LTH Home

Chicago's biggest nanny at it again

Chicago's biggest nanny at it again
  • Forum HomePost Reply BackTop
  • Chicago's biggest nanny at it again

    Post #1 - June 28th, 2006, 9:21 pm
    Post #1 - June 28th, 2006, 9:21 pm Post #1 - June 28th, 2006, 9:21 pm
    This time, he wants to ban trans-fats. Sure, it's bad for you, but this guy thinks everything can be solved by legislating and restricting personal freedom. But, I guess it's just par for the course in Chicago politics -- egos that are too big and brains that are too small.

    Doesn't the mayor have the power to do ANYTHING except blather on at news conferences ?

    :x :x :x

    http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/transfats28.html
  • Post #2 - June 28th, 2006, 9:29 pm
    Post #2 - June 28th, 2006, 9:29 pm Post #2 - June 28th, 2006, 9:29 pm
    Unbelievable! I'm just disappointed that the Chicago restaurants haven't banded together sufficiently to shut up the city council.

    Maybe soon the Aldermen will ban candy bars, red meat, raw seafood, salt . . .

    And why not require that restaurants list full nutritional information on menus. . .

    What amazes me is that the Aldermen don't realize just how stupid they look.
  • Post #3 - June 29th, 2006, 5:58 am
    Post #3 - June 29th, 2006, 5:58 am Post #3 - June 29th, 2006, 5:58 am
    And why not require that restaurants list full nutritional information on menus. . .


    I would love this. I know you are being facetious. But I would love it.
  • Post #4 - June 29th, 2006, 12:49 pm
    Post #4 - June 29th, 2006, 12:49 pm Post #4 - June 29th, 2006, 12:49 pm
    Not to mention that it's illegal anywhere in the U.S. to sell raw milk cheese that hasn't been aged for a certain length of time. Oooh, the hidden killer, raw milk cheese! So much worse for you than smoking, drinking, or any number of other perfectly legal activities. We saw a cheese shop in Montreal that specialized in raw milk cheeses, and I was almost overcome with jealousy.
    Anthony Bourdain on Barack Obama: "He's from Chicago, so he knows what good food is."
  • Post #5 - June 29th, 2006, 12:53 pm
    Post #5 - June 29th, 2006, 12:53 pm Post #5 - June 29th, 2006, 12:53 pm
    geli wrote:We saw a cheese shop in Montreal that specialized in raw milk cheeses, and I was almost overcome with jealousy.


    So, what exactly kept you on thisside of the brink? ;)

    E.M.
  • Post #6 - June 29th, 2006, 1:18 pm
    Post #6 - June 29th, 2006, 1:18 pm Post #6 - June 29th, 2006, 1:18 pm
    geli wrote:Not to mention that it's illegal anywhere in the U.S. to sell raw milk cheese that hasn't been aged for a certain length of time. Oooh, the hidden killer, raw milk cheese! So much worse for you than smoking, drinking, or any number of other perfectly legal activities. We saw a cheese shop in Montreal that specialized in raw milk cheeses, and I was almost overcome with jealousy.


    Don't run to the casino on this, but I think (I think) I heard that the US is in the process of relaxing some of the raw milk cheese requirements.
    Think Yiddish, Dress British - Advice of Evil Ronnie to me.
  • Post #7 - June 29th, 2006, 3:15 pm
    Post #7 - June 29th, 2006, 3:15 pm Post #7 - June 29th, 2006, 3:15 pm
    Quoting myself from the thread on the foie gras ban:

    What DOES concern me mightily, though, is the precedent that it would establish: if a legislative body is allowed to ban foie gras, what foodstuff(s) might be next? Runny scrambled eggs? Rare hamburger? Traditional aoli or mayo or Caesar salad dressing (made with raw eggs)? Sashimi? Steak tartare?

    It's best that this get nipped in the bud, and now.


    I guess my rhetorical question (what next?) has been answered.

    Trans-fats are bad, I know, and I generally try to avoid or limit them, but some precedents are a dangerous thing.

    What do you imagine they'll try to outlaw after this?

    Cheers,
    Wade
    "Remember the Alamo? I do, with the very last swallow."
  • Post #8 - June 29th, 2006, 3:22 pm
    Post #8 - June 29th, 2006, 3:22 pm Post #8 - June 29th, 2006, 3:22 pm
    waderoberts wrote:What do you imagine they'll try to outlaw after this?


    Veal
  • Post #9 - June 29th, 2006, 3:22 pm
    Post #9 - June 29th, 2006, 3:22 pm Post #9 - June 29th, 2006, 3:22 pm
    waderoberts wrote:What do you imagine they'll try to outlaw after this?


    Internet food chat forums.
    JiLS
  • Post #10 - June 29th, 2006, 3:55 pm
    Post #10 - June 29th, 2006, 3:55 pm Post #10 - June 29th, 2006, 3:55 pm
    How many people seeing the news about this understand that the evil-sounding "trans fats" means Crisco?

    And that banning it doesn't necessarily force restaurants to stop using saturated fats? Instead, they may go back to cooking with lard, duck fat, palm oil, etc.

    Hmm... that's the bright side -- except that the next move of the food nannies will be to try to ban all saturated fats. After all, the reason foodservice moved from using animal fats to hydrogenated vegetable fats in the first place was because of the tirades of self-appointed food police, like Phil Sokolov's campaign against McDonald's in the early '90s, when he targeted them for serving french fries cooked in beef tallow.

    There are two agendas going on here: the "I know what's good for you" health police and the "animals are more important than people" PETA crowd. If they keep winning converts among those who control public policy in Chicago, the onetime hog butcher to the world may become the first city to mandate fruitarianism.
    Last edited by LAZ on June 30th, 2006, 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • Post #11 - June 29th, 2006, 5:29 pm
    Post #11 - June 29th, 2006, 5:29 pm Post #11 - June 29th, 2006, 5:29 pm
    Erik M. wrote:

    So, what exactly kept you on thisside of the brink?


    The price of beer in Montreal (9.99 a six-pack of crud like Coor's Light!). Beer was pretty much the only thing I noticed that was significantly more there than it is here.

    Also the fact that I didn't want to cry in public.
    Anthony Bourdain on Barack Obama: "He's from Chicago, so he knows what good food is."
  • Post #12 - June 29th, 2006, 5:48 pm
    Post #12 - June 29th, 2006, 5:48 pm Post #12 - June 29th, 2006, 5:48 pm
    LAZ wrote:

    like Ray Sokolov's campaign against McDonald's in the early '90s


    As much as I admire and respect his book "Fading Feast: A Compendium of Disappearing American Regional Foods," I remain highly miffed about that.

    Um . . . is anyone aware of any real beef tallow-fried fries in Chicago?

    Cheers,
    Wade
    "Remember the Alamo? I do, with the very last swallow."
  • Post #13 - June 29th, 2006, 6:05 pm
    Post #13 - June 29th, 2006, 6:05 pm Post #13 - June 29th, 2006, 6:05 pm
    waderoberts wrote:Um . . . is anyone aware of any real beef tallow-fried fries in Chicago?



    didn't McDonald's get busted by Hindus/vegetarians in the last couple yrs for putting beef tallow/somethingorother in the frying oil, thereby rendering (pun intended :) ) them non-vegetarian ?
  • Post #14 - June 29th, 2006, 6:52 pm
    Post #14 - June 29th, 2006, 6:52 pm Post #14 - June 29th, 2006, 6:52 pm
    First, it was "beef flavoring," whatever that is:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/05/national/main511109.shtml

    Then, it was wheat and dairy:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11326937/

    What's wrong with just potatoes fried in animal fat, and tossed with salt (as long as salt remains legal in Chicago)? I'm reminded of a short time living in L.A. Shortly after relocating, I stopped by a joint for breakfast, ordering eggs over easy, hash browns, and bacon. The meal arrived, but the counter bore only pepper, no salt. I asked the young waitress for a salt shaker. She exclaimed: You have yellow chicken death, pork death, and grease death. You want white death, too?" "Er, yes, please," I replied, "and could you make sure that the shaker is full."

