NYC Bans Trans-Fat

Originally posted by MrMedic
I am not in favor of the government banning a completely legal foodstuff on the premise they know better than I.

"a completely legal foodstuff"

a ban on the substance would make it... illegal (at least in NYC)

I stand that industrially manufactured trans fatty acids are NOT "foodstuff" and, in a just (shall we say kosher) world, this substance would be recognized globally as "not food".

Therefore, any local ban on the substance is in my eyes a step in the right direction.

I am not in favor of industry being able to put something that is NOT FOOD in a box, label it Crisco, Skippy, artificial flavor, or "fine NYC cuisine" and then market the substance at the grocery store, resturaunt, or convenience store, AS FOOD, to a largly ....ignorant-to-the-dangers AND the-means-by-which-it-was-manufactured... consumer population that could not have reasonably produced the supposed "foodstuff" themselves in a backyard garden.

I am,

Sri Oracle

If you are against it don't eat it, spread the word of why its wrong, and let people make their own choices. If nobody buys it, or if not enough people buy it, it will disappear on its own. You don't seem to get that. You want the easy way out, but at a price. Why is that?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
If you are against it don't eat it, spread the word of why its wrong, and let people make their own choices. If nobody buys it, or if not enough people buy it, it will disappear on its own. You don't seem to get that. You want the easy way out, but at a price. Why is that?

You are right that the protection that the government ban provides comes at a price. For why some people will want that price I am sure will change with each person, but hear is one reason why that could be.

"Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader," Lohse says. "If your world is very mixed up, there's something very comforting about someone telling you, 'This is how it's going to be'."

Alternet
and hear

The only thing that makes this issue 'iffy' is that trans fat is already in widespread use.

If bleach were already in widespread use as a flavoring agent, the debate would be the same.

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
a ban on the substance would make it... illegal (at least in NYC)

No it wouldn't. They are only banning restaurants from using it.

I stand that industrially manufactured trans fatty acids are NOT "foodstuff" and, in a just (shall we say kosher) world, this substance would be recognized globally as "not food".

You can think what you like but that will not change the fact it is legal to sell it in stores to any Larry Curly or Moe and their wives.


Now, what is next will they ban butter because it too gives you high cholesterol? Boy that would make all french chefs happy wouldn't it?


This ban went beyond the limits and needs to be struck down, it should be left up to the individual chefs and restaurants to do the changes on their own.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
You want the easy way out, but at a price. Why is that?

Perhaps he/she likes the sound of Sig heil followed by "you vill eat vat we tell you"

How people can be so ignorant as not to see this just another attempt at taking away ones rights is beyond me

This is a tough one. I'm going to have to go with Sri Oracle on this one, though. (love your posts) Since the public is largely ignorant about it, and since the restaurants aren't going to advertise the dangers of it, I don't mind the ban.

You can still buy Crisco and eat it by the spoonful in the privacy of your own kitchen. Hell, you can deep fry your bacon in it! But Mr. and Mrs. psuedo-health-conscious, who order the stir fry, thinking they're getting a healthy meal won't be fooled by the crap it's being stir-fried in.

Until restaurants carry health-warning labels (like cigarettes) or post the health information on their menus, just as every food in the grocery store is required to do by the FDA (which I would MUCH prefer to a ban) then I see no problem preventing them from selling known dangerous 'foods' to a mostly unsuspecting public.

[edit on 6-12-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Yet another Legislative payoff to the insurance conglomerates. They aren't worried about what you eat, their worried about their bottom line which is affected by you having high cholesterol and them having to shell out money for your treatment.
It's getting out of hand and this crosses some line in the sand for me when they start telling me what I can or can't eat. It's high time people stood up to this kind of crap.

My opinion on this matter is the same as my opinion on seatbelts and public smoking:

People should be allowed to choose whether or not they wish to wear a seatbelt. However, automobile manufacturers should be required to always include seatbelts in their vehicles for those who want to use them.

Stores and restaurants should be allowed to choose whether or not smoking is allowed inside their building. However, they should be required to post on their door whether they allow smoking or not, so people who don't want to enter a smoking restaurant can choose to go elsewhere.

