Looky what goobernator Arnold is doing

**Heckman** · 07-25-2008, 09:24 PM

1:19 p.m. July 25, 2008

SACRAMENTO – California on Friday became the first state to prohibit restaurants from using artery-clogging trans fats in preparing their food.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation that will ban restaurants and other retail food establishments from using oil, margarine and shortening containing trans fats.

AdvertisementIn a statement, Schwarzenegger noted that consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease.
“Today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California,” he said.

Violations could result in fines of $25 to $1,000. Food items sold in their manufacturers' sealed packaging would be exempt.

The bill's author, Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, said he hoped the legislation would lead to similar laws in other states.

New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle and Montgomery County, Md., have ordinances banning trans fats, but California is the first state to adopt such a law covering restaurants, said Amy Wintefeld, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

California and Oregon already have laws banning trans fats in meals served at schools, she added.

The legislation signed by Schwarzenegger will take effect Jan, 1, 2010, for oil, shortening and margarine used in spreads or for frying. Restaurants could continue using trans fats to deep fry yeast dough and in cake batter until Jan. 1, 2011.

Richard Garcia, a spokesman for Mendoza, said the delay would give restaurants more time to find trans fat-free margarine and shortening used in baked goods.

Trans fats occur naturally in small amounts in meat and dairy products. Most trans fats are created when vegetable oil is treated with hydrogen to create baked and fried goods with a longer shelf life.

Stephen Joseph, a Tiburon attorney who was a consultant to New York City in developing its ban, said trans fat is a larger health risk than saturated fat because it reduces so-called good cholesterol.

The California Restaurant Association opposed the Mendoza bill. Spokesman Daniel Conway said the federal Food and Drug Administration rather than individual states should be developing regulations on trans fat use.

“They are the entity that is supposed to analyze ingredients,” he said. “It's kind of troubling having these decisions made by (state) policy makers when we have these experts in government.”

He said the association has no plans to challenge the law, in part because restaurants already are phasing out trans fats to satisfy customers.

“We're confident that California restaurants can meet the mandates of the bill,” he said.

The bill was introduced by Mendoza in December 2006 and passed the Assembly last year. It stalled initially in the state Senate but was approved there earlier this month.

wakejump4me · 07-25-2008, 09:34 PM

Asta lavista Baby

wake

milkstud · 07-26-2008, 02:33 AM

Awesome, at least thats a step in the right direction! Now just ban the combination of fat and carbs in ludicrous amounts and we are going somewhere.

wakejump4me · 07-26-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkstud

Now just ban the combination of fat and carbs in ludicrous amounts and we are going somewhere.

are you crazy ? how am i gonna be able to shit load then ?

wake

milkstud · 07-26-2008, 12:52 PM

Olive Oil and Waxy Maize (unflavored, no sweeteners) Shakes, duh.

fade · 07-28-2008, 12:38 PM

Lol this sounds like a good thing, but in reality its just more legislation telling us what we CAN and CAN'T do.

geese_com · 07-29-2008, 03:45 PM

I think it's a good thing. Trans fats are just no good.

fade · 07-29-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geese_com

I think it's a good thing. Trans fats are just no good.

I agree they are no good, but it all comes up to what you are willing to sacrifice. Would you rather have government control your life and tell you how to live, what to eat, etc? or would you rather have these things out there and have each person be educated enough to make a choice about these things.

I choose the latter.

geese_com · 07-29-2008, 04:10 PM

Good point.

MX_Ivanko · 07-29-2008, 04:19 PM

I see what your saying fade but the issue at hand here is Trans-Fats at a restaurants. Which is a bad thing anyway you look at it because you don't always know what they make their food with. Now if you eat at these restaurants you can rest assured that the healthier alternative was used in the making of the food. Each issue should be tackled individually and I think the right choice was made here.

KnowNothingGuy · 07-29-2008, 04:37 PM

I agree with fade. I think it is a horrible bill. Just another way government is trying to tell us what to do. It should me my choice if I want foods that have transfats. Before this legations I had the choice to asks if the restaurant used transfats in their food and I could choose not to eat their if the did. And you can bet that the cost for all the restaurants to buy and use non-transfat is going to be coming out of your pocket. It’s like taxing companies; no company actually pays taxes we the consumer pay the taxes. So I say government MYOB.

fade · 07-29-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MX_Ivanko

I see what your saying fade but the issue at hand here is Trans-Fats at a restaurants. Which is a bad thing anyway you look at it because you don't always know what they make their food with. Now if you eat at these restaurants you can rest assured that the healthier alternative was used in the making of the food. Each issue should be tackled individually and I think the right choice was made here.

This is still an issue of personal choice. If i want to go to my favorite restaurant and eat up as much trans fat as i want by the spoonful - i should be able to. Perhaps some smaller mom and pop stores will lose business because of the change and their foods no longer taste like they have for the past 50 years. Because of this change, they lose customers - which leads to bankruptcy.

Now, could the government be hurting businesses even more - especially now since they probably have even more paper work to do - things to watch out for, etc.

It should be up to the restaurant owner as to what he wants to serve, not the government. if people don't like the trans-fat, they don't have to eat there.

dropshot001 · 07-29-2008, 06:23 PM

i think its a step in the right direction since so many americans either do not know and/or are unwilling to learn about trans fats. without this knowledge, they would not be able to know that restaurants are putting trans fats in their food and what this means for their overall health. This law seems like a better alternative since it is eliminating trans fat from a higher level instead of making people pick and choose what they put into their bodies.

MX_Ivanko · 07-29-2008, 06:30 PM

But its trans-fats we are talking about. This stuff is bad, its been proven to be bad many times over. This is like saying you are opposed to the government making Heroin and Cocaine illegal because it limits your choices as an American, EVEN THOUGH you don't do those drugs.

The government is making the restaurants a healthier place for people who don't know any better. We here on IM no better than to eat Trans Fats because we know the studies done, but the average Joe might not and they are the ones that suffer.

fade · 07-29-2008, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropshot001

i think its a step in the right direction since so many americans either do not know and/or are unwilling to learn about trans fats. without this knowledge, they would not be able to know that restaurants are putting trans fats in their food and what this means for their overall health. This law seems like a better alternative since it is eliminating trans fat from a higher level instead of making people pick and choose what they put into their bodies.

I don't agree with the nanny state. The government is not supposed to be there to watch over all of our choices and determine what we should be doing and what we shouldn't. *SO long as we are not harming or interfering in anyone else's rights*

Quote:

Originally Posted by MX_Ivanko

But its trans-fats we are talking about. This stuff is bad, its been proven to be bad many times over. This is like saying you are opposed to the government making Heroin and Cocaine illegal because it limits your choices as an American, EVEN THOUGH you don't do those drugs.

The government is making the restaurants a healthier place for people who don't know any better. We here on IM no better than to eat Trans Fats because we know the studies done, but the average Joe might not and they are the ones that suffer.

Actually I do disagree with heroin and cocaine being illegal. For two reasons.

1. I don't think they should tell me what to do in the privacy of my own home as long as i'm not harming anyone else.

2. The war on drugs has obviously failed over the last 30-40 years and they are just pumping more and more money into this failed investment. What does that mean for you and me? That means that money comes out of my paycheck every day to try and stop these idiots that are going to OBVIOUSLY use anyway..

As for the trans fats.. ignorance is no reason for the government to take charge and step in. It is the responsibility (wait, you've heard that word before - right? RESPONSIBILITY) of the individual to be educated on what he is doing.

Now, for the restaurants, because of this new legislation - they are probably taxed even more. Which means we as the consumer has to pay more to just to pay for the stupid law that was passed to stop idiots from eating shit that is bad for them. On top of that, we have to PAY people to go in and check to see if they are serving trans fat or not. meaning more money taken from MY paycheck to pay for these IDIOTS who don't know any better.

And regardless of your opinion - i still like you all =)

MX_Ivanko · 08-01-2008, 12:21 AM

"(wait, you've heard that word before - right? RESPONSIBILITY)"

Come on now, no need to take a jab at me. That's not what good rhetoric is about.

I appreciate your thoughts and it was nice to talk this one out.

milkstud · 08-01-2008, 10:50 AM

Good points all around, maybe the bill should have done something that required the listing of nutrition information on restaraunt menu's (including trans fat). Most Americans could not tell you what is in a chicken breast or a ravioli, they have no idea, but putting the information on the menu's would help. It might also create a move towards healthier options served at restaraunts. As soon as the restaurant sees that nobody is buying their triple decker bacon cheeseburger with extra bacon and a milkshake, they will add something else to satisfy, but not cost the eater 2600 calories.

meatwad · 08-01-2008, 11:36 AM

First off I would like to say that in some respects I agree with fade, our government is supposed to be based upon John Locke's theory that every man has the right to his life, liberty, and property; the government was created to facilitate that. BUT... Madison also says that if men were angels, no need for government would exist. In a perfect world there wouldn't be kids abandoned by there mom because of her heroin addiction (note: I see where the logic is in comparing trans fats and cocaine, but I don't like the comparison because cocaine and heroin have an immediate impact on everyone around you as well, while trans fats' impact is subtle/sometimes nonexistent). I think that the government has a right to not put it's support behind things that harm people.

"1. I don't think they should tell me what to do in the privacy of my own home as long as i'm not harming anyone else."

This is kind of the government's point here isn't it? You can't sell people substances that could potentially kill them. That kind of infringes upon harming other people.

"The war on drugs has obviously failed over the last 30-40 years and they are just pumping more and more money into this failed investment. What does that mean for you and me? That means that money comes out of my paycheck every day to try and stop these idiots that are going to OBVIOUSLY use anyway.."

And I honestly can't imagine a world where all drugs were legalized. If all efforts to stop the use of addictive drugs were stopped, what would happen? Yes, you would save some tax dollars, but at what expense?

I just thought I'd make my opinion known.

brineal · 08-01-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fade

I agree they are no good, but it all comes up to what you are willing to sacrifice. Would you rather have government control your life and tell you how to live, what to eat, etc? or would you rather have these things out there and have each person be educated enough to make a choice about these things.

I choose the latter.

unfortunately the vast majority of americans are extremely uneducated and uninformed about what they put in their bodies. more and more kids are raised by tv and you only have to turn the damn thing on and watch 5 min of commercials to see that kids and adults are bombarded by images of fast food and unhealthy nutritional options. im sorry, but the average american is NOT educated about nutrition, and DOESNT CARE to become educated. because of this fact,i think its absolutely necessary for the government to step in with regards to trans fats and such; living in a country where obesity is becoming the norm instead of the exception shows that americans do not care enough to avoid it themselves...the government is hardly telling anyone what they can and cant eat, they are regulating what businesses are able to sell the public, if you still want trans fats, theres no way of stopping you, but at least the government is showing concern about the obesity epidemic and concern for the health of its citizens, this isnt about big brother controlling as much as it is about the fact that americans as a whole are becoming more and more unhealthy and obviously care less and less about what they are putting in their bodies...

i suppose if every american was exposed equally to images of healthy and unhealthy food choices, i would agree with you more, that it is up to the individual to make an educated decision, but that just is not the case in the U.S. i would imagine that the number of fast food commercials and ads i see every day beats out the number of ads depicting healthy nutritional options 5 or 6 (probably even more) to one. you just cannot expect a vastly uneducated public to make an educated decision, and the ever increasing number of obese children and adults in america is like a perfect case study to prove that...

brineal · 08-01-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnowNothingGuy

And you can bet that the cost for all the restaurants to buy and use non-transfat is going to be coming out of your pocket. It’s like taxing companies; no company actually pays taxes we the consumer pay the taxes. So I say government MYOB.

im sorry, this statement just seems ridiculous to me.. the cost of a national population which is unhealthy and becoming more and more unhealthy is going to be FAR FAR greater than the cost to business and consumers of eliminating trans fats...this is a factual trend, americans ARE becoming increasingly more healthy, especially when compared to other countries (such as european countries)...

**Heckman** · 08-01-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brineal

americans ARE becoming increasingly more healthy, especially when compared to other countries (such as european countries)...

interesting you would say that....having been to France a few times in the last couple years one thing my wife and I noticed, was the only FAT people were Americans...you won't see very many fat/obese French people...can't speak for other countries...
Coming home and landing in Houston, fat people was the first thing we noticed when we got off the plane...
While Americans are slowly becoming more health conscious, the obesity rate doesn't appear to be declining...
Just take a trip to the mall on any given day...

brineal · 08-01-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckman

interesting you would say that....having been to France a few times in the last couple years one thing my wife and I noticed, was the only FAT people were Americans...you won't see very many fat/obese French people...can't speak for other countries...
Coming home and landing in Houston, fat people was the first thing we noticed when we got off the plane...
While Americans are slowly becoming more health conscious, the obesity rate doesn't appear to be declining...
Just take a trip to the mall on any given day...

youll have to excuse my typo from above, i meant to say more and more unhealthy..i completely agree with you, and have noticed the same thing between germany and america..

**Heckman** · 08-01-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brineal

youll have to excuse my typo from above, i meant to say more and more unhealthy..i completely agree with you, and have noticed the same thing between germany and america..

Gotcha...

funny story when we were there in June this year, we were driving to the south and stopped at rest stop....low and behold here comes some fat Americans asking if there was a mickey D's anywhere to be found...lol
Let's see here, fly 5000 miles and eat at mickey D's? How about some freaking snails people....a little escargo! much better for you!

07-25-2008, 09:24 PM	#1
Heckman Moderator Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,871	Looky what goobernator Arnold is doing 1:19 p.m. July 25, 2008 SACRAMENTO – California on Friday became the first state to prohibit restaurants from using artery-clogging trans fats in preparing their food. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation that will ban restaurants and other retail food establishments from using oil, margarine and shortening containing trans fats. AdvertisementIn a statement, Schwarzenegger noted that consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease. “Today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California,” he said. Violations could result in fines of $25 to $1,000. Food items sold in their manufacturers' sealed packaging would be exempt. The bill's author, Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, said he hoped the legislation would lead to similar laws in other states. New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle and Montgomery County, Md., have ordinances banning trans fats, but California is the first state to adopt such a law covering restaurants, said Amy Wintefeld, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. California and Oregon already have laws banning trans fats in meals served at schools, she added. The legislation signed by Schwarzenegger will take effect Jan, 1, 2010, for oil, shortening and margarine used in spreads or for frying. Restaurants could continue using trans fats to deep fry yeast dough and in cake batter until Jan. 1, 2011. Richard Garcia, a spokesman for Mendoza, said the delay would give restaurants more time to find trans fat-free margarine and shortening used in baked goods. Trans fats occur naturally in small amounts in meat and dairy products. Most trans fats are created when vegetable oil is treated with hydrogen to create baked and fried goods with a longer shelf life. Stephen Joseph, a Tiburon attorney who was a consultant to New York City in developing its ban, said trans fat is a larger health risk than saturated fat because it reduces so-called good cholesterol. The California Restaurant Association opposed the Mendoza bill. Spokesman Daniel Conway said the federal Food and Drug Administration rather than individual states should be developing regulations on trans fat use. “They are the entity that is supposed to analyze ingredients,” he said. “It's kind of troubling having these decisions made by (state) policy makers when we have these experts in government.” He said the association has no plans to challenge the law, in part because restaurants already are phasing out trans fats to satisfy customers. “We're confident that California restaurants can meet the mandates of the bill,” he said. The bill was introduced by Mendoza in December 2006 and passed the Assembly last year. It stalled initially in the state Senate but was approved there earlier this month. __________________ Heckman "Obsession is the word lazy people use to describe the dedicated."

07-25-2008, 09:34 PM	#2
wakejump4me The Specialist Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,325	Asta lavista Baby wake __________________ to save as much money as possible on all your orders from www.TrueProtein.com type AXW999 in the discountcode box Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect. Vince Lombardi

07-26-2008, 02:33 AM	#3
milkstud Light-heavyweight Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Redding, CA AND Salina, KS Posts: 1,274	Awesome, at least thats a step in the right direction! Now just ban the combination of fat and carbs in ludicrous amounts and we are going somewhere. __________________ I'm a POOR COLLEGE STUDENT and you need protein, SO DO IT!!!Use my discount code kyb999 at www.trueprotein.com to get 5% off the top protein avaliable. 10% off if you order 16lbs or more!! Re: Smith Machines: "shit all over them and make their frames tremble when you approach"- Sanatus My Journal: http://www.intensemuscle.com/27817-m...ournal-16.html

07-26-2008, 12:52 PM	#5
milkstud Light-heavyweight Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Redding, CA AND Salina, KS Posts: 1,274	Olive Oil and Waxy Maize (unflavored, no sweeteners) Shakes, duh. __________________ I'm a POOR COLLEGE STUDENT and you need protein, SO DO IT!!!Use my discount code kyb999 at www.trueprotein.com to get 5% off the top protein avaliable. 10% off if you order 16lbs or more!! Re: Smith Machines: "shit all over them and make their frames tremble when you approach"- Sanatus My Journal: http://www.intensemuscle.com/27817-m...ournal-16.html

07-28-2008, 12:38 PM	#6
fade Intense Set of the Month March 2007 Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Kansas Posts: 875	Lol this sounds like a good thing, but in reality its just more legislation telling us what we CAN and CAN'T do. __________________ My Prep for the 2008 Rocky Mountain Classic: http://www.intensemuscle.com/30222-2...irst-show.html

07-29-2008, 03:45 PM	#7
geese_com Heavyweight Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UW - La Crosse Posts: 2,102	I think it's a good thing. Trans fats are just no good. __________________ My DC journal: http://www.intensemuscle.com/showthread.php?t=25271 Use my TrueProtein Discount Code to get 5% of your TrueProtein order or 10% off an order of 16lbs or more! GJC546

07-29-2008, 04:10 PM	#9
geese_com Heavyweight Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UW - La Crosse Posts: 2,102	Good point. __________________ My DC journal: http://www.intensemuscle.com/showthread.php?t=25271 Use my TrueProtein Discount Code to get 5% of your TrueProtein order or 10% off an order of 16lbs or more! GJC546

07-29-2008, 04:19 PM	#10
MX_Ivanko Light-heavyweight Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: University Of Texas at Austin Posts: 884	I see what your saying fade but the issue at hand here is Trans-Fats at a restaurants. Which is a bad thing anyway you look at it because you don't always know what they make their food with. Now if you eat at these restaurants you can rest assured that the healthier alternative was used in the making of the food. Each issue should be tackled individually and I think the right choice was made here. __________________ I've been a DC'er since I started training, only problem is I've only been cruising...

07-29-2008, 04:37 PM	#11
KnowNothingGuy Light-heavyweight Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 854	I agree with fade. I think it is a horrible bill. Just another way government is trying to tell us what to do. It should me my choice if I want foods that have transfats. Before this legations I had the choice to asks if the restaurant used transfats in their food and I could choose not to eat their if the did. And you can bet that the cost for all the restaurants to buy and use non-transfat is going to be coming out of your pocket. It’s like taxing companies; no company actually pays taxes we the consumer pay the taxes. So I say government MYOB. __________________

07-29-2008, 06:23 PM	#13
dropshot001 Middleweight Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Honolulu (home), Madison, WI (college - here now) Posts: 502	i think its a step in the right direction since so many americans either do not know and/or are unwilling to learn about trans fats. without this knowledge, they would not be able to know that restaurants are putting trans fats in their food and what this means for their overall health. This law seems like a better alternative since it is eliminating trans fat from a higher level instead of making people pick and choose what they put into their bodies.

07-29-2008, 06:30 PM	#14
MX_Ivanko Light-heavyweight Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: University Of Texas at Austin Posts: 884	But its trans-fats we are talking about. This stuff is bad, its been proven to be bad many times over. This is like saying you are opposed to the government making Heroin and Cocaine illegal because it limits your choices as an American, EVEN THOUGH you don't do those drugs. The government is making the restaurants a healthier place for people who don't know any better. We here on IM no better than to eat Trans Fats because we know the studies done, but the average Joe might not and they are the ones that suffer. __________________ I've been a DC'er since I started training, only problem is I've only been cruising...

08-01-2008, 12:21 AM	#16
MX_Ivanko Light-heavyweight Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: University Of Texas at Austin Posts: 884	"(wait, you've heard that word before - right? RESPONSIBILITY)" Come on now, no need to take a jab at me. That's not what good rhetoric is about. I appreciate your thoughts and it was nice to talk this one out. __________________ I've been a DC'er since I started training, only problem is I've only been cruising...

08-01-2008, 10:50 AM	#17
milkstud Light-heavyweight Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Redding, CA AND Salina, KS Posts: 1,274	Good points all around, maybe the bill should have done something that required the listing of nutrition information on restaraunt menu's (including trans fat). Most Americans could not tell you what is in a chicken breast or a ravioli, they have no idea, but putting the information on the menu's would help. It might also create a move towards healthier options served at restaraunts. As soon as the restaurant sees that nobody is buying their triple decker bacon cheeseburger with extra bacon and a milkshake, they will add something else to satisfy, but not cost the eater 2600 calories. __________________ I'm a POOR COLLEGE STUDENT and you need protein, SO DO IT!!!Use my discount code kyb999 at www.trueprotein.com to get 5% off the top protein avaliable. 10% off if you order 16lbs or more!! Re: Smith Machines: "shit all over them and make their frames tremble when you approach"- Sanatus My Journal: http://www.intensemuscle.com/27817-m...ournal-16.html

08-01-2008, 11:36 AM	#18
meatwad New Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5	First off I would like to say that in some respects I agree with fade, our government is supposed to be based upon John Locke's theory that every man has the right to his life, liberty, and property; the government was created to facilitate that. BUT... Madison also says that if men were angels, no need for government would exist. In a perfect world there wouldn't be kids abandoned by there mom because of her heroin addiction (note: I see where the logic is in comparing trans fats and cocaine, but I don't like the comparison because cocaine and heroin have an immediate impact on everyone around you as well, while trans fats' impact is subtle/sometimes nonexistent). I think that the government has a right to not put it's support behind things that harm people. "1. I don't think they should tell me what to do in the privacy of my own home as long as i'm not harming anyone else." This is kind of the government's point here isn't it? You can't sell people substances that could potentially kill them. That kind of infringes upon harming other people. "The war on drugs has obviously failed over the last 30-40 years and they are just pumping more and more money into this failed investment. What does that mean for you and me? That means that money comes out of my paycheck every day to try and stop these idiots that are going to OBVIOUSLY use anyway.." And I honestly can't imagine a world where all drugs were legalized. If all efforts to stop the use of addictive drugs were stopped, what would happen? Yes, you would save some tax dollars, but at what expense? I just thought I'd make my opinion known.

Sponsored Links