trans fats, trans fats, wherefore art thou trans fats? deny thy hydrogen and refuse thy fries...
I find it funny how quickly times and trends change. Now I don't mean fashion here (though that changes rapidly, too), I mean more like social issues. I've been listening to some old NPR podcasts, a recent one being from January of 2007, and it talked about getting rid of trans-saturated fat. Now, I remember that in last spring semester there was a big move in the dinning locations on campus here to get rid of all trans fat. The signs that listed what food was being served would designate what was vegetarian or kosher previously, but then Dinning Services added a label for trans-fat-free food.
Now, I'm eager to say something like, "it was as if trans-fat suddenly became taboo, and everyone rushed around crazy trying to get rid of it and boast that they did it," but all of that except the last part was unequivocally true. New York State passed a law in late 2006 with the implication that,
"[r]estaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July [2007] and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008." (link to MSNBC article: here)
Okay, so restaurants were required to get rid of trans fats, and I would venture a guess this law applied to dinning locations like those on campus (would have to look into this more). But why so showy? Why can't places like my dinning hall just get rid of trans fats and not make big flashy signs saying what foods suddenly don't have trans fats or make banners or flyers (well, I can't remember if they did either of those things, but last spring I remember it being emblazoned in my mind that Columbia was going trans fat free)?
I think it's a fairly easy question, actually. First, and while I didn't watch too much news, I know it was a common news item (I saw a lot about it online), so it was on the general public's mind (which includes the average Columbia student), whether Dinning Services made a show of it or not, so I would say that if Dinning Services didn't say explicitly what they were doing, people might think that they weren't doing anything. Though, this opinion is partially because we're used to seeing such response by organizations when they enact some big change (chicken and the egg situation, in a way), but I would also say that people like to know when something good is happening. The people know trans fat is suddenly bad (something else I need to look into: what started the trans fat craze? Was it some sudden publication in a journal of health and/or medicine that some reporter dug up and publicized?), so they have a right (well, no, they actually don't, but people feel like they do) to know whether their favorite joints (or not-so-favorite-but-need-to-eat-there-due-to-being-a-college-student) are actually healthy places to eat.
I think there's also the fact that Columbia is an institution for higher learning, so they take it upon themselves to teach those who eat there. Not only did they notify us that they were trans fat free, but they created literature for students and other patrons to take with them and read that told them about trans fat and why it is bad for them (too bad I didn't keep any of that; would answer some questions I have now, in retrospect). I don't think your local restaurant would go out of its way to inform you about why it's so healthy now -- did it even tell its customers about being trans fat free? I don't remember Tom's Diner saying anything about it, but I could have simply not noticed. Again, though, there is a cost factor involved in making up new menus and writing/printing informative literature and so on, so smaller eateries might not be able to afford this kind of educational service. After all, the law required them to get rid of trans fat by July 2007, so the consumers should probably assume the restaurants followed the law (though, if the restaurant was small enough, perhaps they did not even have the money to invest in a new, trans fat free, menu?). And, if they did not follow regulation, I would venture a guess that future inspections of their businesses will require them to be a trans fat free service, so locals that do not follow the rules will be closed up or face whatever punishment they usually do by not passing health inspections (another good thing to look further into).
You also have the argument that university students might not "get out" as much as working adults and therefore not hear as much about the trans fat fiasco. Therefore, since college is what is taking up all their time and attention (supposedly), college should be the one to inform them of the latest health craze (which they did). A simple little restaurant does not have such a requirement, as it is not part of an institution of higher learning and very high time commitments, and it can be safely assumed that the people who go there have enough time to turn on the nightly news or pick up a newspaper and become informed citizens.
(Note to self: trans fat started being involved in cooking when food scientists or whoever it is that comes up with this stuff discovered that hydrogenation years ago which helped preserve cooking oil from soy beans, where soy beans have a certain acid that spoils the oil. The hydrogenation process creates trans fat, which might not have been known at the time but must not have been known to raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol. Scientists today are working on finding soy beans that have a very low concentration of this acid, so we can how "low-lin oil" that does not need hydrogenation to remain unspoiled. Problem exists, though, to get an oil that does not need hydrogenation but tastes good, and, of course, taste is more important that healthiness in the commercial food industry. Also, these low-lin soybeans are harder to grow and not enough is grown to fully replace normal soybeans. Link to story from NPR about trans fat; audio version available. "Guide to Trans Fats" with more information here.)
I definitely got sidetracked there. What I meant to say initially was that, while there was this huge "get rid of trans fat ASAP" crazy back during last spring semester and it was a big news item and all, there's nothing on campus or in the news about it now. The law passed for NYC and is in effect, and the campus is already trans fat free, so I guess there's no reason to say any more, since we're not going to try to un-trans-fat-free-ify ourselves. Plus, there are bigger things to worry about, such as using only Organic Food and locally-grown food...
(Okay, this one, I really don't get: why should we support our local farmers? I see one reason given (mostly implicitly) is pity, that we should support them or else no one will and they'll go out of business and starve. While, yes, it would be great for people to be able to keep their jobs, but this is what I like about a free market: people have a choice, and they will choose what is best for them in the sliding scale between cost and quality (some will go for the absolute cheapest, some will want a minimum level of quality, and so on). While it might be noble, I don't think it ultimately wise for the government or some other organization to subsidize farmers or other providers whose quality is higher than most but cannot get enough business because their costs are too high. I think a better thing to do would be to let the market stabilize itself; if consumers want more quality, they'll support those vendors; if most people want cheaper goods, then so be it. If anything, the government should pass a regulation requiring some minimum quality, but I am not willing to say that that is necessarily a good thing to do (again, let the free market be free (...?)).
Another reason given, which I think is equally silly, is an environmental one, as Columbia is desperately trying to live green. If we support local farmers, then the goods will not have to be transported as far by truck or other method, and so we would be using less gas and therefore have fewer CO2 emissions. Um, what? First, I think the difference would be very small. Second, while I do care for the economy, I think the free market is more important than this little, tiny, decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. Right, this fact -- that buying locally is nominally better for the environment -- should be taken into consideration by the buyer while he is making his decision, but it should go alongside all the other things he is mulling over, such as price, quality, whether the workers are paid and treated well (this is a funny one, as it is something everyone would agree to -- no one would openly say they don't care a company's workers are whipped as long as the product is cheap or that he values cheap prices over workers being paid enough to survive -- but it is both difficult to verify and hard to remember about when making a decision, as those workers are well outside of our Monkeysphere), and so on. I think it isn't quite fair to blast that reason in our faces -- "look! If you don't purchase local goods YOU'RE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT!!")
Luckily, it looks like the local produce/goods movement started last semester at Columbia is dying down already. The "Give + Go Green," one, however, is still going strong (slightly less so this semester over last, but only just). I love the fact that people are becoming more aware about how important it is to be environmentally-friendly, but people have it so ingrained in their heads to wasteful (I still can't believe how often people leave the lights on in the common area -- and the TV too!) or to simply not care, thinking perhaps that electricity is unlimited, or that they don't need to conserve as they are not the ones footing the electric bill. Also, now it's "cool" to love the environment.
I loved the environment before it was cool.
Now, I'm eager to say something like, "it was as if trans-fat suddenly became taboo, and everyone rushed around crazy trying to get rid of it and boast that they did it," but all of that except the last part was unequivocally true. New York State passed a law in late 2006 with the implication that,
"[r]estaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July [2007] and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008." (link to MSNBC article: here)
Okay, so restaurants were required to get rid of trans fats, and I would venture a guess this law applied to dinning locations like those on campus (would have to look into this more). But why so showy? Why can't places like my dinning hall just get rid of trans fats and not make big flashy signs saying what foods suddenly don't have trans fats or make banners or flyers (well, I can't remember if they did either of those things, but last spring I remember it being emblazoned in my mind that Columbia was going trans fat free)?
I think it's a fairly easy question, actually. First, and while I didn't watch too much news, I know it was a common news item (I saw a lot about it online), so it was on the general public's mind (which includes the average Columbia student), whether Dinning Services made a show of it or not, so I would say that if Dinning Services didn't say explicitly what they were doing, people might think that they weren't doing anything. Though, this opinion is partially because we're used to seeing such response by organizations when they enact some big change (chicken and the egg situation, in a way), but I would also say that people like to know when something good is happening. The people know trans fat is suddenly bad (something else I need to look into: what started the trans fat craze? Was it some sudden publication in a journal of health and/or medicine that some reporter dug up and publicized?), so they have a right (well, no, they actually don't, but people feel like they do) to know whether their favorite joints (or not-so-favorite-but-need-to-eat-there-due-to-being-a-college-student) are actually healthy places to eat.
