New York City bans trans fats from restaurants.
- 12-06-2006, 07:39 AM
New York City bans trans fats from restaurants.
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."
- 12-06-2006, 09:38 AM
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....
- 12-06-2006, 11:36 AM
12-06-2006, 11:52 AM
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.
12-06-2006, 12:00 PM
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.Originally Posted by cable626
12-06-2006, 12:17 PM
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.
12-06-2006, 01:59 PM
12-06-2006, 11:53 PM
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.
12-07-2006, 12:04 AM
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.
12-07-2006, 04:52 AM
am84> The problem is that the majority of americans ARE stupid, and cannot make intelligent decisions for themselves, such as avoiding trans fats.
12-07-2006, 09:30 AM
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..
12-07-2006, 10:36 AM
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?
12-07-2006, 11:12 AM
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.Originally Posted by CDONDICI
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.Originally Posted by doggzj
12-07-2006, 11:19 AM
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.Originally Posted by doggzj
12-07-2006, 11:21 AM
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.Originally Posted by \_JIMBO_/
12-07-2006, 12:13 PM
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!
12-07-2006, 01:20 PM
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.Originally Posted by cable626
12-07-2006, 02:20 PM
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.
12-07-2006, 03:44 PM
How can we demonstrate this? With the oh-so-successful other bans, like those on marijuana, steroids, LSD, cocaine, etc?Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2
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.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.
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.
12-08-2006, 11:49 AM
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.
12-08-2006, 12:13 PM
12-08-2006, 01:27 PM
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.
12-08-2006, 04:25 PM
No limit because the enemy is always the same. All you do is let him grow stronger.Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2
12-08-2006, 05:01 PM
If fast food wasn't unhealthy, then there would be no problem eating it, you're correct.Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2
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.
12-12-2006, 02:12 AM
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.
12-12-2006, 05:46 AM
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!
12-12-2006, 10:09 AM
They are equally wrong.Originally Posted by Moyer
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.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?
You don't have to because it is a subjective decision.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.
So you're for choice so long as it makes sense to you?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.
12-12-2006, 10:22 AM
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.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
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.
12-12-2006, 12:43 PM
12-12-2006, 03:51 PM
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.Originally Posted by CDB
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?
Similar Forum Threads
- By dschrute01 in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 2Last Post: 01-25-2007, 02:20 PM
- By wrkn4bigrmusles in forum General ChatReplies: 8Last Post: 12-07-2006, 12:18 AM
- By DeerDeer in forum SupplementsReplies: 4Last Post: 12-06-2006, 12:00 PM
- By RenegadeRows in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 17Last Post: 09-30-2006, 04:28 PM
- By jefflong3323 in forum General ChatReplies: 4Last Post: 06-03-2004, 08:09 AM