Should Government Play A Role In Banning Trans Fat Use?

surferdude

Both New York City and Chicago have proposals being out forward to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15020846/

Is this a reasonable role for the government to have in society?

Banning the public use of a substance while the private use would be legal when the public use of the substance does not impact other peoples health.

blackredyellow

No, I don't think so

jlew24asu

I would say no, but if they did I wouldnt complain. that shit will kill you. maybe drop alot of dough on educating people on what that stuff really is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat

surferdude

jlew24asu wrote:

I would say no, but if they did I wouldnt complain. that shit will kill you.

I think everyone knows it will kill you. But like most things in life moderation can let you enjoy it. It just boggles my mind that any government would think this is a good use of our taxpayer money. If you look at the Chicago proposals it is aimed only at large companies. I'm not sure how it got so fashionable for governments to discriminate based on sales volumes when crafting legislation. Like trans fats bought at a mom and pop diner are some how good for you.

jlew24asu

surferdude wrote:

I think everyone knows it will kill you. But like most things in life moderation can let you enjoy it. It just boggles my mind that any government would think this is a good use of our taxpayer money. If you look at the Chicago proposals it is aimed only at large companies. I'm not sure how it got so fashionable for governments to discriminate based on sales volumes when crafting legislation. Like trans fats bought at a mom and pop diner are some how good for you.

well actually I dont think everyone knows. thats why I would say education would be better then banning it. I'm from chicago and I think its silly to ban fios gras. but thats a different topic. the point is, I dont think im ready to have the government telling me what I can or cant eat.

hippiemom

surferdude wrote:

I think everyone knows it will kill you. But like most things in life moderation can let you enjoy it. It just boggles my mind that any government would think this is a good use of our taxpayer money. If you look at the Chicago proposals it is aimed only at large companies. I'm not sure how it got so fashionable for governments to discriminate based on sales volumes when crafting legislation. Like trans fats bought at a mom and pop diner are some how good for you.

Many people (certainly not everyone) know it will kill you, but there's no way of knowing if it's in your food unless they tell you. I ask how food is prepared, and almost always the server has to go back and ask, and I've had instances where neither the cooks nor the servers even know what a trans-fat IS, so they can't tell me if they're using them until I go into some long explanation .... arghh, it's so frustrating.

It's fine with me if they ban them, but if they don't, I'd at least like to see labeling when they're used. And I want to see it everywhere, mom and pop restaurants should not be exempt. And I also don't want to hear a bunch of whining about how much it would cost them. They can put stickers next to their menu items that contain trans fats, might cost them all of $10 and an hour's work at most. Or better yet, they could stop using that crap in the first place. If they choose to use dangerous ingredients, which they don't HAVE to do, the burden should be on them to disclose that to their customers.

know1

Nope. I think they should regulate the labelling and let people decide.

It would be a very slippery slope if they did ban it. What would be next - fried chicken, ice cream, cookies, etc.?

surferdude

hippiemom wrote:

Many people (certainly not everyone) know it will kill you, but there's no way of knowing if it's in your food unless they tell you. I ask how food is prepared, and almost always the server has to go back and ask, and I've had instances where neither the cooks nor the servers even know what a trans-fat IS, so they can't tell me if they're using them until I go into some long explanation .... arghh, it's so frustrating.

It's fine with me if they ban them, but if they don't, I'd at least like to see labeling when they're used. And I want to see it everywhere, mom and pop restaurants should not be exempt. And I also don't want to hear a bunch of whining about how much it would cost them. They can put stickers next to their menu items that contain trans fats, might cost them all of $10 and an hour's work at most. Or better yet, they could stop using that crap in the first place. If they choose to use dangerous ingredients, which they don't HAVE to do, the burden should be on them to disclose that to their customers.

I'd be happy if labelling was a government mandate. That's about as far as I think government should go.

I have to admit that I try to eat healthy so if I'm in a restaurant I try to stick with soup and salad, or steak and salad. I figure they can't fuck either of those combos up to much. Except if I'm drinking, then bring on the nachos with chicken platter.

At home I'm moving further and further away from eating pre-processed foods. The more I learn about it, the more I understand it's an eat at your own peril kind of deal.

chopitdown

If this is true: "Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy." then i have less problem with the banning of trans fats. Trans fats are bad for people and if the gov't is there for the public benefit, this may be a step in the right direction. I can see the slippery slope argument, but let's cross that slippery slope if we come to it.

surferdude

chopitdown wrote:

If this is true: "Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy." then i have less problem with the banning of trans fats. Trans fats are bad for people and if the gov't is there for the public benefit, this may be a step in the right direction. I can see the slippery slope argument, but let's cross that slippery slope if we come to it.

When we get to it???!!!. Hell, this proposal is getting out the crazy carpets and sliding down that slippery slope laughing all the way.

Government does not exist to protect me from myself. I know trans fat is bad in high doses. In moderation it can be an acceptable part of your diet.

chopitdown

surferdude wrote:

When we get to it???!!!. Hell, this proposal is getting out the crazy carpets and sliding down that slippery slope laughing all the way.

Government does not exist to protect me from myself. I know trans fat is bad in high doses. In moderation it can be an acceptable part of your diet.

i meant more in terms of the banning ice cream etc...

I don't think the gov't needs to protect me from myself either I try to avoid trans fats also. But hang out at a mcdonalds or fast food joint sometime and look at some of the people who are there. There are people who for some reason don't care about trans fats and since it is a public health issue (esp with obesity and coronary artery disease etc..) I think that there should be a public health initiative to stop the use of trans fats or at least try to educate. But let's be honest if it's as simple as using different oil to fry the foods, is that really a big deal?
I'm going to a talk on childhood obesity etc... on friday if the speaker brings up anything on trans fats I'll try to report on it, I think it's mostly dealing with exercise and activity and it's benefits though.

surferdude

chopitdown wrote:

I'm going to a talk on childhood obesity etc... on friday if the speaker brings up anything on trans fats I'll try to report on it, I think it's mostly dealing with exercise and activity and it's benefits though.

Parents of obese kids should be charged with child abuse and endangerment. Schools should be as compelled to report this type of abuse as they are to report physical child abuse.

A role of government is to protect children when the child's guardian is not.

chopitdown

surferdude wrote:

Parents of obese kids should be charged with child abuse and endangerment. Schools should be as compelled to report this type of abuse as they are to report physical child abuse.

A role of government is to protect children when the child's guardian is not.

i agree wholeheartedly.

know1

surferdude wrote:

Parents of obese kids should be charged with child abuse and endangerment. Schools should be as compelled to report this type of abuse as they are to report physical child abuse.

A role of government is to protect children when the child's guardian is not.

I agree. There just isn't much of a reason for a child to be overweight other than poor parenting.

1970RR

We are all ready halfway down the slope and now its slathered in Trans Fat.

When will people stop concerning themselves with how others live their lives?

This is as ridiculous as the politician in NY whose solution to a supposed lack of options in restaurants is best solved by zoning them out, thereby limiting options.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/nyregion/24fast.html?ex=1316750400&en=6d33cfbe997aab53&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Pearl Jam and toast

I'd rather the people make the obvious choice for their health by themselves.

chopitdown

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

I'd rather the people make the obvious choice for their health by themselves.

if it was that obvious, why do we have such an obesity problem? I'd rather that (people making the obvious choice for health) happen to, but it's not happening.

RockinInCanada

know1 wrote:

I agree. There just isn't much of a reason for a child to be overweight other than poor parenting.

Not all obesity cases are caused directly through over-eating.....genetics, thyroid problems, etc.

Pearl Jam and toast

chopitdown wrote:

if it was that obvious, why do we have such an obesity problem? I'd rather that (people making the obvious choice for health) happen to, but it's not happening.

The heart behind that proposal is in the right place but people need to stop being so goddamn stupid and eat right/excercise. It's no secret that eating like shit makes you fat, gives you heart disease and any number of other problems, and kills you. Ever see that episode of The Boondocks with the Martin Luther (sandwhich) ?

This law is a waste of our government's time in a role it shouldn't legally have the right to.

mwachsman

No

MrBrian

hippiemom wrote:

Many people (certainly not everyone) know it will kill you, but there's no way of knowing if it's in your food unless they tell you. I ask how food is prepared, and almost always the server has to go back and ask, and I've had instances where neither the cooks nor the servers even know what a trans-fat IS, so they can't tell me if they're using them until I go into some long explanation .... arghh, it's so frustrating.
.

and of course by then after all the "trouble" you've given them they've probably put a little special additive to your food called "spit"

I try to not ask too many questions when I eat out, but then again I hardly eat out because I don't trust what's in the foods, trans fat? corn syrup?

even flow?

I think it is as silly as the ciggie banishment. Just like fags, you can't just ban the use from certain places but allow use of the product. If you want to eat stuff after reading a warning about what it is and you have done a bit of research or just read this thread (with links) and have a reasonable idea if trans fat is good or bad for you and still go ahead and eat it. Well, you shouldn't be allowed to sue anybody. To get to the point.

So the steps are:

1. create the stuff with limited, if any testing to an extent that would keep the mouse's family happy.

2. new disease is created and real research is now being done.

3. found out the problem was what you created all this time.

4. in between step 1 and 3 some casual lawsuits and one very big one slap you down a bit. you pay, advertise that what you sell is bad, and continue to produce and sell the product.

