California Is Now Banning Trans Fat

Decorating By sweetness_221 Updated 7 Aug 2008 , 11:12pm by BCJean

sweetness_221 Posted 25 Jul 2008 , 10:54pm
post #1 of 58

Did any of you see this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_re_us/california_trans_fats

Wonder what states are going to be next?

57 replies
fondantgrl Posted 25 Jul 2008 , 11:07pm
post #2 of 58

I live here in Sacramento , CA....

I think this is rediculous.. But I'm not in the food business. As a consumer, I think it's stupid. thumbsdown.gif

varika Posted 25 Jul 2008 , 11:14pm
post #3 of 58

The biggest cause of coronary disease is having a heart.

Truth.

aswartzw Posted 25 Jul 2008 , 11:33pm
post #4 of 58

I agree. It's wrong that the government thinks it's their job to govern what people can eat. They would rather pass insignificant laws than actually work on poverty issues and people not having enough money to live on.

My opinion, I would rather eat trans-fats than die from not having enough money to live on.

kimsmom Posted 26 Jul 2008 , 1:03am
post #5 of 58

It figures!! First the dragees, now this.

Juds2323 Posted 26 Jul 2008 , 5:46am
post #6 of 58

I have to agree that I think the government is overstepping. I can see legislation requiring disclosure of use of transfats and education of the public on the dangers, but ultimately it should be my choice. If I feel ok with it then that my prerogative. I think it's insulting that we are starting to be treated like people who have no mind or will of their own.

JMO

Judi

KoryAK Posted 26 Jul 2008 , 11:11am
post #7 of 58

hahahaha oh my ... you GUYS... can't they just tax the stuff instead? oh and pot while they're at it. LOTS of problems solved. ME FOR PRESIDENT.

woodthi32 Posted 26 Jul 2008 , 11:45am
post #8 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by aswartzw

I agree. It's wrong that the government thinks it's their job to govern what people can eat. They would rather pass insignificant laws than actually work on poverty issues and people not having enough money to live on.

My opinion, I would rather eat trans-fats than die from not having enough money to live on.




I don't think the two are at all mutually exclusive. Unfortunately there is a relationship between poverty and obesity in this country, and we have hardly done anything about either. This law puts something on paper, and likely costs taxpayers nothing. Restaurants were already doing it, and don't seem upset at all. This just makes it official.

amoos Posted 26 Jul 2008 , 11:51am
post #9 of 58

Maybe instead of telling someone they can't have something, we should be teaching our children responsibility and tolerance......isn't the first thing a kid does after hearing "You can't have that" is to figure out a way to get it? I think it would be better to teach control of one's self than to just say, nope sorry....can't have it anymore!

leah_s Posted 26 Jul 2008 , 11:54am
post #10 of 58

Restaurants can make a change to trans fat free (tff) oils pretty easily. Companies have been reformulating frying oils for a couple of years now, and have come up with TFF oils that perform quite well. Not so for the baking world. There are a couple of TFF solid fats available to us, but only at the wholesale level. Those of you who can not purchase 50# blocks of fat and going to be looking at your icing sliding off your cake, because the new Crisco is simply inferior for icing. If you're using IMBC/SMBC that is butter intense, then your customers have simply substituted cholesterol for trans fat. And those icings have other drawbacks as well.

Mike1394 Posted 26 Jul 2008 , 12:02pm
post #11 of 58

Does anyone know what that the extra hydrogen actually does to your colon? It's not the heart that Hydrogenated oil effects it's the colon. Hydrogented fats are a big contributer to colon cancer, diverticulosus. How many double up on fiber to flush that stuff through after you have eaten it?

Mike

loriana Posted 27 Jul 2008 , 12:28am
post #12 of 58

OK I have a stupid stipid question..... icon_redface.gif I moved to TN from California about 5 years ago and havent kept up with this new regulation.

Those of you who have legal bakeries will have to not use hi-ratio shortenings then? Is this correct?

Those who do not own bakeries and bake at home can still use them, correct?

