Nyc to ban trans fats

1356

Comments

  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    surferdude wrote:
    I've never said no regulations. But regulations set by the appropriate level of government .To keep the checks and balances in of good governance in place.
    The FDA should probably outlaw trans fat entirely. But until they do it is an extremely dangerous precident to allow cities to basically do so.
    Waiting for the FDA to do the right thing is a lot more dangerous than that.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    mammasan wrote:
    I believe my point makes perfects sense.Our government doesn't ban cigerettes yet they atribute to the deaths of thousands in this country

    I certainly wish it would. cigarettes are worse then crack. but unfortunately tobacco companies have been around too long and too many people are physically addicted. I cant imagine the hell the would break loose if they were banned. sad but true.
    mammasan wrote:
    Our government doesn't ban the use of certain foods in resturants that thousands of Americans are allergic to.

    well thats because there are millions of people who arent allergic to them. people who suffer a medical condition should be responsible for themselves not to eat it.
    mammasan wrote:
    Have resturants and other eating establishments list on their menus what is prepared using trans fats and that will solve the problem. It should be up to the individual business weither they want to use trans fats or not and up to the consumer weither they want to eat foods containing it.

    eh maybe. but like someone said, you are free to use it in your home all you want.
    mammasan wrote:
    My oldest son is severely allergic to nuts yet their is no mention on any menu I have ever seen that states wether the resurant used nuts or peanut oil or peanut flour in any of their foods. I have to ask the waiter to check with the cook and if they do use these products in their kitchen we merely excuse ourselves and explain to our waiter why we can't eat in the establishment. People need to take responisblity for their own well being and not expect the government to do everything for us.


    you son is allergic to a natural nut that grows from the earth. and yes it is HIS responsibility to make sure he doesnt eat it.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    hippiemom wrote:
    Waiting for the FDA to do the right thing is a lot more dangerous than that.


    why such hosility towards the FDA. its a panel full of doctors and very smart people. why are you so convinced they dont have people's health in mind?
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    surferdude wrote:
    I've never said no regulations. But regulations set by the appropriate level of government .To keep the checks and balances in of good governance in place.
    The FDA should probably outlaw trans fat entirely. But until they do it is an extremely dangerous precident to allow cities to basically do so.

    i think you're confusing federal law with state and local law. i know of no ban concerning saliva in prepared foods; however; state law prohibits me from spitting in your food.
    however; there is an acceptable level of hair (including rat) and other substances in foods.
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    i think you're confusing federal law with state and local law. i know of no ban concerning saliva in prepared foods; however; state law prohibits me from spitting in your food.
    however; there is an acceptable level of hair (including rat) and other substances in foods.
    Exactly, state law. Not local town law.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I certainly wish it would. cigarettes are worse then crack. but unfortunately tobacco companies have been around too long and too many people are physically addicted. I cant imagine the hell the would break loose if they were banned. sad but true.



    well thats because there are millions of people who arent allergic to them. people who suffer a medical condition should be responsible for themselves not to eat it.



    eh maybe. but like someone said, you are free to use it in your home all you want.




    you son is allergic to a natural nut that grows from the earth. and yes it is HIS responsibility to make sure he doesnt eat it.

    It should also be my right to have the option of going out and eating a shit load of fried food loaded with trans fats, not that I would but you get the idea. I agree that resturants shouldn't use trans fats in preparing their food but it should be up to the owners of that establishment wether they want to or not. They should have to notify the customer of wha tfoods are prepared using trans fats, because the customer does have the right to know, but should not be forced by the government to completely eliminate it. I just view this as government overstepping it's boundaries yet again.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    jlew24asu wrote:
    why such hosility towards the FDA. its a panel full of doctors and very smart people. why are you so convinced they dont have people's health in mind?