I think there's also the fact that Columbia is an institution for higher learning, so they take it upon themselves to teach those who eat there. Not only did they notify us that they were trans fat free, but they created literature for students and other patrons to take with them and read that told them about trans fat and why it is bad for them (too bad I didn't keep any of that; would answer some questions I have now, in retrospect). I don't think your local restaurant would go out of its way to inform you about why it's so healthy now -- did it even tell its customers about being trans fat free? I don't remember Tom's Diner saying anything about it, but I could have simply not noticed. Again, though, there is a cost factor involved in making up new menus and writing/printing informative literature and so on, so smaller eateries might not be able to afford this kind of educational service. After all, the law required them to get rid of trans fat by July 2007, so the consumers should probably assume the restaurants followed the law (though, if the restaurant was small enough, perhaps they did not even have the money to invest in a new, trans fat free, menu?). And, if they did not follow regulation, I would venture a guess that future inspections of their businesses will require them to be a trans fat free service, so locals that do not follow the rules will be closed up or face whatever punishment they usually do by not passing health inspections (another good thing to look further into).
You also have the argument that university students might not "get out" as much as working adults and therefore not hear as much about the trans fat fiasco. Therefore, since college is what is taking up all their time and attention (supposedly), college should be the one to inform them of the latest health craze (which they did). A simple little restaurant does not have such a requirement, as it is not part of an institution of higher learning and very high time commitments, and it can be safely assumed that the people who go there have enough time to turn on the nightly news or pick up a newspaper and become informed citizens.
(Note to self: trans fat started being involved in cooking when food scientists or whoever it is that comes up with this stuff discovered that hydrogenation years ago which helped preserve cooking oil from soy beans, where soy beans have a certain acid that spoils the oil. The hydrogenation process creates trans fat, which might not have been known at the time but must not have been known to raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol. Scientists today are working on finding soy beans that have a very low concentration of this acid, so we can how "low-lin oil" that does not need hydrogenation to remain unspoiled. Problem exists, though, to get an oil that does not need hydrogenation but tastes good, and, of course, taste is more important that healthiness in the commercial food industry. Also, these low-lin soybeans are harder to grow and not enough is grown to fully replace normal soybeans. Link to story from NPR about trans fat; audio version available. "Guide to Trans Fats" with more information here.)
I definitely got sidetracked there. What I meant to say initially was that, while there was this huge "get rid of trans fat ASAP" crazy back during last spring semester and it was a big news item and all, there's nothing on campus or in the news about it now. The law passed for NYC and is in effect, and the campus is already trans fat free, so I guess there's no reason to say any more, since we're not going to try to un-trans-fat-free-ify ourselves. Plus, there are bigger things to worry about, such as using only Organic Food and locally-grown food...
(Okay, this one, I really don't get: why should we support our local farmers? I see one reason given (mostly implicitly) is pity, that we should support them or else no one will and they'll go out of business and starve. While, yes, it would be great for people to be able to keep their jobs, but this is what I like about a free market: people have a choice, and they will choose what is best for them in the sliding scale between cost and quality (some will go for the absolute cheapest, some will want a minimum level of quality, and so on). While it might be noble, I don't think it ultimately wise for the government or some other organization to subsidize farmers or other providers whose quality is higher than most but cannot get enough business because their costs are too high. I think a better thing to do would be to let the market stabilize itself; if consumers want more quality, they'll support those vendors; if most people want cheaper goods, then so be it. If anything, the government should pass a regulation requiring some minimum quality, but I am not willing to say that that is necessarily a good thing to do (again, let the free market be free (...?)).
Another reason given, which I think is equally silly, is an environmental one, as Columbia is desperately trying to live green. If we support local farmers, then the goods will not have to be transported as far by truck or other method, and so we would be using less gas and therefore have fewer CO2 emissions. Um, what? First, I think the difference would be very small. Second, while I do care for the economy, I think the free market is more important than this little, tiny, decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. Right, this fact -- that buying locally is nominally better for the environment -- should be taken into consideration by the buyer while he is making his decision, but it should go alongside all the other things he is mulling over, such as price, quality, whether the workers are paid and treated well (this is a funny one, as it is something everyone would agree to -- no one would openly say they don't care a company's workers are whipped as long as the product is cheap or that he values cheap prices over workers being paid enough to survive -- but it is both difficult to verify and hard to remember about when making a decision, as those workers are well outside of our Monkeysphere), and so on. I think it isn't quite fair to blast that reason in our faces -- "look! If you don't purchase local goods YOU'RE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT!!")
Luckily, it looks like the local produce/goods movement started last semester at Columbia is dying down already. The "Give + Go Green," one, however, is still going strong (slightly less so this semester over last, but only just). I love the fact that people are becoming more aware about how important it is to be environmentally-friendly, but people have it so ingrained in their heads to wasteful (I still can't believe how often people leave the lights on in the common area -- and the TV too!) or to simply not care, thinking perhaps that electricity is unlimited, or that they don't need to conserve as they are not the ones footing the electric bill. Also, now it's "cool" to love the environment.
I loved the environment before it was cool.