The Politics of Trans Fats

KFC announced yesterday it would start frying chicken in oil free of trans fats. Also discussing a ban on the artery clogging fat is New York City's Health Board for its 20,000 plus restaurants. Chicago has a similar measure.

The average American consumes 4.7 pounds of this stuff every year. It is in many baked goods including crackers, donuts and cookies as well as in deep frying. But what exactly is it and why is it bad for you?

Trans fat is created when hydrogen is added to vegetable oil. The purpose of this is to lengthen the shelf life of the product and make frying oil last longer.

Partially hydrogenated oil raises bad cholesterol (LDL) and at the same time lowers good cholesterol (HDL). Trans fat is said to be worse than saturated fat because it is considered unnatural.

It is pretty well accepted that these fats are health detriments, but is banning them the answer? Mark Sisson’s Daily Apple questions:

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? . . . 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?

There are also questions concerning the supply of healthy oil alternatives. With trans-fat-free oils having the potential to outpace supply, some fear NYC cooks will be forced to use quick fix substitutes like palm oil that have high levels of saturated fat. Others say there will be an adequate supply. Monsanto Corp is working to persuade farmers to grow the special soybean used in KFC’s oil and farmers are also offered incentives to grow this soybean.

Instead of implementing bans, why not give consumers choice. Post information on substances that contain more than trace amounts of trans fat on menus. Many food suppliers switched to healthier fats when forced to label trans fats in early 2006. Maybe with other types of incentives like tax breaks, restaurants will follow suit.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Stars Come Out For and Against Stem Cells

Michael J. Fox

Response ad to Michael J. Fox

Shortly after actor Michael J. Fox went on television to support Missouri's stem cell ballot initiative, opponents struck back with a star studded ad of their own. Among the celebrities against Amendment 2 are Jeff Suppan who is scheduled to pitch Game 4 of the World Series. Others include quarterback Kurt Warner, the Royals' Mike Sweeney, along with actors Patricia Heaton and Jim Caviezel.

These are also ads to support the two U.S. Senate candidates from Missouri. Republican Sen. Jim Talent opposes the measure while Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill supports it. Amendment 2 would make embryonic stem cell research a right via an amendment to the state constitution.

The Fox ad has spurred somewhat of a backlash. Most notably was Rush Limbaugh's comment that Fox was "either off his medication or acting," commenting on Fox's wavering body. And the blogosphere appears to up in arms by his remark. Scott at Jarkolicious says:

The attack ended up blowing up in Rush’s face. He has been attacked in return, especially online and in the blogosphere. Undoubtedly someone, somewhere, agrees with his unsympathetic view of a very sick man desperate to cure himself of a horrible disease.

Today, however, the media somehow got wind and reported that Limbaugh apologized for making such ill conceived remarks. Turns out that the media had it all wrong; Limbaugh not only did not apologize but took the chance to reiterate his position on the whole issue by essentially saying that he has no regrets for saying what he said and in the manner in which it was phrased.

Kati from PA differs:

As for Rush and Michael J. Fox, you have to give Rush kudos for the intelligent observation. If Michael J. Fox went off meds just to get the sympathy vote, he deserves what he gets. The only reason he said anything was so he could get those that are too stupid to look at the facts and instead see this poor man suffering with this disease. It makes me sick that someone would use their disease as a tool to get sympathy.

Another note of interest is the link, or lack of link between the Senate race and the stem cell initiative. In the past, Missourians are known to have voted one way on a ballot measure while sending a different message on the candidate they choose. In 1994 Missouri voted to expand gambling by placing slot machines on riverboat casinos while at the same time electing John Ashcroft, a fervent gambling opponent, to Senate.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Bush buys land in Paraguay?

Various sources are reporting that the Bush family has bought 98,840 acres in Paraguay near the Bolivian/Brazilian boarder. Jenna Bush apparently visited Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte and U.S. Ambassador James Cason under the guise of the UNICEF program to make the purchase.

Another rumor is a land deal involving the U.S. military. Shortly after the Paraguayan Senate granted "U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction,” 500 U.S. troops arrived at Mariscal Estigarribia air base, Paraguay, also near the Bolivian/Brazilian border.

So what does the president and his family need such large patch of land -- possibly protected by a U.S. military base exempt from war crimes -- for? Helmut at Phronesisaical says:

If this is true, it is exceedingly odd. Could the man really be worried about his future? I doubt, after all, that he's planning on farming. Those Bushes....

"The dude" at Manimalia has other ideas:

We doubt this is the site of the G.W. Bush Presidential Library. We're betting this is Guantanamo Bay II.

Guthrum at Looking for a Voice says of the U.S. presence in Paraguay:

It appears our American Cousins are setting up 'frontier forts' in not just Iraq, but in South America as well. This is taking the Monroe Doctrine a little too far.

So what exactly is going on here? It looks like we won't know much more unless more media outlets pick up this story and investigate.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

The Power of Blog

C-Span 2 aired a summit on broadcast media ownership last night. Simply put, on one side of the panel were those who favored media consolidation and on the other were those who supported media diversification. Most of the audience -- like most of us -- was in agreement with the latter.

A few of the panelist mentioned competition from the burgeoning internet news and information market like this is a bad thing, saying it may push more traditional news outlets out of business. This is not entirely true. As more and more get their news from electronic sources, the broadcast and print medium are being forced to evolve to compete. Competition is a good thing. The more players there are in the media, the more they are forced to better themselves.

Enter the blogosphere. The blog has revolutionized the political sphere. But should the public trust bloggers as an authoritative information source? As Nate from the Online Reputation Management Blog says:

In a time when people are consciously participating and relying more and more on the internet, in particular blogs, as their one-stop source for political news, opinions, and goings-on, who are we putting our trust in? . . . Looking to them as an authoritative source of information thus may not be the best thing to do before making a decision on who you will vote for in the coming mid-terms, or further down the road in '08.

Blogs are less about authority and more about forum and participatory democracy. Sure the facts may sometimes be a little askew, but then again so are some of the major news outlets. The point here is that blogs allow citizens to have an additional voice in a democracy. By posting or leaving comments netizens further explore the core ideals of our society. The debate and exchange of ideas is what we need and the blog is one of the best ways to go about it.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Victory Money

Hidden in the fine print of the military budget this year is an allocation of $20 million dollars for an Iraq and Afghanistan victory party to be held in Washington, DC. The money has obviously not been spent and is being rolled over into 2007.

Safety Rule 4001 says:

Um…no big shocker that the funds weren’t used in 2006, my bet is they aren’t going to be used in 2007 either as the death toll over there keeps getting higher and higher. It’s really hard to see how this money’s going to get spent at all, as the ‘War on Terrorism’ just isn’t going to end…ever. How about this guys in DC…wait until we actually win something before celebrating it.

The idea of having a celebration for such a purpose just seems plain wrong. Not to be pessimistic or anything, but no matter what the outcome of Iraq -- with all the lying and death -- could we really deem it a victory? And even if there is some type of positive closure do we need to spend this kind of money on what could be considered propaganda?

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation