Proposed NY Trans-Fat Law

[The Architect]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids. The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil. Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts. Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens. "Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association. He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves. The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts

It would make NY healthier, but not happier at least i dont think. That would mean all the McDonalds in the city would have to change they way they make fries, which I love.
??

[gr8fuldaniel]

if they cant make food taste good without poisoning people.......maybe they are in the wrong business

[Osborn F Enready]

If people can't take control of their own lives, and do what they wish if not harming OTHERS, what makes life worth living?

[Osborn F Enready]

Also, I wanted to add...


To hell with NY, and all those idiots who are backing these police-state proposals from smoking bans to drug bans, fat bans to gun bans.

Is this still America?

[Mia]

Yes, and people have the right to go out in public w/o breathing smoke.

As for trans-fat, it may not be right, but I like the idea of banning it. Quite easy to use oils w/o it. I've done it at home, and I'd love to eat out w/o worrying about it being in my food.

[Osborn F Enready]

Mia said: Yes, and people have the right to go out in public w/o breathing smoke.

I say:
REALLY?

So, you have successfully won every battle against all polluters of our air on planet earth, or just people who choose to smoke cigarettes, in certain locales, PRIVATE establishments or public property?

Since when is a smoker not a part of the public, and why is it any less their property?

Are you saying you think cigarette smoke is more harmful than chemical pollutants, and air-released by-products of American industry? How do they differ, and why single out individuals who make a personal choice as opposed to corporations who exploit YOUR and MY land for profit for themselves?

Mia said: As for trans-fat, it may not be right, but I like the idea of banning it.

I say:
Could you explain how prohibition of trans-fats will work any better than any other form of prohibition any open society has ever tried?

Mia said: Quite easy to use oils w/o it. I've done it at home, and I'd love to eat out w/o worrying about it being in my food.

I say:
I think it is a great personal choice to decide to live healthier, and exercise more.

That doesn't mean when I get to be in charge of others, I should force them to do what I think is best by implmenting a city or state wide REQUIRED physical training session, and have guards at all the food counters checking for fat/carb/protein ratios approved by me.

Mia, I am shocked!

[Mia]

I know - not my norm, eh?

But the smoking is different. My mother has asthma and many more in this country do and they shouldn't have to be shut-ins to avoid a potentially deadly attack caused by smoke.

Whe doesn't put herself in the path of direct car exhaust or other pollutants. If someone blows smoke in her vicinity we are going to the hospital.

I don't even smoke where I am allowed to if there is an allergic person or someone who hates it nearby.

[Osborn F Enready]

Asthma is not cool, and many people have it. They are people, with rights just like all of us.

However, their ailment does not give ground for removing rights of others.

[Mia]

Let's agree to disagree.

[Osborn F Enready]

Roger that.

[Fonceai]

To hell with NY, and all those idiots who are backing these police-state proposals from smoking bans to drug bans, fat bans to gun bans. Is this still America?

And New York says "to hell with you" right back.

All of those bans, including this one, have something in common.

One person's choice should not affect multiple people.

In the case of smoking, there is second-hand smoke. That and the fact that some people are allergic or have constant irritation.

Fat bans?

Absolutely. It's bad for you. So they shouldn't feed it to you.

Instead of leaving it up to the restaurant to decide, level the playing field and just make it illegal.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I dont get it. First you say...

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If people can't take control of their own lives, and do what they wish if not harming OTHERS, what makes life worth living?

Then you contradict yourself....

Quote by: Osborn F Enready To hell with NY, and all those idiots who are backing these police-state proposals from smoking bans to drug bans, fat bans to gun bans. Is this still America?

Is it OK to "harm OTHERS" or not?
If the restaurants are killing people, should the government just stand by and watch, or not?
I agree with your first post. The restaurants should do what they want. As long as they do not harm others.

I dont want to smoke your cigarettes either. Those damned things have killed too many of my friends. Keep them the fuck out of my lungs. Thank you very much.

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I dont get it. First you say... Then you contradict yourself.... Is it OK to "harm OTHERS" or not? If the restaurants are killing people, should the government just stand by and watch, or not? I agree with your first post. The restaurants should do what they want. As long as they do not harm others. I dont want to smoke your cigarettes either. Those damned things have killed too many of my friends. Keep them the fuck out of my lungs. Thank you very much.

Dan; I don't want other people's cigarette smoke or trans fats either but why does government have to force the issue one way or another on the public. Can't the public determine what they want and when they want it?

Now I agree about non smoking buildings where the public must gather for the good of society like government buildings, airports, or in other public places.

So restaurants ban cigarette smoking. The smokers will go somewhere else where they are allowed, even encouraged, to light up. Non smokers stay away. Why does government have to force its will upon private enterprise when private enterprise is perfectly capable in regulating themselves? For examle, Yankee stadium has banned smoking not only indoors in the clubs, but also outdoors in the stands. This is a perfect example of private enterprise regulating itself for the good of the public.

However, this is not about smoking cigarettes.

It is about trans fats. Let the public decide. This nanny statism continues to erode the rights of all individuals. The diner and private enterprise because they have no choice in the matter and the health concscious individual because they impose their will through government control upon individuals and private enterprise. Today transfats and tomorrow perhaps alcohol? Where does it end.

Perhaps government will decide to impose a weight standard upon all people, for the good of all people, so anyone over weight by 10% must diet or be thrown in jail? Sounds far fetched but it could happen under the same philosophy that has brought you laws regulating restaurants and transfats. Restaurants could be prohibited from serving you, if you are overweight, the cheeseburger you would like to have for lunch. Furthermore, obese people cause "harm" to all of society because their health requires more attention from experts than do "skinny" people. This in turn increases all of our health insurance premiums so therefore we must regulate "fat people" from making poor choices in their diet since it affects all of society. Where does it all end?

This is the exact case for transfats. Government is usurping individual choice by regulating private enterprise. Aren't people smart enough to make their own decisions with regard to transfats? And if they aren't, then who is among us to make that decision for them? I don't feel I have that right. Maybe you do but I say that is elitist in philospophical nature. It presupposes that others want you to make that decision when you don't know that to be the casse at all. You have removed the individual choice before they get to even make it.

Just what is wrong with self determination? There were many restaurants that were non smoking establishments here in Connecticut before the law was passed to go smoke free. It is my idea to solve these problems without the intrusion of government because it is by far better for the philosophy of the US society, and the role of government in that society, rather than to get government involved with every issue by passing laws to regulate personal health behavior.

Now, I don't want to get into a big discussion of smokers vs non smokers. I would rather focus upon the intrusion of government into private enterprise and personal health habits, that force the will of one group in society upon another by making "health" laws to control individual behavior . I say government has no business doing this at all.

[gr8fuldaniel]

You are assuming there is no available substitute. Remember when doctors used to drill holes in the skulls of mental patients to let the evil spirits out? Were you an advocate for those doctors? Should the AMA respect the rights of those doctors?
How about asbestos? We know that it kills people, but people like you will argue for its benefits. Let it be, right? (edit to add: There should be no consumer control, let free trade reign! Even with slavery if one so wishes. All the better for the tycoons. Right?)And then there are those damned traffic lights that are always making me late for my appointments. Why should I stop?

[Milton Bradley]

I say this...


Truth in advertising, and the government out of the recipe.


As long as you know what you are buying, then there is no need of further government intrusion. They can't even manage all that is on their plate now, yet they seek to keep growing exponentially.


It's time to pull the plug, and start over.

[belverron]

Milton, you don't know what you're buying when you go to a restaurant. You think you're being healthy when you get a grilled chicken sandwich, only to find out later that it's smothered in butter when it's cooked.

At Starbucks, we have a "No Sugar Added Banana Nut Cake." We tell customers that it has only the natural sugar from the banana, which is absolutely true. It's also a significant amount. That little bugger has almost 500 calories and about 28 grams of fat. And people buy it thinking they're being healthy.

The people of New York should absolutely be able to influence through the state their environment and the kind of food they can expect at restaurants, and it is just tough for the minority. States can legislate pretty much anything they please. That's federalism.

I say, if New Yorkers want to be able to go into a restaurant and feel assured they're not eating their premature death, they have that right. I think it's high time we created a society where you don't have to go to a health food restaurant to be sure you're not being poisoned.

I'm really annoyed with how hard it is to eat healthily. If you can't afford Whole Foods or HEB, you have to do your research. For instance, wheat bread is supposed to be better for you. But there's whole wheat, 100% whole wheat, 100% multi-grain, and 100% whole grain. What in Hell's the difference? I don't know. I just know I want to get the one that's good for me. Apparently that's 100% whole grain. But I only know that by chance. What else am I missing?

As someone who's trying to eat a healthy diet, I'm ready for some changes. This is one area where I would appreciate it if the FDA were a little more effective. There are too many meaningless labels on our food products.

[Fonceai]

@belverron

You're pretty much got it right there.

The people have decided that instead of do the research, they want a bad ingredient eliminated.

Perfect implementation of government, if you ask me.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: belverron Milton, you don't know what you're buying when you go to a restaurant. You think you're being healthy when you get a grilled chicken sandwich, only to find out later that it's smothered in butter when it's cooked..

Well, to be fair, I did call for truth in advertising, and then qualify my statement by saying "as long as you know what you are getting".


That used to be the law, and it should be again.

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel You are assuming there is no available substitute. Remember when doctors used to drill holes in the skulls of mental patients to let the evil spirits out? Were you an advocate for those doctors? Should the AMA respect the rights of those doctors? How about asbestos? We know that it kills people, but people like you will argue for its benefits. Let it be, right? (edit to add: There should be no consumer control, let free trade reign! Even with slavery if one so wishes. All the better for the tycoons. Right?)And then there are those damned traffic lights that are always making me late for my appointments. Why should I stop?

Huh???? Holes in skulls??? Traffic lights??? Asbestos ??? I yi yi:rolleyes:

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel You are assuming there is no available substitute. Remember when doctors used to drill holes in the skulls of mental patients to let the evil spirits out? Were you an advocate for those doctors? Should the AMA respect the rights of those doctors? How about asbestos? We know that it kills people, but people like you will argue for its benefits. Let it be, right? (edit to add: There should be no consumer control, let free trade reign! Even with slavery if one so wishes. All the better for the tycoons. Right?)And then there are those damned traffic lights that are always making me late for my appointments. Why should I stop?

Huh???? Holes in skulls??? Traffic lights??? Asbestos ??? Slavery???? I yi yi:rolleyes: