New York City bans trans fats from restaurants.

[DeerDeer]

now if only the rest of the country could do the same...


-----------------------------------------

New York City bans trans fats from restaurants. NBC Nightly News (12/5, story 8, 0:25, Williams) reported, "From world famous five-star restaurants to hole-in-the-wall neighborhood delis, this city -- New York -- has banned the use of artery-clogging fats known as trans fats in all food establishments. A first for any American city and a controversial move that critics describe as food police gone wild and impossible to enforce. Still, health experts agree that trans fats are the worst kind for cardiac health."
In a front page article, the New York Times (12/6, A1, Lueck, Severson) reports that the regulation will "radically transform the way food is prepared in thousands of restaurants" and has "thrust New York to the forefront of a significant public health issue." However, it has "come under fire as impractical and unwanted intrusions by the government into free enterprise and civil liberties." Despite this, "Chicago is considering a similar prohibition that would affect restaurants with more than $20 million in annual sales." In a front page article, USA Today (12/6, 1A, Jones, Hellmich) adds, "Other cities taking a hard look at restaurant foods include Seattle, Philadelphia, Washington and Boston." The Wall Street Journal (12/6, D8, Adamy) reports, "Chain restaurants will move more quickly to remove trans fats from their food."

 

[ZoMbSta]

People will not have to worry so much about transfats if they didn't have so much junk food in the first place. Whatever it is, i think it's a good move and hopefully other westernized country will do likewise. Wonder how places like McDonald's and KFC are gonna deal with it....

 

[CDONDICI]

People will not have to worry so much about transfats if they didn't have so much junk food in the first place. Whatever it is, i think it's a good move and hopefully other westernized country will do likewise. Wonder how places like McDonald's and KFC are gonna deal with it....

I beleive KFC has already eliminated trans fats

 

[cable626]

Guys, I understand that trans fats are bad for you, but doesn't anyone see the irony of everyone agreeing with this law?

We are giving up our right to choose what we put into our bodies with this new law.
Whether it be cigarettes/alcohol/steroids/trans fats.
There is terrible inconsistency in our government laws.

Hell if I wanna eat trans fats, bungie jump, smoke a pack of cigarettes, and have a couple of beers at the end of the night I should be able to.

 

[CDONDICI]

Guys, I understand that trans fats are bad for you, but doesn't anyone see the irony of everyone agreeing with this law?

We are giving up our right to choose what we put into our bodies with this new law.
Whether it be cigarettes/alcohol/steroids/trans fats.
There is terrible inconsistency in our government laws.

Hell if I wanna eat trans fats, bungie jump, smoke a pack of cigarettes, and have a couple of beers at the end of the night I should be able to.

Yea I agree, but I like this law it will make fast food healthier, and hopefully make way to more restrictions on perservatives and artificial fvaoring. With out laws like this food suppliers have gone wild putting out ****ty foods, full of trans fats, perservatives, chemical flavoring, ridiculous amounts of sodium, leaving the healthy alteratives scarce and more expensive.

 

[SMOKEPALADIN]

This could have a very negative impact on the economy, a slower more thought out staged approach to this would be more logical. I also agree with cable626, this does infringe on people's right to choose. I am all for eating healthy, but i am not sure that forcing other people to do so is the right answer.

 

[wastedwhiteboy2]

mabybe a sin tax on trans fats like alcohol?

 

[doggzj]

I think there are two sides to the coin here. The first side of the coin is that the public health improvement from removing trans fat will be amazing. Less american money put to keeping people alive, and more money for other things.

But the other side we are limiting what people can do with their bodies. I don't like artifical bans on anything.

That said, I like this law alot. It's not banning or removing trans fat from the market, but it's keeping them out of the way from people who are most likely to have problems with them; the average fat american who eats at McDs because of convinience.

Lets face it, most americans don't care that much about health, except when they have a health PROBLEM. They will eat anything, so long as it tastes good. They don't care one way or the other. This law keeps it out of the way from these people, and long term should lead to less health problems.

This isn't like a ban. People can still go out and get trans fat if they so desire.

 

[AM07]

Eliminating trans fats isn't going to change much at all. You still have LOADS of saturated fat in fast food that is very bad for your health.

This is a complete infringement on peoples' rights. When the **** did the government have to start protecting us from ourselves? Oh, that's right, when stupid Americans can't think for themselves and become sheep and are convinced that they need someone to make decisions for them.

 

[doggzj]

am84> The problem is that the majority of americans ARE stupid, and cannot make intelligent decisions for themselves, such as avoiding trans fats.

 

[ZoMbSta]

well...i agree the ban infringes on some of the rights..but for the better society..such infringements are required...think of it as sacrificing for the the benefits of the masses..less trans fat means less healthcare is needed which in turn allows spouses to carry less burden..both financially, emotionally and mentally...hence such infringements are unavoidable..

 

[\_JIMBO_/]

Trans fats were used in the first place, because they were cheaper, much like animal lard. The ban on trans Fat is Awesome! The food will still taste the same if not better. Getting mad that you can't eat trans fat is like getting mad that you can't eat Dog ****... It just doesn't make sence.. Are there really people out there that actually want trans fat in their food if there are alternatives?

 

[CDB]

Yea I agree, but I like this law it will make fast food healthier, and hopefully make way to more restrictions on perservatives and artificial fvaoring. With out laws like this food suppliers have gone wild putting out ****ty foods, full of trans fats, perservatives, chemical flavoring, ridiculous amounts of sodium, leaving the healthy alteratives scarce and more expensive.

Right now there are people who like the idea of a law that will throw you in prison for 20 years if you're caught with creatine.

I think there are two sides to the coin here. The first side of the coin is that the public health improvement from removing trans fat will be amazing. Less american money put to keeping people alive, and more money for other things.

