I don't have Lyme disease. I was actually started to think: hey, if I do have Lyme, that gives me a handy explanation for the fatigue and the joint pain and the other unexplainable crap that's wrong with me...but no. The Magic Cream hasn't helped the rash, either. I'm still hoping it disappears by Monday, or else I'm supposed to go to a dermatologist.
I was going to write this up yesterday, but when I got home from work I found puddles of dog puke all over the house, and eventually found the dog shaking in a corner where she doesn't usually sleep. Long story short: all I did last night was nurse and worry about the dog, except for the few minutes of nursing the toothless rat.
Regarding the dog, Victor said "Well, she is getting old." I'm really not liking that people keep telling me this. I know she's old, and I know what they are really saying is "Get used to the fact that she's going to die soon." I'm not ready to get used to that just now.
So what I was really interested in yesterday before getting distracted by dog puke was New York City's ban on trans fats. I'm wondering if it will hold up in court (I am assuming that somebody's going to mount a legal challenge), but I'm in favor of anything that pressures industry to do the right thing and quit using partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.
(As an aside, I shuddered when I saw something about how restaurants prefer partially hydrogenated oil for frying because they can leave the same oil in the fryer for weeks. I wonder how many rodents they scoop out of the fryer in the morning when they turn on the burners?)
I'm also laughing over the "but it's my personal freedom of choice!" argument. Nobody's taking away your doughnut, fat boy, they'll just be frying it in a better oil.
I have trouble understanding why anybody not connected to the trans fat industry wants to keep it in food.* Maybe there are still people who prefer lead paint and asbestos insulation, too. (Ok, the asbestos was good, except for that damn lung cancer...but what tastes better than butter?) But my interest in the health of others extends only to the cost of my insurance premiums. I'm happy about trans fats bans because I don't want to eat it, and sometimes (I'm recalling a particular week of training where I was locked in a hotel conference room for breakfast and lunch) you don't have much choice over what you get to eat.
*I have an article here from the New England Journal: Trans Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease. It concludes that
On the basis of evidence from in vitro experimental studies, dietary trials, and prospective observational studies, the comsumption of trans fatty acids from partially hydrogenated oils provides no apparent nutritional benefit and has considerable potential for harm.
I tried to find articles that countered this, but at least in the medical literature (I searched via Medline) I found nothing.
Posted by Nic at December 6, 2006 06:25 PM | TrackBackNic, it's not whether trans-fats are bad for you or not. The idea is that it is not the government's job to tell you what you can and cannot eat. Period. Don't want it in your diet? Don't eat it.
What's next? Government telling you that it is now mandatory for you to eat five vegetables a day, because it's good for you? That's no different.
Or how about other lifestyle decisions? No more compact cars, they're too small and not safe in an accident. No more bikes, people get hurt on them. No pet rodents, *everyone* knows that they carry disease. Why not enforce those laws that tell us what is and isn't allowed in the bedroom?
Bottom line is, the government should stay the hell out of our lives as much as possible. This tiny step is frightening because they assume that they have the right to control the population to that extent.
Did you know that San Fransisco banned a bunch of types of baby toys, including rubber ducks? Seriously. Because they're made overseas and we have no quality control over them. Not that they're dangerous, but they *could* be, so the public can't have them.
A government that would do these kinds of things will not stop expanding its power over the people, because "they know what's best".
Posted by: Ted at December 7, 2006 11:12 PMActually I believe the baby toys were banned because they had excessive levels of phthalates.
Here's the thing: chemicals aren't required to be fully tested before they go on the market, and sometimes a few years down the road, the medical community starts seeing epidemiological data that strongly suggest problems...then it's an "Oh crap, if we'd have known that, we wouldn't have approved this for food/toys that get chewed on/whatever."
I put trans fats (don't know enough about the phthalates) in the category with asbestos and lead. We now know enough to know it's harmful, there is no benefit (even economic--fully hydrogenated oil is just as cheap and long-lasting) to it, and the public health costs of the damage it does (heart disease specifically, not obesity) are tremendous.
Of course my perspective is different from yours. I work in the regulatory world, and my political philosophy is a lot more Federalist.
Posted by: nic at December 8, 2006 07:36 AMNic, the report I saw said that there was a possibility of too many phthalates, not that there were in all of them. The really odd note that struck me was that they turned it into a wierd kind of "buy USA" piece, really slamming imported goods.
Posted by: Ted at December 8, 2006 07:46 AMA disproportionate number of the CPSC recalls for lead are in toys made in China (and sold at the Dollar Store). Not everything that's cheap is unsafe and not everything that's unsafe is cheap, but there is some correlation.
If I were really concerned about my kid gnawing on endrocrine disrupters, I'd buy 'em toys from Europe. I think they banned phthalates last year.
Bingo! Instead of treating everyone like they're too stupid to think for themselves, they should educate people about the potential hazards.
Dollar stores would be hurting for sure if people knew that the merchandise wasn't just shoddy, but might actually be dangerous. The market works.
Posted by: Ted at December 8, 2006 07:13 PMI don't disagree in concept, but the reality is, even sophisticated, well-educated people have trouble keeping up with all of the medical/scientific/stories about dollar stores selling bogus UL-listed electronics information available. Our free market has come to a point where there is an expectation that products are at least safe. And as a consumer, I want that assurance: I want to buy safe food, safe drugs, nontoxic toys, and extension cords that won't burn down my house.
The market works up to a point. Trans fats are a good example...the FDA started the labeling requirement (education) and that got some of the manufacturers to start reformulating. If the bill to require nutritional infomation on menus had passed (information! education!) restaurants might have been a little quicker to get rid of the trans fats too.
You are right that the market is, slowly, making the correction. But it isn't because people are reading in the New England Journal of Medicine that trans fats are unhealthy that the consumers are aware...it's because of the NYC ban and the goofy Oreo lawsuit.
And something that drives me nuts--not you, Ted, but other bloggers & editorialists I've read--is the rapidity with which they go from "Government better keep its nose out of my life!" to "E. coli from spinach! Why hasn't somebody protected us!"
Posted by: nic at December 8, 2006 11:27 PMthe reviws experienced me confussed with what measurements to acquire, just about every cover i individual can be a medical. i will be 54 150 kilos and have absolutely alotta muscle mass ,quicker stomach and not lengthy legs or biceps plus a do pot chest area,, and i have a boody hahah.
[url=http://www.discount-moncler-jackets.co.uk]moncler down jackets[/url]
moncler down jackets