And so, with trans-fatty acids, the people should be allowed to eat whatever they choose—but the stores and restaurants that sell foods containing them must make it clear to their customers their foods contain such things, and what that means, so the customers can decide whether they want to eat it or not.

Yet another disgusting legislation thrust upon the citizens of a free nation to coerce them into a sick reality that the liberals of this country want to enforce on everybody. How many people really care about "trans-fat" when they are stuffing their faces full of Pizza and soda ??
Is this ban going to prevent those people from bursting an artery ? No way! Just another silly gimick to hoodwink us and save us from actually taking responsibility over ourselves. If banning something is the way to health then all the cardiologists would be out of work! What would become of that??

Typical liberal policy! What next I wonder? Ban genetically modified food ?

Tree hugging moonbats!!

Oh goody, another legislative end-run around personal responsibility.

No matter how well-intentioned, these measures are a slippery slope.

I'm all for corporate responsibility, in terms of labeling and honesty when it comes to informing consumers of the contents of product X. This is the wrong way to go about it though...

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I'm all for corporate responsibility, in terms of labeling and honesty when it comes to informing consumers of the contents of product X. This is the wrong way to go about it though...

I agree with this. I'm all for personal responsibility and I don't agree with seat belt laws either. But at least we KNOW what happens when people don't wear seat belts and we know whether or not we're wearing a seat belt (or smoking). My problem with restaurants is that we don't really KNOW what they're feeding us, so somebody has to regulate that.

I think all their food should be labeled, just like the grocery store.

And for those who are saying that the government is telling you what to eat... No they're not. They're regulating what restaurants serve to the population. Would you have them disregard the cleanliness of restaurants, too? Someone has to regulate the restaurants or people would all be sick.

Originally posted by MrMedic
New York City in a controversial move today decided unanimously to ban the use of Trans-Fat at restaurants. Restaurants will have six months to initiate the changes to their menus.

 

www.foxnews.com
The board, which passed the ban unanimously, gave restaurants a slight break by relaxing what had been considered a tight deadline for compliance. Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July, and will have to eliminate artificial trans fats from all served foods by July 2008.

"I am very supportive of the changes," said Hasan, a manager at Dervish, a Turkish restaurant. "We stopped using trans fats a long time ago. Health is the most important factor, and people will just have to get used to it."

Pushcart vendor Abu doesn't buy the ban.

"You need a little trans for good taste. I think this is a very bad idea," he said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Little by little the governing bodies in this great nation are chipping away at our freedoms and stepping into our personal lives.

Eating laboratory produced trans-fats isn't much of a 'freedom'. Considering that heart disease is the NUMBER 1 cause of death in NYC, eliminating trans-fat chemicals seems eminently sensible.

Heck, you can still buy and eat the stuff, just not at a restaurant. We already have health codes that restaurants must obey.

This is reckless abuse of power.

Its certainly not reckless, nor is it abusive. We don't let restaurants serve food that has e. coli in it, or dangerous levels of lead, so why permit trans-fats??

Even though wearing a seatbelt can save your life, you hurt no one when you don't wear one. This new ban is in the same arena.

If that 'arena' is 'sensible laws that protect people and are, at worst, a minor inconvience', then sure.

To give up freedoms on the premise of "safety" is insanity.

Hardly. Its the most sensible thing in the world. Its nonsense to live in a world that is utterly free, but also utterly unsafe.

The Founders of the US recognized this, they saw government as a sensible exchange of freedoms for security, safety, wealth, etc. Its when we give up essential liberties that there is a problem. Being able to sell foods through a restaurant with trans-fats is hardly an sessential liberty.

The point is not whether or not they are unhealthy, but do we really need government to dictate and then legislate what we eat. What's next? Will our food have to carry a special seal to be legal to serve? Very dangerous territory in my opinion.

Thats already the case. Any resturant has to be approved by the local boards of health in order to legally serve food.

Would there be a reduction in car accident related injuries? Maybe.

What do you mean 'maybe'? Of course there'd be a reduction. The very fact that there would be a reduction, and yet people don't do it, or don't wear their seat belts, without a law, demonstrates the very necessity for these laws.

crakeur
Sure, the fast food chains are the real target here but there has to be a better way to control this. Perhaps limiting people to one big mac a month.