    the FDA is limited to the research knowledge OF THE TIME. substances found to have no negative effect 10 years ago are now banned with dozens of lawsuits pending.
    mad cow disease was linked to farmers feeding ground cattle bones to cattle. at the time; the FDA found no negative effects of this practice and considered the extra calcium a health benefit.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    jlew24asu wrote:
    why such hosility towards the FDA. its a panel full of doctors and very smart people. why are you so convinced they dont have people's health in mind?
    "The thing that bugs me is that people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day" -- Dr. Herbert Ley, former FDA Commissioner
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    mammasan wrote:
    It should also be my right to have the option of going out and eating a shit load of fried food loaded with trans fats, not that I would but you get the idea. I agree that resturants shouldn't use trans fats in preparing their food but it should be up to the owners of that establishment wether they want to or not. They should have to notify the customer of wha tfoods are prepared using trans fats, because the customer does have the right to know, but should not be forced by the government to completely eliminate it. I just view this as government overstepping it's boundaries yet again.

    i've seen several signs or notes on menues stating: microwaves in use or peanut oil used. why not carry the trans fat with you and dump it on your food?
    i also see you targeting the poor who may not have the education or access to the information that trans fats are dangerous.
    in your theory; i should be able to smoke where i want and if anyone is opposed to second hand smoke; they can leave. in your words: i have the right to poison my own body. this may be true; but a resturant owner does not have the right to poison my body; especially without my concent.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    mammasan wrote:
    It should also be my right to have the option of going out and eating a shit load of fried food loaded with trans fats, not that I would but you get the idea. I agree that resturants shouldn't use trans fats in preparing their food but it should be up to the owners of that establishment wether they want to or not. They should have to notify the customer of wha tfoods are prepared using trans fats, because the customer does have the right to know, but should not be forced by the government to completely eliminate it. I just view this as government overstepping it's boundaries yet again.

    I hear what your saying but you have to take into context what we are talking about. trans fat is not coffee, salt, sugar, peanuts. its an unnatural substance.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    hippiemom wrote:
    "The thing that bugs me is that people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day" -- Dr. Herbert Ley, former FDA Commissioner


    ok
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    mammasan wrote:
    It should also be my right to have the option of going out and eating a shit load of fried food loaded with trans fats, not that I would but you get the idea. I agree that resturants shouldn't use trans fats in preparing their food but it should be up to the owners of that establishment wether they want to or not. They should have to notify the customer of wha tfoods are prepared using trans fats, because the customer does have the right to know, but should not be forced by the government to completely eliminate it. I just view this as government overstepping it's boundaries yet again.
    An outright ban may be overstepping, but I am not sympathetic to the restaurant industry at all. They could have voluntarily labeled their foods, and a ban like this wouldn't have happened. They didn't do that because they quite correctly guessed that many people would avoid this stuff if they knew it was there. The people who want the option to chow down on fried foods don't care what kind of fat they're fried in, and the rest of us don't want people sneaking poisons into our food.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • miller8966miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    hippiemom wrote:
    An outright ban may be overstepping, but I am not sympathetic to the restaurant industry at all. They could have voluntarily labeled their foods, and a ban like this wouldn't have happened. They didn't do that because they quite correctly guessed that many people would avoid this stuff if they knew it was there. The people who want the option to chow down on fried foods don't care what kind of fat they're fried in, and the rest of us don't want people sneaking poisons into our food.

    How does a restaurant label their food?
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • exhaustedexhausted Posts: 6,638
    on the menu presumably.
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    RainDog wrote:
    Do you see the problem with no regulation? If you own a restaurant, it goes without saying that you can't knowingly poison your customers. New York just included trans fats with that - a slowly acting poison.

    This won't affect the consumer at all, really. Maybe the prices will go up a few pennies here and there as cooks are required to use natural oils, but customers won't notice otherwise. Our cafeteria here at work recently stopped using trans fats. The only reason I know that now was because someone told me. Everything still tastes the same.
    So what happens when its discovered after this ban that people somehow still manage to die? What will be banned next?
    Im w/ surferdude on this one - dont give the government an inch. This will only set precedant and enable the nannies to spread more of their good intentions throughout the land, much to the detriment of our rights.

    Whats wrong with simply requiring a label/warning and then allowing us to make our own choices? Or do you just want to eliminate the choices that you feel are incorrect?
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    hippiemom wrote:

    There's plenty of research. If the citizens of New York don't want this, I'm sure the phones at city hall will be ringing off the hook with angry voters. If they do want it, more power to them.


    it hasn't worked with pot has it?


    Maybe I'm weird, I actually do read the labels. It takes me forever in the grocery store.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    it hasn't worked with pot has it?
    I'm sure the gangs of New York are wildly excited about this opportunity to branch out into the margarine and Crisco business :rolleyes:

    What a silly comparison. It will not be illegal to possess trans fats. It will not be illegal to buy or sell them. And no one really cares if they never have trans fats again, as opposed to the large number of people who care a great deal if they are ever going to get high again.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    hippiemom wrote:
    I'm sure the gangs of New York are wildly excited about this opportunity to branch out into the margarine and Crisco business :rolleyes:

    What a silly comparison. It will not be illegal to possess trans fats. It will not be illegal to buy or sell them. And no one really cares if they never have trans fats again, as opposed to the large number of people who care a great deal if they are ever going to get high again.
    So what is being accomplished by this ban? Why not just label/warn and allow consumers to choose?
  • surferdude wrote:
    For now. Letting government legislate the use of a substance that holds no harm to the responsible person is a very dangerous precedent. It hasn't worked with pot, what makes anyone think it will work with trans fat.

    I'm all for labelling and giving the power to the individual/consumer. I'm completely against local governments making this type of law. Local government was never designed to make these type of health choices for you. They have no research and testing to back their legislation. This is democracy at it's worst where the individual has neither rights nor protection from the government.

    Are you really alright with labeling? As I recall, in another thread involving food consumption, many of you guys freaked about the higher cost to the business by providing extra labeling.

    You aren't free to feed people harmful shit. They can't feed you poison or spoiled food. It's protection from harm. Just like it's against the law to assault someone, destroy someones property. My body is my most important piece of property and I would be thankful if restaurants are made to respect it and not fill it with this crap. We have freedom, but of course, not absolute freedom.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    1970RR wrote:
    So what is being accomplished by this ban? Why not just label/warn and allow consumers to choose?

    do you hear yourself?
    i'll be your server tonight. would you like your food cooked in healthy oil or would you like it cooked in potentially dangerous oil of which the full ramifications are not yet known?
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    do you hear yourself?
    i'll be your server tonight. would you like your food cooked in healthy oil or would you like it cooked in potentially dangerous oil of which the full ramifications are not yet known?
    Since I eat out very infrequently, I have no problem w/ a big steaming bowl of trans fat.
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    hippiemom wrote:
    I'm sure the gangs of New York are wildly excited about this opportunity to branch out into the margarine and Crisco business :rolleyes:

    What a silly comparison. It will not be illegal to possess trans fats. It will not be illegal to buy or sell them. And no one really cares if they never have trans fats again, as opposed to the large number of people who care a great deal if they are ever going to get high again.

    hey things fried in lard make me feel bad anyway even though they taste good, so I don't eat them often. I was using the pot reference to the idea that voters can band together and get their trans fats back. NORMAL has been trying to get pot legalized for years. IMHO it should never have been made illegal. I've been doing all I can to get the tax code changed for instance.... good luck with that.

    Bascially the reason I am how I am is that once that power of choice is gone it's ridiculously hard to get it back.

    I try to crusade for liberty. I like less government. Less control over every individual, monitarily and socially.

    I know trans fats are really really bad for people. I understand I'm on the silly side of it. It's just another area where I'd rather not see the government have to get involved. I'd rather see the public drive the market. Demanding trans fat free cooking oils by supporting businesses that don't use them.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    1970RR wrote:
    So what is being accomplished by this ban? Why not just label/warn and allow consumers to choose?
    I'd be happy with labels, but I'm fine with the ban too.

    Tell me this ... can you find me one single person who will be upset when they can't get a trans fat-laden meal when they're in NYC? People keep talking about "choice," as though there are people who read the labels on the cookie box and say "Oh, I can't buy this, it doesn't have any trans fats! I want the one with the trans fats!" Is there anyone on the entire planet who CHOOSES to eat them? I doubt it ... I think people eat them because they don't realize that they're there, and will be just as happy when they're gone.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    i've seen several signs or notes on menues stating: microwaves in use or peanut oil used. why not carry the trans fat with you and dump it on your food?
    i also see you targeting the poor who may not have the education or access to the information that trans fats are dangerous.
    in your theory; i should be able to smoke where i want and if anyone is opposed to second hand smoke; they can leave. in your words: i have the right to poison my own body. this may be true; but a resturant owner does not have the right to poison my body; especially without my concent.

    How am I targeting the poor? Discussions about trans fat are all over the media from tv to radio to newpapers to magazines. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are uninformed or is that your perception of poor people. Just as those menus you mentioned stated peanut oil used so can menus state trans fat used. I think that each and every resturant should label what foods they are using trans fat to prepare but I don't agree with a ban. Also no resturant is forcing you to eat anything. You can walk into any establishment and ask if they use trans fats to prepare their meals and if they do youcan walk out. No one is pushing this crap on you. As far as my theory on smoking, second hand smoke hurts others so it's not the same as trans fat. I can smoke all I want but I shouldn't expect the person next to me to have to inhale the carcinagens.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    1970RR wrote:
    So what happens when its discovered after this ban that people somehow still manage to die? What will be banned next?
    I guess that depends on what they die from - natural causes or unnatural ones (like trans fats).
    1970RR wrote:
    Im w/ surferdude on this one - dont give the government an inch. This will only set precedant and enable the nannies to spread more of their good intentions throughout the land, much to the detriment of our rights.
    Our rights? Like I said, the only people who will notice this change are the restaurant owners - and even they won't feel it much considering they have a year and a half to change. They could ban this shit cross country and in three years you won't even remember it happened.
    1970RR wrote:
    Whats wrong with simply requiring a label/warning and then allowing us to make our own choices? Or do you just want to eliminate the choices that you feel are incorrect?
    I don't know - ask the restaurant business who fought label requirements.

    Lots of things are unhealth, true. I have a few nasty habits myself. This isn't really the same thing, though. Trans fats are largely unnecessary for the preperation of food. And by that I don't mean "unnecessary but taste really good." I mean flat out unnecessary.
  • stuckinlinestuckinline Posts: 3,368
    New York's move to ban trans fats has mostly been applauded by health and medical groups, although the American Heart Association warns that if restaurants aren't given ample time to make the switch, they could end up reverting to ingredients high in saturated fat, like palm oil.



    so my question is, what will the nyc restaurants use instead of trans fat?
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    gluten919 wrote:
    New York's move to ban trans fats has mostly been applauded by health and medical groups, although the American Heart Association warns that if restaurants aren't given ample time to make the switch, they could end up reverting to ingredients high in saturated fat, like palm oil.



    so my question is, what will the nyc restaurants use instead of trans fat?
    Butter and oil would be my guess.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Are you really alright with labeling? As I recall, in another thread involving food consumption, many of you guys freaked about the higher cost to the business by providing extra labeling.

    You aren't free to feed people harmful shit. They can't feed you poison or spoiled food. It's protection from harm. Just like it's against the law to assault someone, destroy someones property. My body is my most important piece of property and I would be thankful if restaurants are made to respect it and not fill it with this crap. We have freedom, but of course, not absolute freedom.

    that's been my point; but going a step further; why does the government allow ranchers and farmers to sell potentially harmful foods by allowing unsafe practices? canadian law actually encourages mistreatment of animals (see: PMU MARES).
    labeling would be great for those who know what to look for. and also if the information needed was required to be on the label. i've seen labels that brag GRAIN FED BEEF. grain fed meat is the worst meat for the human body; yet if you brag about it; there are people who will think it's a good thing.
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    hippiemom wrote:
    Butter and oil would be my guess.
    But dont these ingredients cause health problems as well?
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    1970RR wrote:
    But dont these ingredients cause health problems as well?
    Yes, but not to the same extent. Jlew posted some good basic info a few pages back.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Sign In or Register to comment.