Meet Mark

Let me introduce myself. My name is Mark Sisson. I’m 63 years young. I live and work in Malibu, California. In a past life I was a professional marathoner and triathlete. Now my life goal is to help 100 million people get healthy. I started this blog in 2006 to empower people to take full responsibility for their own health and enjoyment of life by investigating, discussing, and critically rethinking everything we’ve assumed to be true about health and wellness...

Tell Me More
Stay Connected
October 30, 2006

Trans Fat in NYC, Foie Gras in Chicago

By Elliott
9 Comments

It’s Prohibition all over again. What do you all think about major cities banning certain fattening foods? Is this blatantly unconstitutional, or simply in the interest of public health? In recent months Chicago has attempted to ban foie gras (French for greasy grease) and New York has now rumbled to restaurants about frying foods in trans fat oils. Even Killing Folks Covertly (KFC) is hopping in the anti-trans fryer.

While I don’t know that foie gras tops most people’s dietary vice lists, food manufacturers’ stubborn use of trans fat is utterly irresponsible and flagrantly unethical. (Yes, I said it.)

But here’s the real question: Just like the too-skinny models (perhaps a redundancy) banned in Spain, is banning trans fat in restaurants the right step? Might we think about going to the source by sending a message to Congressional lobbyists working for Big Agra instead?

Something good from New Jersey.

Discuss, Apples.

[tags] foie gras, Chicago, New York, trans fat ban, KFC, banned models, Big Agra, food politics [/tags]

Subscribe to the Newsletter

If you'd like to add an avatar to all of your comments click here!

Leave a Reply

9 Comments on "Trans Fat in NYC, Foie Gras in Chicago"

avatar

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
trackback

[…] Thus far, several major U.S. cities have taken steps to ban trans fat in restaurants. Now, a whole county says no to Frankenfats. […]

PeterB
PeterB
5 years 11 months ago
People need to take responsibility for their own health, Most of the actions that have been taken by government in the name of “public health” are neutral at best and usually not terribly cost effective. I encourage people not to eat trans-fats but I happen to think that I shouldn’t have the right either as an individual or via the state to force them not to. The term “public health” is a very odd concept in any case. Health is not a communal thing. I can be healthy, you can be healthy and that guy over there can be dying… Read more »
PeterB
PeterB
5 years 11 months ago

Bloody hell! How did I end up posting on one of the first posts.

D’oh!

Primal Toad
5 years 3 months ago

I agree that baning something like this is not right. It would be a good thing but the government does not know whats healthy for us. They think saturated fat will kill us so is that next? Banning coconut oil?

KC
KC
4 years 11 months ago

Foie gras (fat liver) is being banned because of concerns that the unnatural force feeding required to make foie gras is cruel to the birds, not because of any public health concerns.

Read the reason for the ban before complaining that it was done for public health. The issue for debate on foie gras is animal rights, not dietary rights.

Amy
Amy
4 years 4 months ago

If someone tried to force me to go on this diet, I would have told them to bugger off.

Banning things only creates a black market and dependency on gov’t. Haven’t you learned from your journey that the gov’t is very often wrong and corrupt?

Colin
Colin
3 years 11 months ago

Regardless of whether the law was passed for public health or animal rights, the issue of government subsidies is the big issue. Whether its trans fats or a 20 oz. soda,local governments are trying to bypass congress (and the lobbyists that influence it) by enacting local law. Yes, it is big brother telling us what is best, but until lobbyists have a diminished presence in Washington, it is the lesser of two evils. Keep up the good work Mark.

Amy B
Amy B
3 years 8 months ago

I know I’m really late replying to this one, but it touched a nerve. This is a question of consitutional rights. The government has no business passing laws for ‘to protect us from ourselves’ They are overstepping their bounds. If we want to send a message as a capitalist society, we send it as consumers and dont purchase the offending products, driving them to either change or go out of business.

Gordon
Gordon
3 years 3 months ago
Amy B wrote: “I know I’m really late replying to this one, but it touched a nerve. This is a question of consitutional rights. The government has no business passing laws for ‘to protect us from ourselves’ They are overstepping their bounds. If we want to send a message as a capitalist society, we send it as consumers and dont purchase the offending products, driving them to either change or go out of business.” Amy, this happens all the time. Government is always trying to protect us from ourselves. Seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmets, et al., are just a couple of… Read more »
wpDiscuz