton:"Do you have the salt?"
    Lenina Huxley:"Salt is not good for you, hence, it is illegal"
  • im2emo4myshrt, on 07/27/2008, -8/+27Saying we shouldn't ban trans fats in food is like saying we shouldn't ban rat poison in food. It is completely unnecessary and very easy to get rid of. It is not a question of eating what you like, it is simply poison in your food. I mean I guess as long as it is clearly labeled then the person has that choice. But, if you are going to a restaurant, unless it says it on the menu, how is someone supposed to know?
  • ryan83189, on 07/27/2008, -0/+16Maybe they can force companies to stop advertising their product as "0 grams of trans fat per serving" when in reality they can have up to .49 grams of trans fat in a serving, and round down.
  • bugerking3, on 07/27/2008, -5/+21I dugg you up.

    Other things that the government says not to do is to not to drive while intoxicated, to always have your seat belt on, and to wear a helmet if driving a motorcycle.. Nazis might say "WAAAMBULANCE, government restricting my freedom to move freely in my vehicle", but whatev.

    Some things just have absolutely no upside, and every downside.
  • Enigmocracy, on 07/27/2008, -1/+16Thank you California, for saving lives and being nearly as progressive as Europe unlike most of the US.

    If you think this is a bad thing, you are flat-out stupid. I usually don't make generalizations like this, but this is one of the most 100% positive laws ever to be passed. What do we lose? Nothing. What do we gain? A longer life-span, fewer triple bypass surgeries coming out of your pocket and an overall healthier people.

    People against this are like people against a seat-belt law.
  • cadmiumpaint, on 07/27/2008, -6/+19How dare the state protect its people!

    how dare they ban lead from house paint!
    how dare they ban aesbesthos!
    how dare they ban trans fats!
    how dare the government care about the health of its people!

    people on here need to think. you see the word 'ban' they freak out and get all "OMG LIBERTY IS DEAD!!!!!!MY FREEDOMS ARE UNDER ATTACK!!!" chill out. I'm proud that my state government is doing something that will help its people get healthier.

    Now if the other 49 states can follow Caliornia's lead we'll have a healthier nation.


  • NoDisk, on 07/27/2008, -7/+21@jf518

    /Sigh

    [rant]

    The Constitution? Really? Really!?

    I am so ***** sick of people dragging “The Constitution” into a discussion as a means of suggesting that our highest laws give them permission to do whatever they want because “you know, freedom and stuff. Guns! LIBERTY!”

    *****.

    Trans-fats are chemically altered fats that have a higher melting point and a reduced rate of spoilage. This makes them beneficial to food manufacturers because they can cook at higher temperatures, and beneficial for retailers because foods made with trans-fat can be kept on shelves longer.

    That’s it, that’s all, that’s what it is.

    This law won’t hurt you unless you’re a ***** snack-cake factory or a 7-11.

    (And no claptrap about it raising prices. It won’t -- because this is a long time in coming and food manufacturers aren’t stupid -- but even if it did, the health benefit will lower medical expenses, resulting in *lower* net expenses.)

    So let’s ask the constitution. It says “Go ahead, kid, blow your brains out.” Right? Right!?

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    The formation of a more perfect Union, domestic tranquility, the common defense, and general welfare are all promoted by the removal of this (literally) tasteless poison from the marketplace.

    Justice is unrelated to either side, except in the proper execution of the law. Arguably, if you want to play the “Freedom says I can stab myself if I wanna” card, you could say that your “Blessings of Liberty” are being impeded by the new law. But you’ll notice the whole line says, “Blessings of Liberty to ourselves *and our Posterity.*” Posterity basically means our kids. The extended life and improved health of parents is very much in the interest of children, and will provide them with far more opportunities to garner the Blessings of Liberty than sick, obese, or dead parents.

    That means the constitution *supports* the new law, in fact DEMANDS it, and not your idiotic idea that pouring a toxic substance into foods at NO BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER is some kind of personal choice that the constitution protects.

    If you’re going to use the constitution to defend your asinine ideas about freedom, at least do us benefit of looking the ***** up first.

    [/rant]
  • OSXpert, on 07/27/2008, -6/+19If you really want trans fats that bad, I'm sure its still legal to make your own food with trans fat in it. You just won't get it at restaurants.
  • merm, on 07/27/2008, -10/+23THEY ARE NOT SUSPENDING YOUR RIGHTS TO EAT TRANS FATS. They are making it so that you can't SELL trans fats to people can label it as food. IT IS NOT FOOD. Trans fats have absolutely no nutritional value, and it's been proven that it harms you.

    Regulating trade is DIFFERENT than infringing on individual liberty. Regulating trade is perfectly legal, and is provided for in the constitution. This is not an invasion on your individual liberty. Go ahead - eat *****, just don't label it as food and try to sell it to the public.
  • inactive, on 07/27/2008, -24/+37Banning the sale of trans-fats is okay?

    Must the government save us from EVERYTHING bad? Can no one make these choices themselves?

    It's the same thing with drugs, "oh well, we have to ban the sale of drugs because they're bad for you" then it's "oh well, we have to ban the USE of drugs, because they're bad for you". This goes beyond what is "good for you". It's a matter of being free to choose to buy things, and use things, and sell things.
  • Bkaufman, on 07/27/2008, -10/+23And what is the difference between this and cigarettes?
  • pintomp3, on 07/27/2008, -7/+19you can still use all the trans-fat, mercury, and lead in your food at home if you want.
  • jfreeman, on 07/27/2008, -12/+24You're so uninformed. The worst part is that your argument passes for "debate" in this country.
    1. There's a distinction between the federal government and states. The federal government can't tell people what to do with their bodies.
    2. "States' rights" means they have the right to choose how to settle the matter, that the federal government cannot decide the issue for any state.
    3. That abortion is a woman's choice to "do with her body as she wants" is a ridiculous argument. What about the baby's body? His or her life? That's the real argument: does the baby have any rights?

    It's not having it both ways. It's having freedom in all ways. The difference in abortion is that some feel the baby has rights as well.
  • qXdc, on 07/27/2008, -19/+31"as they should" - Sorry but some of us value freedom, even the freedom to be stupid.
  • neonoodle, on 07/27/2008, -2/+15you probably don't ever go out to eat at restaurants or shop at grocery stores because you want to be completely informed of what you're eating. You probably grow all of your own fruits and vegetables and have a chicken farm so you can have eggs and poultry... But, if you don't then you should shut the hell up. It's impossible to know what is being put into the food at restaurants or what happens to it in manufacturing before it gets to the supermarkets as consumers. That's why we have organizations such as the FDA to protect our food so it's safe for consumption. There's nothing wrong with updating the list of dangerous foods as more information about them comes to light.
  • TheMachine1, on 07/27/2008, -4/+15Very few substances in low amounts 1-3% energy intake have the dual action of both lowering good cholesterol and raising bad cholesterol. Trans-Fatty acids have been grandfather in but would never have been approved for human consumption in modern times.
  • wattersm, on 07/27/2008, -1/+12You will die without salt.
  • zaii7, on 07/27/2008, -0/+11The goggles! They do nothing!
  • ScottMitchell, on 07/27/2008, -11/+21I'm all for letting Californians eat whatever ***** they want so long as they can never receive state disability insurance for food-related health issues or Medi-Cal benefits for any food-related problems.
  • sonnybobiche, on 07/27/2008, -3/+13I wonder whether California will also be the first state in the union to criminalize tanning. I hear that's pretty bad for your skin.
  • juicebag, on 07/27/2008, -1/+11Fatty fetishists have gotta get their pics somewhere.
  • LogicalWisdom, on 07/27/2008, -2/+12I'm a libertarian, and I completely agree with the government outlawing the use of trans-fats. This isn't about personal choice, this is about restaurants using the cheapest substitute they can for the "good" stuff. Trans-fats are like a poison, the state of california isn't outlawing fried food, or any food for that matter. All of these can still be made, and in fact are even tastier when you use the healthier alternative. I seriously hope they outlaw corn syrup next, sugar (sugar cane) tastes much better anyway...
  • ookees, on 07/27/2008, -5/+15NYC did it already.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 562 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.