On 25 Jan 2007 09:58:16 -0800, wrote:

Yes, it is transfat that has been banned from NYC restaurants., which
is what I had in mind when I wrote the above. And of course margarine
that is made without transfats is still allowed. But it doens't
change the fact that 25 years ago, scientists claimed that magarine
made from transfat should be used to replace butter, which was supposed
to be bad. Margarines containing transfat were widely marketed,
complete with health benefit statements. And that proved to bad
advice, at least if they are right this time.

Trans fats were added to a whole range of processed foods, including
margarine, for a several reasons but, principally, to improve taste
and to increase product shelf life. So there's no confusion, it was
not added to margarine because it was thought to offer any particular
heath benefits, in of itself. There were no recognized health risks
with the introduction of trans fats early one, but they became evident
over time, much in the same way the risks of continuing to add
increasing amounts of CO2 to our earth's atmosphere. That's pretty
much how science works.

And as the link provided below shows, the Cleveland Clinic still
recommends the consumption of liquid and tub margarine over butter.

And the irony of what NYC is doing is that had they passed similar laws
25 years ago, they would have forced restaurants to replace butter with
transfat. That's one reason why what NYC is doing is just plain
stupid. There is plenty of information out there already about
transfat. Many commercial products have already eliminated them, as
have many fast food chains. More laws aren't needed, especially given
that the "experts" have been wrong before. Individuals can decide for
themselves what they want to eat.

I didn't realize I, as a consumer, had the choice of specifying my
meals be trans fat free. How does that work? Do I tell McDonalds,
Wendy's, Buger King, KFC, Taco Bell, et. all that I want it done "my
way"? When I sit down at a fine restaurant, do I ask the waiter which
foods contain trans fats? Would the restaurant and its staff even
know? Somehow, I don't think so.

If you want to learn more about the butter versus margarine debate,
see:


http://www.clevelandclinic.org/heart...evention/askdi...

And this is not something new. Nutrionists have warned for years that
diets high in saturated and tans fats can greatly increase our risk of
obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart attack, stroke and colon cancer.
Concerns over hydrogenated oils date back at least twenty-five years.

Now that I disagree with There may have been some concern raised
starting 25 years ago, but what about the late 60s, 70s when the
experts told us to eat margarine, which was full of transfat, instead
of butter? And I would say the real consensus against transfat did
not occur until the last decade or so. Sure, you can go back and say
there was some research that suggested problems, but that is 20/20
hindsight.

Isn't this much like the whole debate over global climate change? You
may be surprised to know scientists first warned of the dangers of
increased CO2 levels more than one hundred years ago. Here we are in
2007 having this conversation. What do you expect?

See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...985653,00.html

[....]

These references just talk about general factors that they think
contributed to previous warming/cooling cycles. Which is exactly the
point. No one knows for sure. Look at the graph going back 400K
years. It shows 5 peaks in temperature and CO2. Since man can only
possibly be responsible for the current peak, what explains the other
4? Also note that while the current peak is the largest of the 4
complete cycles, 4 cycles and 400K years is a just a brief instant in
Earth's history. We don;'t know how high other cycles got.

And then there is the issue of cause and effect. Just because CO2 and
temp rise and fail together doesn't mean CO2 caused the temp rise. It
could just as well be that the rise in temp caused the CO2 increase.
Especially since other gases, like Methane also have risen and fallen
with temp. Just like a soda can releases more CO2 when it's warm, so
too the oceans are less capable of holding gasses when the temp rises.
This is especially interesting given that temp peaks and leads CO2 by
about 800 years.

Finally, we also have the issue of how reliable estimates are of
exactly what the Earth's temperature was 400K years ago. No one was
around taking measurements, so we are left relying on proxies, which
are virtually impossible to verify.


This article may help explain the difference between natural and
man-made carbon cycles:

http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/rele...ec-9-2003.html


As for scientists being in consensus, here's what Richard Lindzen,
Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT had to say, about how
established, reputable scientists who disagree are being ignored or
shut out of discussion

:I presume this is the same Richard Lindzen who has testified on behalf
of the Western Fuels Association, a consortium of coal miners and
coal-fired utilities and OPEC, right?

See:http://www.desmogblog.com/comment/reply/417

Cheers,
Paul

Does the fact that this MIT professor has testified on behalf of
industry make him any less credible than scientists that speak out for
whacko liberal environmental organizations that have no balance and
oppose everything?

When a scientist is paid to act as a lobbyist, it raises a red flag.
If someone were paid by the tobacco industry to tell us that smoking
is good for our health, would you not be a tad sceptical?

Cheers,
Paul