Again, sorry for the ignorance. Tennessee is FAR from doing anything remotely about our obesity and poverty situation. Did you know Tennessee is 59% overweight? We have one of the highest poverty levels in the country. Take a look at Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas and Kentucky.

bostonterrierlady Posted 27 Jul 2008 , 1:07am
post #13 of 58

I am curious too. What do you all plan to do? I know it has to be a complete phase out by a certain date.

lionladydi Posted 27 Jul 2008 , 3:53am
post #14 of 58

I have never operated as a business and only did cakes for friends once in a while. I had great aspirations of going into business and then realized that I just did not have the patience. Also I have COPD and never know when it will be acting up so I didn't dare commit to doing anything as important as wedding cakes. I did a birthday cake occasionally for one of my girlfriends or for my grandkids. When they took the trans fats out of the Crisco, I made my decision to give it up. I have sold almost all of my pans and Wilton books. My daughter took classes and was doing a few but she hasn't done any in a long time. I saved some of my pans for her but I don't plan on doing any more because of this.

I did make myself a chocolate cake/chocolate buttercream for my birthday last month. icon_lol.gif When my grandson asked who the cake was for I told him it was Grandma's birthday cake. The look on my daughter's face was priceless.

I still don't approve the government telling me what I can eat and what I cannot eat anymore than I want them telling me what to do with my body.

Diane

MeMo07 Posted 27 Jul 2008 , 4:10am
post #15 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by varika

The biggest cause of coronary disease is having a heart.

Truth.





LOL.

I'm sorry, it's not a funny subject, but that gave me a giggle.

dandelion56602 Posted 27 Jul 2008 , 4:52am
post #16 of 58

Well, I'm a grown up & should be allowed to make a decision on what I do & don't eat. I too live in TN & the state may be overweight, but hello it's a person's choice not a companies choice. It's my body I should be able to put in it what I want (& no I'm not obese, I make decisions to not be) People long ago cooked in straight lard (my great grandmother's all did) but they worked their farms, cleaned their houses, made their own furniture, etc. So even if it's "bad for your heart" they were far from obese. We just have a lazy society. And this guy "Trans fats are like cigarettes, with no safe level of consumption", said Jeffrey Luther. How could you even compare a fat to a cigarette?

Off that soapbox, I don't think people who make these laws & the companies who make the products realize how much it DOES affect the products made w/ the crap!

leah_s Posted 27 Jul 2008 , 6:31am
post #17 of 58

There are products on the market now that are TTF and are pretty good for baking and for icings. Alpine Z is one, but I haven't tried it. I use Alpine C which has transfats. I did try a TTF from Bunge that was fine, but hella $$. The TTF house brand for baking from Dawn sucks big time. It's jsut that these products only come in 50# cubes, so they are not practical for the home baker.

jess85 Posted 27 Jul 2008 , 7:03am
post #18 of 58

wouldyou all object so strongly if they were banning a poisonous substance being used or it caused birth defects or similar? I think not, cancer is just as serious. The world at large has a much larger concrn with obesity than with sliding/melting icings

loriana Posted 27 Jul 2008 , 3:03pm
post #19 of 58

I sort of agree with jess on this. First off, forgetting the drama of not having a bakery without trans-fats or not making enough money to live on, I think thats pretty dramatic.

We've gotten along fine without other things the government stepped in and banned at some point:

-Insulation without asbestos was developed. We lived.
-Mercury-based immunizations were taken off the market in the 80's. Now shots have safe levels of mercury.
-Lead-free paint was developed.
-parents and dentists would routinely give morphine to children to calm them. It was even in candy in the 1800's for children. This was found harmful and stopped when we better understood codeines and morphines.
-MSG now has warning signs when we understood it triggered migraines and other health problems in foods.


If you look at it empiracally, just the data, trans-fats are one of those things that was researched and found to have no health benefit (like raising good cholesterol) and is artery-clogging. The government simply said, "no benefits, only health threats from this stuff. And with a growing obesity problem touching every corner of the U.S, and practically every chicken wing is being fried in this stuff, maybe we should ban it." they just looked at it as one of those, 'it would be stupid not to do something since we have such a problem with obesity right now.'

Mark my words, the cigarette companies will lose their incredible hold on the government and economy at some point in the next 10 years. When that finally happens, cigarettes will be the next thing banned. Again, no benefits, only costs in terms of health care. The government looks at things in this way: what can I do now without a lot of fuss or money to change something unhealthy for our people?

With the cigarette industry's stronghold on government, politics, economy this has been a hard one to change. My husband smokes and I think it's disgusting and I forbid him to do it in the house or around our 16-month-old.

Just yesterday he was getting over his last bout of stomach flu or virus, whatever it is. For the last month or so he has had headaches, backaches, can't sleep, has no energy. He says, "I'm tired of being sick". I said, "stop smoking. It is lowering your immune system and that's why you are sick 3 times as much as me." His mom has smoked for 30 years and is also constantly sick. Makes *me* sick thinking about it.

I'm not a health nut, I agree people should make their own choices without the govenment stepping in, in terms of food, but America has a track history of making terrible choices in the last 20 years. We chose to stop excercising, chose to raise our kids in a sedentary lifestyle, chose to keep eating cheap crap from fast food restaurants, chose to honor low prices for Tyson chicken over praising those who are raising meat humanely and without antibiotics and chose to induldge in things that raise diabetes type-2 in kids now, etc... Im just saying, the goverment feels they have to help us to make good choices we arent making on our own. I didn't say I agreed with them interfering in our food, but I think that's where they are coming from. We've always adapted and now we will have to adapt some more. TTF shortenings will keep getting better and better and we will make do.

amoos Posted 27 Jul 2008 , 6:37pm
post #20 of 58

I haven't had a problem with the new crisco at all, but the principle of it really annoys me.

As a pretty hardcore conservative, it's hard for me to say.....but I think the govt really needs to lighten up a bit and let ppl make their own choices. Why should I be told what I can and cannot eat just because someone else out there can't seem to put the spoon down and gains 200lbs??

I don't think it's really fair to lump Trans-Fats in with immunizations & medications, etc. I think it's more comparable to msg....which is still served in many places by the way, it's just labeled now. Wouldn't that be a much easier solution??? To just have to say "now made w/ trans-fat crisco, etc." instead of BANNING it? Seriously!

On another note, I despise smoking but why is it right for me to tell someone else what they can or cannot to do their own body? I don't think cigs ever be banned b/c anyone can easily grow tabacco on their own.

dandelion56602 Posted 27 Jul 2008 , 9:51pm
post #21 of 58

But when I was younger it was BAAAD to eat eggs b/c they had cholesterol & it was many years later that they tell us they're good for us. Same w/ sitting too close to the TV & cooking foods in the microwave, etc. The reason I don't agree w/ the quote that compared TT w/ smoking is b/c smoking affects others, not just the one doing it (& plenty of people in my family use various forms of tobacco). My thing is when does the govt stop interferring? Will they tell a farmer you can no longer grow tobacco, or heaven forbid they find something wrong w/ some thing else that's grown & tell people, sorry I know this is how you make a living, but you're tough out of luck? And when they did the study did they give the test subject massive quantities? (The reason I say this is b/c this happened w/ my dh's business & they banned the product in Europe & are having to submit new data---just like w/ Aspartame, give it in 1000x's what a mouse can handle & yeah it'll get cancer---but when it's not consumed in such ways as the testing it is very misleading).

dailey Posted 28 Jul 2008 , 1:19am
post #22 of 58

well trans fats should have *never* been introduced into our food from the very *beginning*. its about time they are banning that stuff...

loriana Posted 28 Jul 2008 , 2:11am
post #23 of 58

I see what you guys are saying about cigarettes affecting more than one person and this is true. My whole point is, I generally don't agree with goverments stepping in and telling us what to or not to put into our mouths BUT.... this day and age, we have people who are making horrible decisions and we are ALL suffering the consequences, so yes, in a way, your diabetes and obesity affects others in terms of costs of health care.

I live in a place where many people feel they have no choice except to eat fast food. People in lower-income places it has been *proven* are the largest consumers of potato chips and fast food in general. Until people start taking action for their own well-being, I guess I understand these laws. 10 years ago I would have fought tooth and nail to not have someone have the audacity to dictate to *me?* what to eat. Now, I see the other side of it. The depression, the free health clinics full of obese children with 18 year old moms and people using their food stamp cards for Frito-Lays and Little Debbie snacks. I just see the other side of it..... tapedshut.gif

cakebabe Posted 28 Jul 2008 , 2:53am
post #24 of 58

Should we ban cars because they are involved in thousands of deaths each year?

This is where this line of thought is going....Be Careful! icon_smile.gif

sweetness_221 Posted 28 Jul 2008 , 4:06am
post #25 of 58

I do agree that trans fat is not good for you, but I would like the choice to be able to have things with or without it. Cigarettes and alcohol are bad for you but they are still legal. My whole point for starting this thread wasn't to get in a debate whether or not trans fat is good for you. We all know it's bad for you. The main reason was because we've had so much trouble with the trans fat free shortening in frosting recipes. I think there needs to be some exceptions. When frying with it, yes it can be trans fat free, but for frosting or pie crust, something along those lines, it should be the bakeries choice if they want to use the trans fat free stuff or not. Just my humble opinion. icon_smile.gif

fondantgrl Posted 28 Jul 2008 , 4:52am
post #26 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by dailey

well trans fats should have *never* been introduced into our food from the very *beginning*. its about time they are banning that stuff...




And that my friend is coming from the "Land Of The Free" and "Home Of The Brave"... but when it comes to fat, it's Martial Law. icon_razz.gif

Did you know that we become immortal if we get rid of Trans Fat ? WOW !!
I wonder if the Mexican Gov't will ever ban Trans Fat in Mexico ? WOW, non fat Burritos, Tacos, Enciladas, Carnitas, Quesadillas, Tres Leches, Pork Tamales and so forth and so on... YUM!! icon_cool.gificon_lol.gif

dandelion56602 Posted 28 Jul 2008 , 4:52am
post #27 of 58

I agree sweetness221. IMO, if you are on govt assistance they should be able to dictate what you can & can't buy, but that's another subject as well. I guess my beef is where does the line get drawn? Will it eventually get to where our govt tells us everything we can & can't do?

snowshoe1 Posted 28 Jul 2008 , 12:56pm
post #28 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by dailey

well trans fats should have *never* been introduced into our food from the very *beginning*. its about time they are banning that stuff...




Amen!

I like how NYC implemented the trans fat ban for restaurants (gave bakers an extension). You can still purchase trans fat products at the grocery if you want to feed to it to the family. Interesting thing is if someone said a certain type of oil would clog up your car, most people would not use it. Why do so many of us take better care of our cars than our bodies? I know too many people who skip routine, preventive health-care checkups but take their car to the shop every 3000 miles.

BCJean Posted 28 Jul 2008 , 1:20pm
post #29 of 58

I think some of you need to read up on exactly what trans fats are. I agree, this should never been allowed to be used for human consumption. This is not just something which makes you gain weight so we should have a choice on it. This is something which was made by man and our bodies were not made to take care of it. There are still lots of fats out there which can be consumed by those who want fats.
They will come up with something which will work fine for cake icing.
I live in California and I am pleased that when I purchase something it will not have trans fat added to it.

aswartzw Posted 28 Jul 2008 , 1:40pm
post #30 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodthi32

Quote:
Originally Posted by aswartzw

I agree. It's wrong that the government thinks it's their job to govern what people can eat. They would rather pass insignificant laws than actually work on poverty issues and people not having enough money to live on.

My opinion, I would rather eat trans-fats than die from not having enough money to live on.



I don't think the two are at all mutually exclusive. Unfortunately there is a relationship between poverty and obesity in this country, and we have hardly done anything about either. This law puts something on paper, and likely costs taxpayers nothing. Restaurants were already doing it, and don't seem upset at all. This just makes it official.




What I mean by this statement is the government would rather spend their time passing legislation that (in the end) won't kill us anymore than overeating, eating sugar we don't need, etc. than focus on real issues that are leavign people homeless because they can't pay their bills. In the end, I'd rather eat trans-fats than be homeless.

Mike, trans-fats hurt the body no more than MSG foods (taco seasonings and a majority of the boxed meals contain this), carcinogens found in toothpaste, deodorant, etc. and the excessive chlorine, fluorine, pesticides, etc. found in our water.

My point.... Why focus on only one thing that Americans are exposed to on a daily basis that is killing us? I can choose to not eat trans-fats (inside and outside my house). I cannot choose to live a life not exposed to water laden with chemicals (even if I do spend $3000 on a reverse-osmosis system for my home I am exposed outside of the home via drinking from the tap, pop made with tap water, and washing my hands).

Hi-ratio is not trans-fat free. If you are a baker in CA you cannot sell anything with trans-fat either. Also businesses do complain. They spend tons of $$ trying to adapt their food and mom&pop businesses simply can't afford it.

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%