    Cheers,
    Wade
    "Remember the Alamo? I do, with the very last swallow."
  • Post #15 - June 29th, 2006, 7:52 pm
    Post #15 - June 29th, 2006, 7:52 pm Post #15 - June 29th, 2006, 7:52 pm
    Wade,

    For beef tallow fried potatoes and a darn good burger:

    Top Notch Beefburger
    2116 W. 95th St.
    Chicago, IL 60643
    773-445-7218

    :twisted:
  • Post #16 - June 29th, 2006, 8:28 pm
    Post #16 - June 29th, 2006, 8:28 pm Post #16 - June 29th, 2006, 8:28 pm
    Well, I've already written my alderman... not that he'll take me too seriously after our last conversation after the foie gras vote... but I'd recommend that everybody else do the same. The only thing that will stop this is if lots of people get very angry and make it very clear that they're very angry. The only reason the foie gras ban went through was because our aldermen's doors were beaten down by animal activists and they took what they perceived to be the path of least resistance.

    The restaurant industry does seem to be remarkably quiet, and I have to believe they'd carry some significant weight if they organized, even loosely so. Chefs for Choice strikes me as a good start, but it's just that... a start. Are they unused to having to defend their turf? Is it that they're too busy working ridiculous hours to create deliciousness for the rest of us? :-)

    Is there anything we can do to help?
    Dominic Armato
    Dining Critic
    The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com
  • Post #17 - June 29th, 2006, 9:51 pm
    Post #17 - June 29th, 2006, 9:51 pm Post #17 - June 29th, 2006, 9:51 pm
    Dmnkly wrote:The restaurant industry does seem to be remarkably quiet, and I have to believe they'd carry some significant weight if they organized, even loosely so.


    They certainly seemed to be able to organize more than loosely when they scared enough aldermen to get them to give them that bogus 2yr moratorium and future copouts on the smoking ban.
  • Post #18 - June 30th, 2006, 8:39 am
    Post #18 - June 30th, 2006, 8:39 am Post #18 - June 30th, 2006, 8:39 am
    The scary thing is, if you want to take Chicago Tribune readers as a snapsnot of public opinion, then the public seems to be for it. I logged in yesterday, and after 3000+ votes, 57% of people were for the ban.

    The mind boggles.
  • Post #19 - June 30th, 2006, 10:10 am
    Post #19 - June 30th, 2006, 10:10 am Post #19 - June 30th, 2006, 10:10 am
    Trans-fats = artificial lard.

    When I choose to indulge, I'd rather have my fries cooked in the real thing.
    Where there’s smoke, there may be salmon.
  • Post #20 - June 30th, 2006, 2:19 pm
    Post #20 - June 30th, 2006, 2:19 pm Post #20 - June 30th, 2006, 2:19 pm
    waderoberts wrote:As much as I admire and respect his book "Fading Feast: A Compendium of Disappearing American Regional Foods," I remain highly miffed about that.

    Oops, sorry, don't be mad at Ray. I mistyped. Phil Sokolov was the french-fry crusader. (I've edited my post.)

    Binko wrote:The scary thing is, if you want to take Chicago Tribune readers as a snapsnot of public opinion, then the public seems to be for it. I logged in yesterday, and after 3000+ votes, 57% of people were for the ban.

    That's because everyone keeps talking about scary, evil "trans-fats" instead of Crisco and margarine.

    This could even affect Mexican restaurants that use lard -- most of the commercial stuff is hydrogenated.

Contact

About

Team

Advertize

Close

Chat

Articles

Guide

Events

more