Nyc to ban trans fats

Restless Soul

mammasan wrote:

While I think that trans fats are completely fucking horrorable for us I find this as government overstepping it's bounds. Why does our government feel that it has to make our decisions for us. We as individuals should be the ones who reserve the right what crappy food to put into our bodies. While I think that it would be great if resturants should be required to notify their costumers if trans fats where used in the preparation of their meals I don't think that the government, local state or federal, should go so far as to ban resturants from using it. If people want to poison their bodies they should have every right to.

Well that's smart. If transfats are that much of a health hazard, then its the government's responsibility to make sure its not out there causing harm to the public. If the govt doesn't take the initiative you can hardly expect businesses to do so, and definitely not the general public.

RainDog

1970RR wrote:

No, there should not be a choice. I am unable to comprehend the risks associated with living and would prefer the government make those decisions for me.

Well at least you admitted it. There are probably institutions that could help you with that.

1970RR

RainDog wrote:

Well at least you admitted it. There are probably institutions that could help you with that.

If the goal of this legislation is public health, why is there no ban on saturated fats as well? Why stop with just trans-fat?

Pacomc79

RainDog wrote:

Food causes health problems. In fact, life itself is nothing but a sexually transmitted condition that carries with it a 100% mortality rate.

This is different. It's more like banning asbestos in buildings. Did that bother you too much?

well that's a pretty good analogy I guess. In support, you could also say lead paints and leaded gasoline because there are perfectly good tasting other cooking oils on the market to cook with that aren't as much of a cause of hypertension.

RainDog

1970RR wrote:

If the goal of this legislation is public health, why is there no ban on saturated fats as well? Why stop with just trans-fat?

Trans fats are an artificially produced product with a molecular structure that is known to cause significant heart damage. Saturated fats are simply unhealthy like so many other things. I suppose it's a matter of specifics. Why do you want New York restaurants to continue to cook in a product that can be easily replaced with a natural substance? Why did we replace asbestos with other flame retardant building materials?

jlew24asu

VictoryGin wrote:

it's not just the doctors though. they are heavily politically influenced. the medical commission gave plan b the thumbs up, but it took years to get it over-the-counter because of politicking.

yea that sucks but I would like to think there are decision making people in the FDA that truly care about the health of americans. I sure hope so.

RainDog

Pacomc79 wrote:

well that's a pretty good analogy I guess. In support, you could also say lead paints and leaded gasoline because there are perfectly good tasting other cooking oils on the market to cook with that aren't as much of a cause of hypertension.

Ahh, lead paint. I've lived in two different buildings where I had to sign a lead paint waiver. The first time I thought, "hey, it's not like I'm going to go around and lick the walls. What's this all about?" Then, a couple days later as I was getting a dish out of one of my cabinets, and I noticed a couple tiny white flakes on it. After that, I blew on or wiped every dish I got out of that cabinet.

onelongsong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Shouldn't there be a choice? What about letting the consumers drive the market and just not buy homes built with asbestos? It's the same logic.

let's pick this apart. let's say i have a resturant and want to offer a choice. i must enlarge my kitchen; add another deep fryer or two; add the additional ventilation; and pay the additional charge for the oil disposal. if i knew the customers would pay an additional dollar or two for their frys; i may consider it. but then knowing a trans fat ban is on the way; it wouldn't make sense. i would want to sell the best; healthiest product i could. this is why all my animals are raised naturally.

1970RR

RainDog wrote:

Trans fats are an artificially produced product with a molecular structure that is known to cause significant heart damage. Saturated fats are simply unhealthy like so many other things. I suppose it's a matter of specifics. Why do you want New York restaurants to continue to cook in a product that can be easily replaced with a natural substance? Why did we replace asbestos with other flame retardant building materials?

Because I produce and sell trans-fat. As for asbestos - it was for the children's sake. And the elderly.

onelongsong

1970RR wrote:

Because I produce and sell trans-fat. As for asbestos - it was for the children's sake. And the elderly.

better find another profession soon.

RainDog

1970RR wrote:

Because I produce and sell trans-fat. As for asbestos - it was for the children's sake. And the elderly.

Well, damn it, it's about time the government did something for us slightly overweight non-elderly adults with a penchant for all things deep fried! Why should children and the elderly get all the breaks?

miller8966

jlew24asu wrote:

you obviously dont know the difference between "good" oil and "bad" oil

Oil yes..but i didnt know their was good butter?

mammasan

onelongsong wrote:

i work with abused children and i was amazed when i found out that this 17 yr old girl hasn't seen tv in years. she turns 18 on saturday and the state is putting her in a group home. she is slightly retarded because her mother was/is a meth user. she has no idea what trans fats are. nor does she know much about nutrition. these are the people i'm talking about.

She is not poor she is slightly retarded the two are not the same. Also individuals like her are a tiny minority and as you even stated she is being put in a group home probabaly because she lacks the ability to properly care for herself. The majority of Americans know what foods are healthy and which are not.

I was thinking about this before. Should we be blaming trans fats for the high rate of cardiovascular disease and obesity in this country or is it because people eat themselves to death. If we where to completely ban trans fats in this country, I would guess, that 90% of the obese people would still be obese because they eat crap and too much of it. McDonald's could stop using trans fats in their food but if you continue to eat there 5 to 6 times a weeks you with probably still be fat and still have a high risk of developing CVD.

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

She is not poor she is slightly retarded the two are not the same. Also individuals like her are a tiny minority and as you even stated she is being put in a group home probabaly because she lacks the ability to properly care for herself. The majority of Americans know what foods are healthy and which are not.

I was thinking about this before. Should we be blaming trans fats for the high rate of cardiovascular disease and obesity in this country or is it because people eat themselves to death. If we where to completely ban trans fats in this country, I would guess, that 90% of the obese people would still be obese because they eat crap and too much of it. McDonald's could stop using trans fats in their food but if you continue to eat there 5 to 6 times a weeks you with probably still be fat and still have a high risk of developing CVD.

she is poor. and if banning trans fats helps one little girl; it's worth it. americans don't know what foods are healthy. people will buy meat in a store not knowing how it was raised or what it was fed. i posted this earlier but you must not have seen it.

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, with one out of every two adults burdened by excess weight. To help trim the fat, Procter and Gamble has given us Olestra, "the no-fat cooking oil with the full-fat flavor." There are a couple of problems with Olestra. First, it cuts down on your body's absorption of beta-carotene and vitamin E. Second, it can cause "bloating, cramping, nausea, and loose stools or diarrhea."
Nature has given us a healthier alternative to weight control—eat meat from animals raised on fresh pasture. Meat from grassfed animals has about half the fat as meat from grainfed animals and significantly fewer calories. It also gives you a bonus supply of vitamins E, A, D, and beta-carotene.
Burton P. Koonsvitsky et al, "Olestra Affects Serum Concentrations of Alpha-Tocopherol and Carotenoids" J of Nutrition, Vol. 127 No. 8 August 1997, pp. 1636S-1645S.

mammasan

onelongsong wrote:

she is poor. and if banning trans fats helps one little girl; it's worth it. americans don't know what foods are healthy. people will buy meat in a store not knowing how it was raised or what it was fed. i posted this earlier but you must not have seen it.

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, with one out of every two adults burdened by excess weight. To help trim the fat, Procter and Gamble has given us Olestra, "the no-fat cooking oil with the full-fat flavor." There are a couple of problems with Olestra. First, it cuts down on your body's absorption of beta-carotene and vitamin E. Second, it can cause "bloating, cramping, nausea, and loose stools or diarrhea."
Nature has given us a healthier alternative to weight control—eat meat from animals raised on fresh pasture. Meat from grassfed animals has about half the fat as meat from grainfed animals and significantly fewer calories. It also gives you a bonus supply of vitamins E, A, D, and beta-carotene.
Burton P. Koonsvitsky et al, "Olestra Affects Serum Concentrations of Alpha-Tocopherol and Carotenoids" J of Nutrition, Vol. 127 No. 8 August 1997, pp. 1636S-1645S.

See I disagree Americans do know what food is healthy and what isn't, the problem is they just don't care. They would rather buy the hormone and sterioded filled meat from the local supermarket because it is convenient. It is too much of an effort to find the meat from grass-fed animals or the organic fruits and vegetables. While I think that cutting out trans fats is a great thing it will not make no difference because Americans will keep eating shit and keep getting fat. This has nothing to do with education level or house hold family income and everything to do with our eating habit.

soulsinging

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.

dangerous how? isnt this precisely what pro-life advocates like yourself are arguing for? let the states decide and all that? roe v wade was wrong etc?

soulsinging

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.Our government doesn't ban the use of certain foods in resturants that thousands of Americans are allergic to. 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. As for your hand washing comment that spreads germs. A waiter who doesn't wash his hands after wiping his ass could easily pass e.coli to customers he/she is serving. Youare trying to compare apples to oranges. 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.

1. you're not allowed to smoke in public anymore. you can still do it in your home. likewise, you cant serve transfat in public, but you're welcome to cook with it at home.

2. peanut allergies affect a small minority of the population. trans fat is bad for everyone who ingests it. it's like setting a health code standard.

soulsinging

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.

yeah, becos it's a whole lot less of a burden to force restaurants to provide detailed info about every entree, the entire cooking process, and source of all ingredients, than it is to tell them not to use transfat.

mammasan

soulsinging wrote:

yeah, becos it's a whole lot less of a burden to force restaurants to provide detailed info about every entree, the entire cooking process, and source of all ingredients, than it is to tell them not to use transfat.

French Fries $2.00
(Cooked in oil containing Trans Fats)

Chicken Fingers $5.00
(Cooked in oil containing Trans Fats)



Wow that does seem really difficult. God forbid restaurants have to add an extra line to items on their menu stating what contains trans fats.

soulsinging

mammasan wrote:

French Fries $2.00
(Cooked in oil containing Trans Fats)

Chicken Fingers $5.00
(Cooked in oil containing Trans Fats)



Wow that does seem really difficult. God forbid restaurants have to add an extra line to items on their menu stating what contains trans fats.

but if we're only going to do labelling, we'll add peanuts, allergens, disclaimers about bones in chicken etc. when you're imposing a duty to warn, the sky is the limit. then they've also got to buy new menus, new displays that will double the size of their current menu (think of a mcd's menu with a list of this shit). when you're placing a ban on a fatal, genetically engineered substance, it stops there unless the public wants more.