A cost analysis of Vista content protection (just a bit off topic) [LWN.net]

A cost analysis of Vista content protection (just a bit off topic)

Posted Dec 25, 2006 22:20 UTC (Mon) by bk (guest, #25617)
In reply to: A cost analysis of Vista content protection (just a bit off topic) by drag
Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection

That's a common reaction from people who a) don't really understand what trans fats are, and b) don't really understand the details of the 'ban'.

Banning trans fats will have absolutely zero effect on your ability to eat unhealthily if you so desire. You can be obese/overweight (and develop all the related health complications) to your heart's content. Restaurants will still have the option of frying everything in lard, butter, coconut oil and just about anything else.

What the ban *does* do is prevent establishments (almost entirely national fast-food franchises) from making the economic decision to use products that are cheaper but endanger the health of consumers. Trans fats are artificial (ie, they don't exist in nature) chemicals resulting from the hydrogenation of vegetable oil. Such restaurants can continue to use slightly more expensive products (such as lard) that are still quite unhealthy (don't worry, the 'health nut' agenda won't be forced on you) but don't have the overwhelmingly toxic effects of trans fats.

It also doesn't prevent you from going to a store and buying hydrogenated oils and using them at home. Of course there's no rational reason to do this (other than perhaps saving a penny or two by using Crisco instead of butter or animal fat) but it's still your option.

(Log in to post comments)