Give me trans fats or give me death!

Readers are taking the ban on cooking with trans fats in California restaurants surprisingly seriously, viewing the measure as an infringement upon our basic civil liberties.  The law won't go into effect until 2010, but many restaurant chains in California have already eliminated the cholesterol-raising ingredient from their food. Nevertheless, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to sign the ban and make the elimination official has made some readers feel very oppressed.  Many of the reader comments left on the original story state that the decision to consume trans fat, a solidified combination of hydrogen and vegetable oil that increases the shelf life of foods, is a deeply personal one.

Show me the Science wrote: "This law is no more based in public health than banning abortion."

Russ' argument also evoked Roe vs. Wade sentiments: "My body, my choice? Apparently not. My life, my choice? Apparently not. My life, my rights? Apparently not. My life, my freedom? Apparently not."

Travis wrote: "What's next, are they going to tell me how to dress, or how to think?"

Luckily for trans fat fans, not all readers who opposed the ban were so hysterical.  jack's argument was actually quite sensible: "When they make donuts w/out trans fat, they are limp and not crispy like they should be."   

eatathome exclaimed that "The fat is where the flavor is at!"

Readers compared Schwarzenegger's governing tactics to Stalinism, fascism, socialism, and communism.  But amidst all the accusations, the law also appears to have a few supporters. Erik explained that "Trans fat is not a food. It's an industrial food processing technique that chemically alters the fat molecule to allow for longer shelf life. Now, if you want to poison yourself at home, go ahead. But public restaurants shouldn't be able to use it."

Should restaurants be allowed to serve trans fatty food to Californians, or is the Governator providing fast-food junkies with much-needed protection?   Share your thoughts!

--Amy Silverstein

Photo credit: Rick Loomis / Los Angeles Times 

Comments

[Bob]

When the government takes away trans-fat, they call it oppressive and criticize it. When businesses take it away, they call it the "free market" and worship it. The funny thing is that only one allows you to control who's in charge simply by voting.

[Aaron Judd]

Seriously? Arnolds fault? I thought laws were passed first by a majority of the LEGISLATURE? All Arnold did was not veto it. Who's fault is it? Ours for voting for ultra liberal congress in the state of California. Arnold? Put the blame on the people who put the bill on his desk!

[Johnny Fontana]

I worked at a westside belgian chain restaurant, the Gov was a frequent customer at our Brentwood location and he was reportedly very disappointed when we phased out trans-fats because his favorite french cream donut was cancelled from our menu. So I guess it doesn't matter to the Austrian because his faves have already done away with those pesky trans-fats.

[TJ Phelps]

I agree, let people eat themselves to death. It will be a means of population control :)

[I hate LA times]

Give the brats the trans fats!, after all they all most are diabetic due to obesity. It cant get more uglier than that!!

[Brian Topping]

Shouldn't this be titled "Give me trans fats *AND* give me death"?!?

[shashi]

It would appear that the opposition is coming from two fronts:
1. readers that think transfats is the same as saturated fats, ie., they think you are banning butter... not some strange new fangled chemical that our body does not know to process well, which is what transfat is.
2. Shils for the restaurant industry. How hard is it to set up email accounts and run a concerted campaign against the law making it appear like there is a groundswell of opposition ? Or to pay one or two journalists to write articles like this ?

[Greg]

To: Erik

"Public restraunts!?!" Do you mean privately owned business that serve the public. Trans fat ban. Not needed that's what comptition is for. If the state government wants to help then run ps ads explaining the potentail health effects. Don't turn California into Stalinfornia. What a joke.

[Ogre]

It's small things adding up that are the reason the government of California is broke. The politicians don't ever stop and ask themselves, "should we be meddling in this?" Every time the government pokes their nose in something, it costs money. My money. Paid through taxes.

STOP TELLING ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE! I know donuts are bad for me. So what? I have maybe one a week. Even if I gorged myself on a dozen a day - IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

[Boush]

zomg first?

Trans-fats are POISON. This shouldn't even be an issue, idiots. :\

[bishop27]

why not just make the law that the restaurant must declare on the menu what food has transfats in it. that way the people who think that being shielded from something potentially deadly is an infringement on their rights can go ahead and willingly kill themselves and the people who don't want to be tricked by shady restaurants don't have to unknowingly put poison into their bodies. while i don't think it's an attack on our civil rights, i do think there are too many laws that protect stupid people from naturally selecting themselves out of the gene pool.

[Heather]

Can California really afford the man power needed to police such a silly ban?

[Ernest R. Medeiros]

What nonsensical hysteria! The transfat suporters are probably industry plants and fast food dive owners seeking to save their profitable tool. This makes as much sense as the various bans on public tobacco consumption (a very good idea, also). If you want to poison yourself in your home it is, indeed, your business. But threats to public health are another matter. I suppose that there are those who would defend the right of commercial chefs to use strychnine in food, but the rest of us shouldn't be subjected to that idiocy.

[Jesus Diaz]

Its not that serious people. Its just fat. Trans fats are bad for you. I don't see why people wanna eat it anyway. If they don't like the ban they can live somewhere else.

[Ken]

Trans fats are artificially doctored fats that no longer resemble the natural substances that are contained in food products. There is no doubt that they are harmful. Its not something that belongs in the food chain-its a man made poison. This is entirely the province of government. The inclusion of a poisonous material would never be overlooked by any regulatory agency, and neither should trans fats. I suspect the people that complain the most should undertake to educate themselves on what a trans fat is--its not a natural food substance anymore.

[Michael Lockridge]

It does not seem too intrusive, regulating restaurants. Trans-fats are not essential to cooking. A ban on fat, of course, would be ridiculous. Or cooking technique. Indeed, anything that would impact the freedom of interaction between the patron and the restaurant.

On the other hand, it is MORE regulation, in the name of protecting the people of the state. In the case of smoking bans, it is apparent that the regulation is moving toward extremes. In its earliest incarnation, the bans were reasonable and innocuous. Now, regulations controlling smoking are becoming silly.

How far might regulations like the one on trans-fats go? Let your imagination run wild, and then assume it will be worse than that.

[k.]

personally, i just think it's retarded. why are people up in arms about trans fats, of all things? you'd think there are more important things for people to get worked up about like, oh, let's say... the war in iraq, or our stumbling economy?

that said, from what it seems trans fats are not good for you so it might be a good thing that they are being banned from "public restaurants" (what is a... oh, nevermind). this is not a "fascist" act. there is no possible way you can liken something like this to oppression.

some of you people have too much time on your hands.

[jeremiah.harless@gmail.com]

i think that anyone whining about wanting to eat trans fat should go home and eat a thousand twinkies to make up the difference. you want to be fat, and slobish and lazy and die at 35 from a heart attack, thats fine by me, it is your life, it is your body, it is your choice. i dont. i wanna be able to go to a resturant and eat food that wont kill me.... like poisoned tomatos or jalapenos. your rights end where mine begin and i have as much right not to eat trans fat as you have to eat it. the difference is, resturants cant mix in some trans fat to order, like they can with other real food items. its either do or dont. and since you still have the ablilty to eat poison in the comfort of your own home, a ban on trans fat in public venues is protecting my rights not to eat that crap.

nuff said

[DaveInPa]

You might have expected Arnold (the cigar smoker) to adhere to traditonal Republican principles such as letting the market and personal responsibility (customers decidng for themselves which restaurants to frequent)determine what appears on the menu in a restaurant, and what information is disclosed about trans fats, but then again, this is California we are talking about...

[Matt Boynton]

Trans-fats are not a necessary food -they were a preferred fat-type for restaurants to use because it reduced spoilage. The science is fairly unequivocal about how bad it is for you. For those who wish to indulge in trans-fats, I suppose there out to be a way for an adult to order it for themselves so they can indulge it raw and to their hearts content. A restaurant however is a quasi-public sort of place where the scientifically uninformed sometimes go involuntarily. For instance children and mentally challenged guests go to restaurants but they would not be expected to have done so upon their own free will or after careful research. So for their sake alone I believe it is a good law. C'mon, I don't hear much about how it can decrease the taste versus other fats so have a heart!

[eastban]

These are the kinds of people who'd like to sweeten their drinks with antifreeze. Idiots. Srsly.

[Carl Fletcher]

So they can sell us cigarettes but not trans fat? Can this government get any more invasive or petty. Is this the best we can come up with as importance of change, disappointed.

[Zeerover]

What's the big deal. It's no different than helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking laws, and thousands of other laws that infringe ones "rights". Travis, they already tell you "how to dress and what to think." Get real. You don't live in a vacuum. Russ, you've less freedom than almost any other country in which I've traveled. The average Chinese has less interference from his/her government than you have. Just relax and take comfort in the knowledge that you did it to yourself. You'll get used to it.

[Crispy]

I think it's a decent idea. Maybe California will set an example and we will see thinner people (long term residents) over time. Most people do not even know what's really in their food, or how it's processed. McDonald's just did a switch nationwide, and they knew it would change the taste of their world class fries. They did it anyway, for the health of their customers, and they advertised the change as such. So for a state to make the change is good, it's setting an example.

Also, we used to cook food without it before. Donuts have been around for a long time. Time to dig out the classic recipes to get the flavor and texture desired. Food may even taste a bit more like food, especially fried/seasoned dishes.

[Louis HR Muller]

Hiltler was opposed to smoking and drinking alcohol. He was a vegetarian and wasn't overweight. Then there was Winston Churchill how smoked, drank alcohol, ate what he wanted, and was overweight. Who do you want as a neighbor or running your government? We are allowing too many zealots to attempt to control us. Separation of church and state was to prevent religious zealots from gaining control. The founding fathers never expected social zealots would come into existence and attempt to dictate policy.