That'd be a heckuva lot more invasive, and it'd be extending governmental power into new regions. This City already regulates what restaurants can do, this is simply adding 'trans-fats' to the chemicals that they aren't permited to serve.

shots
I can see a new lawsuit in the making right now. Bad choice on the cities part if you ask me.

Its eliminating one of the causes/contributors to the #1 cause of death in the City. Its a long overdue move.

Essentially what they are doing is like walking up to a well known artist and telling him what kinds of brushes to use when expressing himself

We already do the equivalent of this regulation. You cannot paint with dangerous chemicals that will make people that come near your artwork sick.

Lets see how many French restaurants are there in NY 100 300 500 a thousand would make for a very good class action lawsuit.

They'd have no real basis for a suit. They can't claim damages over not being able to use Crisco.

Now, what is next will they ban butter because it too gives you high cholesterol? Boy that would make all french chefs happy wouldn't it?

I'm sorry, but the situations are different. Banning a substance necessary for cooking food, like oil, would be completely against the public interest and out of balance, and also nonsensical. Trans-fats are simply a chemical additive to food stuffs. Banning restaurants from cooking with crisco is just not the same.

grimreaper77
is that once you get your heart disease, we aren't going to pay for it

But this basically eliminates all treatment for heart disease. No one gets heart disease AND doesn't eat any trans-fats or fats.

If you are against it don't eat it,

We ban murder, we don't simply expect people to not do it because its wrong or stupid. We ban drugs, because they are damaging to our society. It is the society which gets to decide these things. And New York City has, quite rationally, decided that a big contributor to the #1 cause of death in the city shouldn't be an additive to their foods.

If there was a company out there that was adding bacteria-killing viruses to their food, in order to keep bacteria from growing on it, would you like to have a law preventing viruses as food additives?

I mean, there was a time when you didn't have to list what was in a food product in order to sell it. People'd but all sorts of stuff into it. THe public needs the government in situations like this to protect the public interest.
Being able to sell foods at a restaurant cooked with chemically produced trans-fats simply isn't much in the public interest.

Sri Oracle
The day peanut butter was born, the peanuts were crushed and the peanut oil floated to the top

Thats a neat example.

I put the Sri Oracle stamp of approval on legislation that bans this foul industrially-created wanna be mock food substance.

Indeed. Its a chemical, created in the lab via industrial processes, as a chemical food additive. It was created, not because its healthier, not because it makes food taste better, but because it doesn't melt as easily or mixes with other chemicals better.

jrod
This will end up hurting the small restauraunt owner more than anyone

People said similar things about the smoking bans, and the restaurants and bars are doing better than they were before.

This isn't going to hurt the small restaurants. Instead of opening a tub of crisco, they'll be opening a tub of butter.

Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader," Lohse says. "If your world is very mixed up, there's something very comforting about someone telling you, 'This is how it's going to be'."

A psychotic should have someone telling them 'how its going to be'. Its far better for their own interests to have someone do that for them, than to reel about in their imaginary psychotic delusions.

twitchy
Yet another Legislative payoff to the insurance conglomerates. They aren't worried about what you eat, their worried about their bottom line which is affected by you having high cholesterol and them having to shell out money for your treatment.

If a person is so unconcerned with their own health that an insurance company has more of an interest in their not having to go to the hopsital and die, then something is seriously wrong with that person.

It's getting out of hand and this crosses some line in the sand for me when they start telling me what I can or can't eat.

They are not telling you what you can or can't eat. You can't sell food cooked in trans-fats in a restaurant. Thats not crossing the line.
If they were doping the public water supply with psychiatric medication, would you suggest that there be a law against that?
If a company was dumping toxic waste into a river, would you object against that, or would you say that its a restriction on the freedom of the business owners?
Because it is a restriction on the business owner's freedom.

As far as restaurants 'suffering' from not being able to use crisco, they suffer far far more financially by having to clean their cooking equipment, prevent roach and rat infestations, having employess use soap and water, to clean their hands, etc etc. This trans-fat issue is minor compared to any of that.

wyrde one
No matter how well-intentioned, these measures are a slippery slope.

And so was trashing the Articles of Confederation in favour of the centralized and authoratative Consitution with its Bill of Rights, but honestly, are the public really damaged by any of this???

We don't let minors buy cigarettes. Even if their parents say its ok. Why? Because its a health issue for the public. We don't let companies sell food that is infected with bacteria. We could just have a website that lists every restaurant that has served food with bacterial contamination, but I suspect if we did an 'informative' system like that, instead of an authorative system like having health inspections and licenses, we'd have constant oubreaks of mass death due to e.coli, salmonella, etc etc. Which is more in the public interest? Dying from the constant stream of chemically manufactured trans-fats in our foodstuffs, or putting a 'stop' to partts of that 'stream', especially when those parts (the restaurants) are already regulated and saving some lives?

Whats more important, having the freedom to 'not wear a belt connected to my car', or forgoing that freedom and saving lives??? We constantly give up freedoms in order to make our lives better. Life with actual freedom, there isn't a person in america that wants that who isn't a criminal.

But this basically eliminates all treatment for heart disease. No one gets heart disease AND doesn't eat any trans-fats or fats.

If your doing something that will give you heart disease, and do it anyway, why should anyone else pay for it? Unless I want to donate money to a charity, why the hell should I pay to fix YOUR own mistakes?

We ban murder, we don't simply expect people to not do it because its wrong or stupid.

We ban murder because it takes away some ones rights without them having a choice. It takes away their freedoms. There is NO ONE forcing these people to eat this garbage. This is not taking away anyones freedoms. You put the stuff there for them to buy, and if they buy it thats there choice. Its not like murder what so ever.

You have the right to do whatever you want to yourself. Murder is taking away from somebody else. You choosing to eat bad food doesn't (unless your making me pay for your healthcare.)

We ban drugs, because they are damaging to our society. It is the society which gets to decide these things. And New York City has, quite rationally, decided that a big contributor to the #1 cause of death in the city shouldn't be an additive to their foods.

And this isn't even american. You can boycott a product all you want. Unless it DIRECTLY takes away the rights of some one else, there should be no laws against it. If you can show me how drugs directly take away some one elses rights, be my guest. But the example your going to find is "He was high when he killed this person" and you know what? That person goes to jail for the rest of his/her life or get the death sentence. If the drug they took by choice caused them to kill somebody, thats THEIR fault, and they will see their day in court.

If a doctor perscribed a drug which caused him to flip his lid and kill somebody, then its the doctors fault for perscribing it to him.

If there was a company out there that was adding bacteria-killing viruses to their food, in order to keep bacteria from growing on it, would you like to have a law preventing viruses as food additives?

No I would simply stop eating there. If you go to a place, and eat there food without asking whats in it, aren't you taking a risk to begin with? If you ask and they refuse to make whats in it avalible to you, why in the hell would you eat there?

I mean, there was a time when you didn't have to list what was in a food product in order to sell it.

and you don't eat there then. If enough people followed that rule, they would list the stuff they use or go out of business. American people for the most part are so completely brainwashed that they need government regulation that they cannot see consumer regulated market benefits.

People'd but all sorts of stuff into it. THe public needs the government in situations like this to protect the public interest.

that or they need to just stop being so damned lazy and maybe actual give a little here and there to get what they want. Instead they go "I want this" and wait for government to come like a 5 year old in toys r us. It's not only pitiful but embracing what is destroying our nation.

The people don't need government for ANYTHING, so long as they are responsible and realize that sometimes you have to give in order to get. You want trans fats gone? Your going to have to give up your fast food for maybe a month first, or however long it takes for them to give in.

If your not willing to do that, then you don't care enough. If you say it would be easier to get the government to ban it, well then you stand for everything that america needs to fight against in order to survive/avoid a collapse, laziness.

Being able to sell foods at a restaurant cooked with chemically produced trans-fats simply isn't much in the public interest.

Yea, so don't eat there. Tell your friends and family not to also. Tell them to tell their friends and so on. If enough people want the transfats gone, they will be gone, no government involvement needed. If not enough people care to stop eating there, the public has spoken. Thats true democracy. Where your say goes beyond the ballad.

Originally posted by shots
Perhaps he/she likes the sound of Sig heil followed by "you vill eat vat we tell you"

How people can be so ignorant as not to see this just another attempt at taking away ones rights is beyond me

You can go into just about any thread and find me and shots disagreeing with basically every issue we can come across. But this one is different.