5. public furor heats up again over some new findings and you still create the product and agree with the government to shit on the people who are the ones making you rich. all while taking more steps to appease the common monkey who has won another little war in the big scheme of things.

chopitdown

even flow? wrote:

I think it is as silly as the ciggie banishment. Just like fags, you can't just ban the use from certain places but allow use of the product. If you want to eat stuff after reading a warning about what it is and you have done a bit of research or just read this thread (with links) and have a reasonable idea if trans fat is good or bad for you and still go ahead and eat it. Well, you shouldn't be allowed to sue anybody.

Although, the cig banning is a public health issue. I can see why banning those in public is acceptable while keeping them legal in your own home or car. If you choose to smoke and do that shit to yourself and no one else is affected then fine do it in private...i'd like to see them banned altogether but that will never happen. Trans fats are the same. If you want to cook with trans fats at home, do it; but with the public health issue that it is (granted the guy eating the trans fats next to me doesn't cause my arteries to harden) I think that a responsible gov't would say that you can't use trans fats...the gov't puts TONS of limitations on food and has TONs of standards...this one is no worse than the others, in my opinion. I agree though, if you choose to use the trans fats or cigs or anything you shouldn't be able to sue anyone about it.

crittables

until the government gives me health insurance, it has no call in what i do with my body

blackredyellow

crittables wrote:

until the government gives me health insurance, it has no call in what i do with my body

The only valid reason for laws like this, is health care costs. With all of the health problems that obese people have, and the future ones the obese kids have effect our health care costs. The more and more these people are using thier health insurance, all of our rates go up to cover the added expense to insurance companies.

crittables

blackredyellow wrote:

The only valid reason for laws like this, is health care costs. With all of the health problems that obese people have, and the future ones the obese kids have effect our health care costs. The more and more these people are using thier health insurance, all of our rates go up to cover the added expense to insurance companies.

i get that, but the government is not providing me any health care, so i don't see why they care

hippiemom

MrBrian wrote:

and of course by then after all the "trouble" you've given them they've probably put a little special additive to your food called "spit"

I try to not ask too many questions when I eat out, but then again I hardly eat out because I don't trust what's in the foods, trans fat? corn syrup?

We've eaten a lot of take-out food this year because of all the chaos in my household, but we've pretty much settled on 4 places where we've gotten to know the people and the menus, and two of those are vegetarian health-food places. There are other places around that I'd like to try, but it's so much work. Between my cancer and my husband coming from a long line of people who drop over dead at early ages from heart attacks, we have to be pretty careful what we're eating, and once you have the information you've asked for, you still have to wonder how accurate it is ... I've had several "vegetarian" soups made with chicken broth, for example, so either the staff doesn't know what they're talking about, or they just give you the answers they think you want to hear so you'll shut up. And then they spit in your food, lol.

chopitdown

crittables wrote:

i get that, but the government is not providing me any health care, so i don't see why they care

there are plenty of people on medicaid / medicare. so the gov't is providing some people with health care or at least supplementation.

1970RR

blackredyellow wrote:

The only valid reason for laws like this, is health care costs. With all of the health problems that obese people have, and the future ones the obese kids have effect our health care costs. The more and more these people are using thier health insurance, all of our rates go up to cover the added expense to insurance companies.

I would think that they die sooner, which over a normal lifespan, will end up costing society less.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C. S. Lewis

even flow?

chopitdown wrote:

Although, the cig banning is a public health issue. I can see why banning those in public is acceptable while keeping them legal in your own home or car. If you choose to smoke and do that shit to yourself and no one else is affected then fine do it in private...i'd like to see them banned altogether but that will never happen. Trans fats are the same. If you want to cook with trans fats at home, do it; but with the public health issue that it is (granted the guy eating the trans fats next to me doesn't cause my arteries to harden) I think that a responsible gov't would say that you can't use trans fats...the gov't puts TONS of limitations on food and has TONs of standards...this one is no worse than the others, in my opinion. I agree though, if you choose to use the trans fats or cigs or anything you shouldn't be able to sue anyone about it.

So why do people look at you like you farted in their presence when you light up at an outdoor bus stop, an outdoor stadium, etc. The outdoor concept seems to be lost on a ciggie smoker. But that is just an observation.

chopitdown

even flow? wrote:

So why do people look at you like you farted in their presence when you light up at an outdoor bus stop, an outdoor stadium, etc. The outdoor concept seems to be lost on a ciggie smoker. But that is just an observation.

there def is a backlash against smoking, right or wrong. I don't care if someone smokes outside as long as the smoke doesn't come over my direction; that's where most peoples beef is...they don't want to smell the smoke or smell like smoke and some people truly have medical issues that the smoke in cigarettes can aggrevate.