There is one side to it: you are either for or against freedom of choice. You are either for or against the idea that people have the right to put whatever they damn well please in their bodies, be it steroids, transfat, Budweiser, oatmeal, marijuana, chicken or steak. This legislation will not keep people alive because it will not change their underlying disregard for their health, merely deny them one option of slowly killing themselves. They will find another way.

 

[CDB]

am84> The problem is that the majority of americans ARE stupid, and cannot make intelligent decisions for themselves, such as avoiding trans fats.

This is incorrect. You cannot enact endless laws to provide for people's 'safety' and/or health, remove the burden of dealing with the consequences of bad decisions by having the government foot their medical bills, and then claim people are too stupid to take care of themselves. If they don't have to pay for their health problems because the government will simply rob you, I and everyone else to defray the cost, more people will tend toward unhealthy behavior. If people have to shoulder the cost of bad decisions on their own with no 'help' from the government, they will be much less likely to engage in such bad behaviors. Some people will still do stupid things, there is nothing we can do to change that, just as there's nothing we can do to stop someone from deciding to run a cycle of 200mgs of M1T daily for a few months. The protection of the stupid is no justification for the oppression of the smart. As a general tendency when you've removed the right to choose and to a much greater extent the need for each individual to shoulder the cost of their own bad decisions it is no wonder people make a lot of bad decisions.

 

[CDB]

Trans fats were used in the first place, because they were cheaper, much like animal lard. The ban on trans Fat is Awesome! The food will still taste the same if not better. Getting mad that you can't eat trans fat is like getting mad that you can't eat Dog ****... It just doesn't make sence.. Are there really people out there that actually want trans fat in their food if there are alternatives?

There are. And it is not your place or the government's to tell them they can't have it, anymore than it is someone else's place to tell you that you can't use steroids or creatine, or play with weights they think are too heavy for safety reasons. Just because it's a bad idea to do something does not mean it should be illegal.

 

[cable626]

I dont understand how the govt has power to do this.
You can't force people to be healthy. It is their own choice.

I think that instead of a ban, they should just require restaurants that use trans fats to inform their customers by putting up a big visible sign. This way, people would be able to make decisions on their own if they felt that they wanted to avoid trans fats.
I guarantee that restaurants that didn't use trans fats would prosper while others who used trans fats would be forced to change simply by demand of the customers. People aren't stupid, they just dont know what is in the food!

 

[CDB]

I dont understand how the govt has power to do this.
You can't force people to be healthy. It is their own choice.

I think that instead of a ban, they should just require restaurants that use trans fats to inform their customers by putting up a big visible sign. This way, people would be able to make decisions on their own if they felt that they wanted to avoid trans fats.

Some reasonable means of communicating the actual content of the product in question is a good, practical compromise. It's not ideal, but neither does it necessarily impose massive costs on sellers or rob buyers of their right to choose what they want. However such a law could be used to to put smaller restaurants out of business. It's no problem finding out the content of McDonald's food, but the independent pizza shop down the road would have a harder time providing as detailed information about their offerings. Their prices would go up or their offerrings would be more limited or both. If the information was allowed to be general enough, a list of ingredients perhaps, then it could work. Or if the information was allowed to vary enough so smaller restaurants don't get sued for lying because their pasta dish was 520 calories and not 515. But those decisions would have to be made and they would affect the industry in the end, in favorance of the larger businesses.

 

[wastedwhiteboy2]

I agree with cdb about personal responsibility but you will get farther with a ban that kicking these fat***es off the government tit. I guess really the only reason I like the ban is it does not affect me except it would convince me to eat at mcd's more. The better idea would be to have people be responsible for their own mistakes but that wont happen. instead my healthcare costs and taxes go up. a large # of the people with fat related health problems dont pay taxes anyway.

 

[CDB]

I agree with cdb about personal responsibility but you will get farther with a ban that kicking these fat***es off the government tit.

How can we demonstrate this? With the oh-so-successful other bans, like those on marijuana, steroids, LSD, cocaine, etc?

I guess really the only reason I like the ban is it does not affect me except it would convince me to eat at mcd's more. The better idea would be to have people be responsible for their own mistakes but that wont happen. instead my healthcare costs and taxes go up. a large # of the people with fat related health problems dont pay taxes anyway.

It affects you. It has denied you a choice. It is a choice you made to not eat foods with transfats in them. Now the choice is no longer yours because it doesn't even exist anymore. Consider a wide open field and you decide to walk in one direction. You are following a certain path through the field, as others are following other paths, some more well travelled than others. The government starts putting up walls restricting some paths, completely blocking others. What does it matter to you? Your path is still open. More walls are built, the field isn't open anymore. Now you can't even see the other paths to see if there's anything they led to that you might have wanted, and you walk into a wall. You get up, shake yourself off, and grab one of the guys who built it before he walks away and yell at him, "What they hell are you doing?! I was going in that direction and bothering no one to do it! You have no right!" And he only looks at you in puzzlement, "What are you talking about? We've been building these walls for years..." And he is right, you just never cared enough to comment on it or oppose the building of walls until one was put in your path and affected your ability to do what you wanted. And then it was too late, because the field was gone and a nice maze has taken its place with rats that were once humans going along in nice, orderly paths toward the destinations to which the government, not they, thinks they should travel.

You have not surrendered to the government someone else's freedom to eat transfat but your own freedom to decide what to put in your own body. The government does not take specific powers but general ones on precedent. You have given them the power to legislate what you can and cannot put in your own body, and eventually that power will be used in a way you don't like. To ban creatine perhaps. And those same fatasses you so happily took the freedom of choice from will be jiggling with glee as the government does the same to you, and at that point you'll both be ****ed, less free, likely no better off in any significant way and probably cheering for the government to outlaw someone else's choice, apparently never realizing that you've managed to achieve a biological impossibility: you've ****ed yourself and didn't even notice.

 

[AM07]

I can't believe some of you support this ban because it will help the fatasses stay thinner. Don't you people realize that they will still eat fast food? This isn't going to make someone stop eating fast food all of a sudden because they don't include trans fats.

How would you all feel if they banned whey protein because the products haven't even been tested by the FDA to see if it's even safe to consume?? Then you all would have your arms up in the air, complaining and saying how can they tell us to do that.

Many of you people are the reason why our government has gotten so big and involved in our everyday lives and making decisions for us. Our forefathers would be turning in their graves if they knew how ****ty our government has gotten over the past half-century.

 

[CDB]

Our forefathers would be turning in their graves if they knew how ****ty our government has gotten over the past half-century.

No they wouldn't. OSHA wouldn't allow it. Bad for the back.

 

[wastedwhiteboy2]

ok, take out the trans fats in fat***es diets and then their diet looks a lot closer to mine. if fast food is not unhealthy then there is no problem with eating fast food. people will lose fat or not gain more.

I understand the whole choices arguement and agree that I'm being selfish and it will come back to haunt me. I just limit my fights.

 

[CDB]

I understand the whole choices arguement and agree that I'm being selfish and it will come back to haunt me. I just limit my fights.

No limit because the enemy is always the same. All you do is let him grow stronger.

 

[AM07]

ok, take out the trans fats in fat***es diets and then their diet looks a lot closer to mine. if fast food is not unhealthy then there is no problem with eating fast food. people will lose fat or not gain more.

I understand the whole choices arguement and agree that I'm being selfish and it will come back to haunt me. I just limit my fights.

If fast food wasn't unhealthy, then there would be no problem eating it, you're correct.

But you think just taking out trans fats makes it healthy?? **** NO!!! Think of all the cholesterol and saturated fats in fast food, all of the "extra" ingredients they put into fast food.

All of you people need to read FAST FOOD NATION. It' s a great book that sheds light on the fast food industry.

 

[Moyer]

I understand it's a very slippery slope, but what about other ways our government has protected the public?

You think they shouldn't have banned Asbestos? I mean, shouldn't it be my business what kind of insulation I use in my own house? Even if it's unhealthy?

The main argument, as I see it, is that trans fats add nothing to the food that makes it more enjoyable than other fats would. You can't make that argument for alcohol or marijuana. If trans fat was the magic ingredient that made my Big Mac taste like heaven (I assume it's not), I would be completely against this.

 

[anabolicrhino]

I live in NYC an let me tell you, ever since the ban people have been smiling and waving to ecahother, everyone seems in a good mood and it not just the holidays,...its the trans fat ban! I think all that negative stuff you heard about NewYorkers being mean and unfriendly was just the effect of the trans fats. Its whole new world now..well gotta go there ia big group hug down at Times Square!!!!!

...Okay, I was kidding,..and if you really want to eat trans fats you can !!! The ban is on food establishments selling foods that contain trans fats. ,...Just like they can't sell you hamburgers with broken glass in them, but in the privacy of your own home you can eat all the glass burgers you want!!!!.Trans fats are industrial byproducs that retard food spoilage, mainly because they are not food, at least not in the sense that your body understands it!!!!This is a good thing. This was a local goverment regulation, which tend to work alot better than federal FDA/DEA type restrictios!

 

[CDB]

I understand it's a very slippery slope, but what about other ways our government has protected the public?

They are equally wrong.

You think they shouldn't have banned Asbestos? I mean, shouldn't it be my business what kind of insulation I use in my own house? Even if it's unhealthy?

It was your business. Now it is not because you can not choose asbestos. To ask "Shouldn't it be my business what kind of..." for anything has nothing to do with government bans. A government ban makes it not your business and not anyone else's business because it removes the choice from your hands.

The main argument, as I see it, is that trans fats add nothing to the food that makes it more enjoyable than other fats would. You can't make that argument for alcohol or marijuana.

You don't have to because it is a subjective decision.

If trans fat was the magic ingredient that made my Big Mac taste like heaven (I assume it's not), I would be completely against this.

So you're for choice so long as it makes sense to you?

 

[CDB]

...Okay, I was kidding,..and if you really want to eat trans fats you can !!! The ban is on food establishments selling foods that contain trans fats. ,...Just like they can't sell you hamburgers with broken glass in them, but in the privacy of your own home you can eat all the glass burgers you want!!!!.Trans fats are industrial byproducs that retard food spoilage, mainly because they are not food, at least not in the sense that your body understands it!!!!This is a good thing. This was a local goverment regulation, which tend to work alot better than federal FDA/DEA type restrictios!

Irrelevant. You are either free to choose or not. The restriction of choice on any level is not a good thing, and you will think so too when laws are passed that restrict your choices. Every argument here made against transfats and for the ban can be made for every single supplement we on these boards take. My guess is somehow those arguments won't matter so much to you guys when the government steps in to take your creatine, your NOS products, your herbs, your higher than recommended dose multivitamins, your food supplements, MRPs, etc. The idea that you are still free to take creatine but that people can't sell it to you is ludicrous. If you should be free to ingest it then others should be free to sell it to you for that purpose.

You're perfectly free to take creatine in your own home, they just can't sell it on the internet or in GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, etc.

You're perfectly free to read those books, they just can't sell them at Borders, Barnes and Noble, Amazon.com, etc.

You're perfectly free to practice that religion in your own home, they just can't preach it in a church, temple, mosque, etc.

You're perfectly free to speak your mind in the privacy of your own home, you just can't say certain things on the street or hand out booklets or pamplets, or hold a sign, demonstrate or assemble, etc.

At one time we were perfectly free to use certain drugs in out own homes, it was just illegal or highly cost prohibitive to grow or sell them...

You give away freedoms that don't matter to you at your own peril, because eventually the government comes to take away a freedom that does matter to you. And at that point who stands with you when you did nothing but cheer the government on as it stripped everyone else of their choices? You are either for or against the freedom to buy and sell and determine in the end what goes into your body. And that goes for everyone. If you give away the right to eat something you yourself never did or would eat, you are still giving that freedom away.

 

[AM07]

Irrelevant. You are either free to choose or not. The restriction of choice on any level is not a good thing, and you will think so too when laws are passed that restrict your choices. Every argument here made against transfats and for the ban can be made for every single supplement we on these boards take. My guess is somehow those arguments won't matter so much to you guys when the government steps in to take your creatine, your NOS products, your herbs, your higher than recommended dose multivitamins, your food supplements, MRPs, etc. The idea that you are still free to take creatine but that people can't sell it to you is ludicrous. If you should be free to ingest it then others should be free to sell it to you for that purpose.

You're perfectly free to take creatine in your own home, they just can't sell it on the internet or in GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, etc.

You're perfectly free to read those books, they just can't sell them at Borders, Barnes and Noble, Amazon.com, etc.

You're perfectly free to practice that religion in your own home, they just can't preach it in a church, temple, mosque, etc.

You're perfectly free to speak your mind in the privacy of your own home, you just can't say certain things on the street or hand out booklets or pamplets, or hold a sign, demonstrate or assemble, etc.

At one time we were perfectly free to use certain drugs in out own homes, it was just illegal or highly cost prohibitive to grow or sell them...

You give away freedoms that don't matter to you at your own peril, because eventually the government comes to take away a freedom that does matter to you. And at that point who stands with you when you did nothing but cheer the government on as it stripped everyone else of their choices? You are either for or against the freedom to buy and sell and determine in the end what goes into your body. And that goes for everyone. If you give away the right to eat something you yourself never did or would eat, you are still giving that freedom away.

+ Motherfcukin 1!!!

 

[Moyer]

So you're for choice so long as it makes sense to you?

If consumers gave me a decent reason why they wanted to keep eating trans fats, I could change my mind. I haven't heard one yet.

You're fine with cancer causing building materials? Are you against all restrictions or what?

What about current restricted use of pesticides and herbicides by farmers? You think I should be able to buy C4 at Walmart? The seat belt law? Where are you drawing your line?

 

[CDB]

If consumers gave me a decent reason why they wanted to keep eating trans fats, I could change my mind. I haven't heard one yet.

So their freedom is contigent on your approval of their actions? What justification for this position can you offer?

And people wonder why we might not be able to buy creatine some day...

You're fine with cancer causing building materials? Are you against all restrictions or what?

I'm against any and all restrictions that limit people's freedom unless their actions are aggressive and invasive on someone else's person or property. There is no justification for limitting their actions otherwise.

What about current restricted use of pesticides and herbicides by farmers? You think I should be able to buy C4 at Walmart? The seat belt law? Where are you drawing your line?

See above. If the action of using certain pesticides impinges on your rights or harms others in some way I have no problem with the ban. Some person sucking down trans fat hurts no one. Appeals to public health costs are irrelevant, were we not forced to foot the bill of their bad decisions how much trans fat they ate would be irrelevant and have no effect on anyone else.

I am for freedom, plain and simple. And freedom is not nor should it ever be contigent on whether or not you or anyone else approves of another's actions or if they can offer a "decent reason" as to why they should be able engage in certain activities because they don't need to justify their claim to freedom: it's their right. You do need to justify your claim to restricting their freedom because it is not your right to tell others what they can and can't do based on your assessment of the decency of their reasons. If it were, any and all voluntary behavior from who you do or do not **** to what God or gods you do or do not worship would be the rightful purview of government regulation, and the only measure of right and wrong and what rights anyone has would be a majority vote.

 

[anabolicrhino]

Irrelevant. You are either free to choose or not. The restriction of choice on any level is not a good thing, and you will think so too when laws are passed that restrict your choices. Every argument here made against transfats and for the ban can be made for every single supplement we on these boards take. My guess is somehow those arguments won't matter so much to you guys when the government steps in to take your creatine, your NOS products, your herbs, your higher than recommended dose multivitamins, your food supplements, MRPs, etc. The idea that you are still free to take creatine but that people can't sell it to you is ludicrous. If you should be free to ingest it then others should be free to sell it to you for that purpose.

You're perfectly free to take creatine in your own home, they just can't sell it on the internet or in GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, etc.

You're perfectly free to read those books, they just can't sell them at Borders, Barnes and Noble, Amazon.com, etc.

You're perfectly free to practice that religion in your own home, they just can't preach it in a church, temple, mosque, etc.

You're perfectly free to speak your mind in the privacy of your own home, you just can't say certain things on the street or hand out booklets or pamplets, or hold a sign, demonstrate or assemble, etc.

At one time we were perfectly free to use certain drugs in out own homes, it was just illegal or highly cost prohibitive to grow or sell them...

You give away freedoms that don't matter to you at your own peril, because eventually the government comes to take away a freedom that does matter to you. And at that point who stands with you when you did nothing but cheer the government on as it stripped everyone else of their choices? You are either for or against the freedom to buy and sell and determine in the end what goes into your body. And that goes for everyone. If you give away the right to eat something you yourself never did or would eat, you are still giving that freedom away.

Dude, I am all about personal freedoms, not just mine but everybody's everywhere NYC Iraq Iran even Washington DC.
You can check my posting history for more specifics.
Just because there is a law that says I can't load up a big hypo of Smack or Test and jam it into my body does'nt stop people from using those illegal substances and if you are real careful you can do it without state sponcered punishment.
....I mean think about it trans fats are glue they are chemically closer to plastic than fat, there is no lobby of trans fat lovers who are fighting against this law. The only opposition was from resturants who felt it would unfairly drive up their production costs. Smokers have a better argument!!! I think the freedom fighters have to let this one go, now back to more pressing issues(Iraq,consitutional abuse,torture,economic depression, crumbling public infrastructures and christmas!)

Ps. I don't like creatine so Its okay if they schedule it!!(haha)

 

[CDB]

Dude, I am all about personal freedoms, not just mine but everybody's everywhere NYC Iraq Iran even Washington DC.

You are obviously not for the freedom of certain people to sell trans fats, which is contradictory because if it is and should be legal to eat them why should it not be legal to sell them? This is, as I said in the earlier post, analogous to outlawing selling certain books but letting possession remain legal. It is an obvious violation of freedom, freedom for adults to exchange. Whether it's what adults choose to put in their own body or what two consenting adults agree to exchange between one another, the argument is the same.

You can check my posting history for more specifics.
Just because there is a law that says I can't load up a big hypo of Smack or Test and jam it into my body does'nt stop people from using those illegal substances and if you are real careful you can do it without state sponcered punishment.

That's a pretty ridiculous way of putting it, AR. To say that because it's likely you won't be caught does not negate what will happen if you are caught. By that reasoning we can outlaw anything and so long as some people get away with the outlawed action people are still free to engage in that action. A rape victim is equally 'free' to say "no" to their rapist. He might not be willing to use enough force that day and walk away without raping her. Then again he might not. Either way to argue the victim's freedom hasn't been violated is missing the point and the obvious by quite a bit.

....I mean think about it trans fats are glue they are chemically closer to plastic than fat, there is no lobby of trans fat lovers who are fighting against this law. The only opposition was from resturants who felt it would unfairly drive up their production costs. Smokers have a better argument!!! I think the freedom fighters have to let this one go, now back to more pressing issues(Iraq,consitutional abuse,torture,economic depression, crumbling public infrastructures and christmas!)

The argument is the same for smokers, fat eaters, creatine users or anyone else. You are either free to determine whether or not to put these substances in your body or you are not. The issue is as pressing as any other, more so I would say. Iraq was not nor is a threat to my freedom. The US government demonstrably is. And even if you don't use creatine, eventually you will run into an equally unjustified barrier to your freedom and to be blunt that's what you get for so readily giving it away.

 

[Moyer]

So their freedom is contigent on your approval of their actions?

No.

Some person sucking down trans fat hurts no one.

Well it hurts them, but I'm not real worried about that. I'd rather have a tastey Big Mac w/out trans fat. And I think they would say the same thing if they knew anything about it.

I am for freedom, plain and simple. And freedom is not nor should it ever be contigent on whether or not you or anyone else approves of another's actions or if they can offer a "decent reason" as to why they should be able engage in certain activities because they don't need to justify their claim to freedom: it's their right. You do need to justify your claim to restricting their freedom because it is not your right to tell others what they can and can't do based on your assessment of the decency of their reasons. If it were, any and all voluntary behavior from who you do or do not **** to what God or gods you do or do not worship would be the rightful purview of government regulation, and the only measure of right and wrong and what rights anyone has would be a majority vote.

Who actually wants to eat trans fat? I feel like you're assuming they're taking away something that people enjoy, but they're not. When I say "decent reason", I don't mean smart & healthy. I mean enjoyable at all. I don't see any pro trans fat people complaining.

Right now everyone that eats fast food is eating trans fat. Many of these people would like that removed. The rest of the people eating it don't even know what it is.

I'm not saying that banning it was the best way to go here. I just don't see a problem with this one. The whole slippery slope isn't that big of a deal to me when it comes to fast food. Maybe everyone should boycott trans fat foods instead? This ban just seems easier imo.

 

[CDB]

No.

That is in fact exactly what you said: "If consumers gave me a decent reason why they wanted to keep eating trans fats, I could change my mind. I haven't heard one yet."

Freedom does not need to be justified, restriction of freedom does.

Well it hurts them, but I'm not real worried about that. I'd rather have a tastey Big Mac w/out trans fat. And I think they would say the same thing if they knew anything about it.

That may be. It's not the place of the law or you or I or anyone else to make their decisions for them.

Who actually wants to eat trans fat? I feel like you're assuming they're taking away something that people enjoy, but they're not. When I say "decent reason", I don't mean smart & healthy. I mean enjoyable at all. I don't see any pro trans fat people complaining.

The government is limiting what people can sell and thus what people can and can not put in their own bodies. That is not only unnecessary and wrong, but the exact type of law damn near everyone on these boards is *****ing about everytime a supplement control bill comes up. You can't constantly give freedoms away and then complain when the ones that matter to you specifically come under fire. You either defend everyone's freedom or you're picking and choosing and eventually will lose the right to do even that.

Right now everyone that eats fast food is eating trans fat. Many of these people would like that removed. The rest of the people eating it don't even know what it is.

The restaurants were largely phasing them out. If people wanted them to move faster they could have said so. If people didn't inform themselves on the matter that is their responsibility and their problem.

I'm not saying that banning it was the best way to go here. I just don't see a problem with this one. The whole slippery slope isn't that big of a deal to me when it comes to fast food. Maybe everyone should boycott trans fat foods instead? This ban just seems easier imo.

The slippery slope doesn't matter to most people. Until they slip. You either support freedom of choice or you don't. You can't pick and choose the freedoms you will 'allow' others to have and expect your freedom to be respected. These trans fatties and the restaurant owners will be jiggling their fat asses with glee when they take away our supplements and run NutraPlanet and others into the ground. Perhaps if you and others who accept this so easily would stand up for other people's right to choose they'd stand up for yours as well when the time came. The real test of whether or not you believe in freedom is when you are willing to stand up for someone else's right to choose, even if you disagree with their choice. Especially if you disagree with their choice.

 

[Moyer]

That is in fact exactly what you said: "If consumers gave me a decent reason why they wanted to keep eating trans fats, I could change my mind. I haven't heard one yet."

What I really meant was that I'm not the one that made the new law. I don't even live in New York. But no, it's not just about my approval of their actions. It's about their approval. They don't care either way. Find me a person that wants to eat trans fat instead of a healthier, equally tastey fat.

The government is limiting what people can sell and thus what people can and can not put in their own bodies. That is not only unnecessary and wrong, but the exact type of law damn near everyone on these boards is *****ing about everytime a supplement control bill comes up. You can't constantly give freedoms away and then complain when the ones that matter to you specifically come under fire.

Only if the people actually want this right (even the vast minority). I can easily find thousands of people that want to take steroids or smoke pot, so they are different issues imo.

The restaurants were largely phasing them out.

I didn't see that happening.

These trans fatties and the restaurant owners will be jiggling their fat asses with glee when they take away our supplements and run NutraPlanet and others into the ground. Perhaps if you and others who accept this so easily would stand up for other people's right to choose they'd stand up for yours as well when the time came. The real test of whether or not you believe in freedom is when you are willing to stand up for someone else's right to choose, even if you disagree with their choice. Especially if you disagree with their choice.

Are you serious? You think people will be so grateful about being able to eat trans fats on a daily basis?

For me to disagree with trans fatties, they would have to want to eat more trans fat, which does not seem to be the case.

 

[CDB]

What I really meant was that I'm not the one that made the new law. I don't even live in New York. But no, it's not just about my approval of their actions. It's about their approval. They don't care either way. Find me a person that wants to eat trans fat instead of a healthier, equally tastey fat.

Not the point. By choice they demonstrate what they want. If you're not in NY then you're not responsible for it being passed, but not opposing means you are approving of it.

Only if the people actually want this right (even the vast minority). I can easily find thousands of people that want to take steroids or smoke pot, so they are different issues imo.

If one person wants the right or ten thousand it doesn't matter. It's their right, period.

I didn't see that happening.

It was none the less.

Are you serious? You think people will be so grateful about being able to eat trans fats on a daily basis?

Grateful or not is irrelevant. Ceding to the government the power to eliminate the choice is relevant. If the argument isn't made at every such encroachment of government power that it is the wrong thing to do we end up with a compromised system which keeps ratcheting up controls on choice. If the contrary argument isn't made at every encroachment the choices will basically whither over time.

For me to disagree with trans fatties, they would have to want to eat more trans fat, which does not seem to be the case.

Their actions demonstrate otherwise. Besides the point anyway, you keep seeming to want to put qualifications on something which needs none. They should be free to eat trans fats whether or not they want to. There may be those who want them, those who want none, those who don't know or don't care. Doesn't matter. What matters is they have the right to make the choice and the responsibility to inform themselves on it, and the state doing that for them and taking away that freedom is wrong regardless of how many of them actually want to eat trans fats.

 

[Moyer]

If one person wants the right or ten thousand it doesn't matter. It's their right, period.

What if zero people want it?

It was none the less.

Can you give me some examples?

Grateful or not is irrelevant. Ceding to the government the power to eliminate the choice is relevant. If the argument isn't made at every such encroachment of government power that it is the wrong thing to do we end up with a compromised system which keeps ratcheting up controls on choice. If the contrary argument isn't made at every encroachment the choices will basically whither over time.

This could all be summed up by "slippery slope".

Their actions demonstrate otherwise.

No they don't.

 

[CDB]

What if zero people want it?

Irrelevant.

Can you give me some examples?

Some were mentioned earlier in the thread. Many companies you'll notice make a note of having zero trans fat in their products, such as Crowler's new line of stuff. There is a market for foods with no trans fat and there is a market for people who don't care or perhaps in fact want it.

This could all be summed up by "slippery slope".

Indeed it can, and the sheer amount of things the government regulates supposedly to protect us from ourselves, and regulates to the point of throwing us in prison if we're caught with some of them, shows just how slippery that slope is. It is implicit in the ideology behind the law because there is no logical way to assign a limit on how far such laws will be taken, not even the tolerance of the people who are subject to them. Presumably such laws are deemed necessary because those people are too stupid to make the 'right' decision in the first place. And so that stupid population can just as easily have their leaders selected for them, for their own good, their bodies weighed and their food prepared and rationed, for their own good, etc.

No they don't.

Yes, they do... If someone buys a food with trans fat in it he either knows it's there and doesn't care enough to make another choice, or doesn't know it's there and doesn't care enough to find out. Either way he demonstrates by his action his preference.

There is something worth more than the possible health benefits of avoiding trans fats, and that is a person's right to pursue their own well being as they see fit, not as some committee a thousand miles away or even right next door deems appropriate. The appropriate scope of the law is to punish the aggressive actions of others against peaceful people, not to protect people from themselves. The first way describes a free society, the second a paternalistic authoritarian state.

 

[anabolicrhino]

You are obviously not for the freedom of certain people to sell trans fats, which is contradictory because if it is and should be legal to eat them why should it not be legal to sell them?

I should further clarify my point about freedom, I am all for personal freedom, unless that freedom represses or oppresses me or anyone else on the planet. Such as, but not limited to; defensless Iraqii children, rape victims and those who would prefer not to inhale second hand smoke or eat food that is held together by artificial fats.

This is, as I said in the earlier post, analogous to outlawing selling certain books but letting possession remain legal. It is an obvious violation of freedom, freedom for adults to exchange. Whether it's what adults choose to put in their own body or what two consenting adults agree to exchange between one another, the argument is the same.

Would you prefer a society free from the burdens of any law?
That would require a lot of trust and understanding, without taking into consideration people who are not capable of rational thought because of birth defects or accidents.

That's a pretty ridiculous way of putting it, AR. To say that because it's likely you won't be caught does not negate what will happen if you are caught. By that reasoning we can outlaw anything and so long as some people get away with the outlawed action people are still free to engage in that action. A rape victim is equally 'free' to say "no" to their rapist. He might not be willing to use enough force that day and walk away without raping her. Then again he might not. Either way to argue the victim's freedom hasn't been violated is missing the point and the obvious by quite a bit.

I dont think it is anymore ridiculous than comparing a rapist to a resturanteer, who uses unhealthy products to increase his profit margin.

The argument is the same for smokers, fat eaters, creatine users or anyone else. You are either free to determine whether or not to put these substances in your body or you are not. The issue is as pressing as any other, more so I would say. Iraq was not nor is a threat to my freedom. The US government demonstrably is. And even if you don't use creatine, eventually you will run into an equally unjustified barrier to your freedom and to be blunt that's what you get for so readily giving it away.

If you think the US goverment is a threat to your personal freedom, imagine how much of a threat they are to the personal freedoms of Iraqii citizens. ..if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing "...even if you don't live in Iraq, eventually you will run into an equally unjustified barrier to your freedom and to be blunt that's what you get for not realising the US presence in Iraq is a threat to all freedoms!"

 

[CDB]

I should further clarify my point about freedom, I am all for personal freedom, unless that freedom represses or oppresses me or anyone else on the planet. Such as, but not limited to; defensless Iraqii children, rape victims and those who would prefer not to inhale second hand smoke or eat food that is held together by artificial fats.

All irrelevant points. I am against the Iraq war and war in general except in cases of very clear and present dangers. You have a freedom to be free of second hand smoke on your own property, not on someone elses. That's positive liberty which is logically contradictory since exercising a positive 'freedom' or 'right' necessarily comes at the expense of someone else's rights. You have no right to be free of second hand smoke in a restaurant because you have no right to be there in the first place unless the owner lets you in and you agree to his terms. If he wants to let other people smoke that's his right on his property. Your freedom hasn't been violated in any way by allowing others to smoke; you can still go into the restaurant. Whether you would choose to is another issue. No one is forcing you in and the choice is still yours.

Would you prefer a society free from the burdens of any law?
That would require a lot of trust and understanding, without taking into consideration people who are not capable of rational thought because of birth defects or accidents.

No and I never said I wanted such. You present a false dilema: this and all law or no law. Which allows for no distinction in different types of law, scope of law, proper perview of law, etc.

I dont think it is anymore ridiculous than comparing a rapist to a resturanteer, who uses unhealthy products to increase his profit margin.

One, you messed up the analogy. Two, the rape victim would take issue with you more than me. No one is being forced to eat trans fats to pad anyone's profit margin at knife or gun point, although the implication that someone profitting by selling someone else something they want to buy is somehow wrong or evil does indicate the mindset from which you're approaching this issue. Wrong again since both parties profit in a mutual exchange: that's the point of the exchange. The choice to knowingly eat them is voluntary. The choice to not research what you're eating and eat them anyway is equally voluntary. If they are illegal and the government catches you eating or selling them the choice to go to jail will not be voluntary.

If you think the US goverment is a threat to your personal freedom, imagine how much of a threat they are to the personal freedoms of Iraqii citizens.

Relevance?

..if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing "...even if you don't live in Iraq, eventually you will run into an equally unjustified barrier to your freedom and to be blunt that's what you get for not realising the US presence in Iraq is a threat to all freedoms!"

Quite so, which is why we never should have gone in and why we should now get our forces out as quickly as possible.

 

[DR.D]

Don't sweat it guys. We live in a decaying society and it's just too late to stop the trend. This is an attempt to fix America due to growing costs of medical care from likely dietary contributors (like trans fats) but it won't solve the real problems. It's like violent video games, sure they help to destroy the moral conscience of our youth and desensitize them to bloodshed, but removing them won't help. It is not worth giving away your freedom to ban it! It won't put fathers back in homes or cure the divorce rate or improve the school system or really change people's morals at all. I won't get into my NWO theory right now, it's not PC (lol) but the gov can take your freedom anytime they want and don't doubt it for a second. The world is changing right now and it can't be stopped. Just give love and kindness to those you can, do your best to live right and say your prayers. That's all you can do.

BTW, the Bible says eat want you want, but if it offends your neighbor, don't do it in front of them.

 

[anabolicrhino]

Don't sweat it guys. We live in a decaying society and it's just too late to stop the trend. This is an attempt to fix America due to growing costs of medical care from likely dietary contributors (like trans fats) but it won't solve the real problems. It's like violent video games, sure they help to destroy the moral conscience of our youth and desensitize them to bloodshed, but removing them won't help. It is not worth giving away your freedom to ban it! It won't put fathers back in homes or cure the divorce rate or improve the school system or really change people's morals at all. I won't get into my NWO theory right now, it's not PC (lol) but the gov can take your freedom anytime they want and don't doubt it for a second. The world is changing right now and it can't be stopped. Just give love and kindness to those you can, do your best to live right and say your prayers. That's all you can do.

BTW, the Bible says eat want you want, but if it offends your neighbor, don't do it in front of them.

ohooh a rare appearence in an otherwise poitical thread, very refreshing DrD! I' m of the opinion that PC(political correctness) is a NWO(global conspiracy) concept, used to prevent the oppressed members of society from engaging in intelligent discourse about the the mechanisms and source of their oppression. I strongy agree with your advice about love and kindness and living impeccably being the only truth!!!!

 

[anabolicrhino]

All irrelevant points. I am against the Iraq war and war in general except in cases of very clear and present dangers.

Who decides for you what defines clear or present or even danger?...because if that who is not you, you have just given up your freedom!

You have a freedom to be free of second hand smoke on your own property, not on someone elses. That's positive liberty which is logically contradictory since exercising a positive 'freedom' or 'right' necessarily comes at the expense of someone else's rights. You have no right to be free of second hand smoke in a restaurant because you have no right to be there in the first place unless the owner lets you in and you agree to his terms. If he wants to let other people smoke that's his right on his property. Your freedom hasn't been violated in any way by allowing others to smoke; you can still go into the restaurant. Whether you would choose to is another issue. No one is forcing you in and the choice is still yours.

The legal term of choice is what I am challengeing in your posted scenario. If the customer is not aware that a substance has been added to his food either by neglect or by willful deception(not mentioned on a menu or lable of ingredients) then the choice to put what ever he wants in his body has been removed from the customer and dictated by the seller. Hello there goes your freedom( of choice) again!
Most municipalities NYC included, have ordinances that protect anyone, who through their own "willful misadventure" sustain an injury on the property of another. An example would be a ladder
left unattended infront of a fence. A persons curiosity leads them to climb the ladder and they fall and injure themselves. It is the property owner who is liable becase he created a "dangerous curiousity", which resulted in a personal injury. It would be a similar legal situation , if the resturant owner advertised the "tastiest burger in town." Which would lead to the purchase of such burger by a curious( or hungry) customer. The customer then consumes an unhealthy product(trans fat) without his consent or knowlege. There goes his freedom again, and it is this principle that the NYC trans fat law is based upon. So the reality is the trans fat law actually "protects" the freemdom(of choice) of the consumer.

 

[CDB]

BTW, the Bible says eat want you want, but if it offends your neighbor, don't do it in front of them.

I think my neighbors would fry up real nice actually.

 

[CDB]

Who decides for you what defines clear or present or even danger?...because if that who is not you, you have just given up your freedom!

Which is the whole point of having a volunteer army, not necessarily on our current model though as it's more a standing army at this point.

The legal term of choice is what I am challengeing in your posted scenario. If the customer is not aware that a substance has been added to his food either by neglect or by willful deception(not mentioned on a menu or lable of ingredients) then the choice to put what ever he wants in his body has been removed from the customer and dictated by the seller.

What massive force of nature stops him from asking what's in it? Nothing. He can ask what's in it or not. If the manufacturer lies to him that is fraud and another matter. If he doesn't bother to ask he demonstrates by his actions that he doesn't care about the ingredients.

Most municipalities NYC included, have ordinances that protect anyone, who through their own "willful misadventure" sustain an injury on the property of another. An example would be a ladder
left unattended infront of a fence. A persons curiosity leads them to climb the ladder and they fall and injure themselves. It is the property owner who is liable becase he created a "dangerous curiousity", which resulted in a personal injury.

Which despite being law is nonsense.

It would be a similar legal situation , if the resturant owner advertised the "tastiest burger in town." Which would lead to the purchase of such burger by a curious( or hungry) customer. The customer then consumes an unhealthy product(trans fat) without his consent or knowlege. There goes his freedom again, and it is this principle that the NYC trans fat law is based upon. So the reality is the trans fat law actually "protects" the freemdom(of choice) of the consumer.

If no one is forcing him to eat the burger his freedom hasn't be violated in any way. People are not blobs of helpless protoplasm. We have the ability to choose. The idea that you can protect freedom of choice by limiting choice is nonsensical doublespeak.

 

[Moyer]

Yes, they do... If someone buys a food with trans fat in it he either knows it's there and doesn't care enough to make another choice, or doesn't know it's there and doesn't care enough to find out. Either way he demonstrates by his action his preference.

I eat it. I know it's there. I would prefer otherwise.

 

[CDB]

I eat it. I know it's there. I would prefer otherwise.

Obviously not, or you would not eat them. Alternatives are available. Even if you do prefer not to eat transfats in general or in an ideal world you're ignoring two issues:

One, in those instances finding an alternative is not worth it for you and you quite obviously choose to eat them. Unless someone is dragging you there and shoving them down your throat that's the truth: you chose to eat them.

Two, derrivative of one, you're ignoring the marginal nature of choices not only for yourself but others, and the inability to know or quantify subjective preferences on some mass aggregate scale. You can only know what people prefer by what they choose. What they say they like and prefer is so much windbaggery removed from reality, what they demonstrate through their choices are their true preferences.

 

[Moyer]

Obviously not, or you would not eat them. Alternatives are available. Even if you do prefer not to eat transfats in general or in an ideal world you're ignoring two issues:

One, in those instances finding an alternative is not worth it for you and you quite obviously choose to eat them. Unless someone is dragging you there and shoving them down your throat that's the truth: you chose to eat them.

Two, derrivative of one, you're ignoring the marginal nature of choices not only for yourself but others, and the inability to know or quantify subjective preferences on some mass aggregate scale. You can only know what people prefer by what they choose. What they say they like and prefer is so much windbaggery removed from reality, what they demonstrate through their choices are their true preferences.

Ummm, no. My preference is a Big Mac without trans fat. That's not available to me yet, but it will be after a ban. By losing the right to eat Big Macs with trans fat, we are gaining the right to eat Big Macs without trans fat. :burger:

 

[anabolicrhino]

Which is the whole point of having a volunteer army, not necessarily on our current model though as it's more a standing army at this point.

The point is that there are children in Iraq that did not volunteer for the army and they can't stand, because their legs have been blown off by cluster bombs! It is difficult for me to accept that your deepest concerns are with a food retailer's right to include a non-food product in a product sold as food, When you have a government that forces its volunteer army to slaughter children



What massive force of nature stops him from asking what's in it? Nothing. He can ask what's in it or not. If the manufacturer lies to him that is fraud and another matter. If he doesn't bother to ask he demonstrates by his actions that he doesn't care about the ingredients.

The NYC trans fat ban is not refering to foods sold in bags that fully disclose their contents. It is about selling 100% all beef burgers that contain trans fats. Why would the customer ask what's in the burger? When, it was legally permissable to sell and all beef burger that was all beef plus trans fats- thats the point! The law was adjusted becuase the food retailers were taking advantage of its previous wording to include trans fats. If a customer had asked "What's in this burger?" before the ban, the retailer could have legally said "It's all beef baby!!!!" That is called deception by ommission and is the most common form of deception, because it predicates on the customers trust in the seller to provide full disclosure which is assumed to be mandated by the law. NYC correctly observed that the nature of this practice was more fitted to such deception as compared to any freedom from disadvantage to the seller


If no one is forcing him to eat the burger his freedom hasn't be violated in any way. People are not blobs of helpless protoplasm. We have the ability to choose. The idea that you can protect freedom of choice by limiting choice is nonsensical doublespeak.

The "real key" to freedom of choice is knowing that the choice actually exists!!!!