One thing we can agree on is the rights of people. It is your right to eat what you want. It is your right to not eat what you don't want.

Your voice isn't only heard at the balladbox. Its heard with every purchase you make, every donation, every choice. Thats true democracy. If 60% of the customers don't want transfats enough to the point they won't eat it unless it doesn't have transfats, you will see one of two things.
1. the company go bankrupt.
2. they get rid of transfats.
The only thing I can see a law for is punishment for fraud. Saying its transfat free when its loaded with it I see as an offense that should be punishable with immediately taking all funds and assets of the company away and serving criminals charges for fraud.

I believe that it is your choice to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't take away anybody elses rights when doing so. If it does, you will be held responsible for the action and suffer the consequences. You do drugs, fine. You do drugs then kill some one cause your high, get ready to face the full extent of the law. Thats what this country was about. You do you, just make sure it doesn't take away my right to do what I want.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is a tough one. I'm going to have to go with Sri Oracle on this one, though. (love your posts) Since the public is largely ignorant about it, and since the restaurants aren't going to advertise the dangers of it, I don't mind the ban.

Why do you think they are ignorant? Because they have the government to come save them everytime. "I don't know what to do, but thats ok, Ill just let the government tell me whats right and wrong", how american is that? You plan to deal with ignorance by having some one tell them what is best for them?

You know why educations is the key to a free people? Because it eliminates ignorance. Having some one tell them what is or isnt good for them is the opposite of keeping people free. If restaurants won't tell you whats in the food, don't eat there.

Embrace education, not government power. Thats the way to keeping this a free nation.

Until restaurants carry health-warning labels (like cigarettes) or post the health information on their menus, just as every food in the grocery store is required to do by the FDA (which I would MUCH prefer to a ban) then I see no problem preventing them from selling known dangerous 'foods' to a mostly unsuspecting public.

which could be done via consumer regulation. The problem with consumer regulation is it requires you to physically give right on the spot in order to get what you want in the long run. People think "give up my fast food till they give in? No way!".
Scary part is what they don't realize. They are giving something else to have government ban it. They are giving freedom, and power to the government, and stripping themselves slowly but surely of what they are suppose to stand for.

It doesn't matter which way you go. If you choose government regulation, you give them your freedoms. You choose consumer regulation, you give up temporary goods for long term needs. You choose no regulation at all, you give up your health and safety.

Which do you want to give? Health, Freedoms, or Temporary Materialism?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Why do you think they are ignorant? Because they have the government to come save them everytime.

I actually cannot believe how many people have the attitude "If the government says it's safe, then it's safe and if the government says it's dangerous, then it must be."

I'm sorry, but individuals are smart. People are stupid.

I agree. People should be educated. Failing that, SOMEBODY (the government) should regulate what restaurants are serving to people.

You know why educations is the key to a free people? Because it eliminates ignorance. ...
Embrace education, not government power. Thats the way to keeping this a free nation.

Preaching to the choir...

"give up my fast food till they give in? No way!".

Right. Because the FDA says it's ok, it must be ok. Like I said. People are stupid.

Yes, and people need to learn stupidity comes with a consequence. Having the government take care of things lets them believe being stupid is ok. Its not, and people need to realize that. They wont until government stops babying them.

Fantastic Idea, all the Fattys in this World cost the Taxpayer and Health SYstem big time! You cant make them get up off there Lard Arses to excercise but atleast they can help control the crap that people eat!!

Some one should file lawsuit. This will be the outcome.

Judge throws out McDonald's lawsuit

Federal court Judge Robert Sweet lifted a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's Wednesday, which blamed the fast-food restaurant giant for making some of its patrons obese.

Those who overindulge in oversized value meals should know there's a health risk, he said. "It is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses," the judge said.

What can I say? The judge was right unlike these stupid city officials who are now trying to circumvent the ruling by writing a law first. If they get away with it; hang on to your hats, next they will ban butter, then sugar or anything else that can make you fat. only at that point they will also say you cannot cook with it in your own home.

Again how you people can stand there and say this is right is beyond me:shk: