Nyc to ban trans fats

mammasan

soulsinging wrote:

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.

Was the public asking for a ban on trans fats or was it the government simply taking matters into it's own hands.

soulsinging

mammasan wrote:

Was the public asking for a ban on trans fats or was it the government simply taking matters into it's own hands.

i dont know, i dont live in nyc. but if it's horribly unpopular or causes huge problems, they will vote the people out of office and then repeal that legislation.

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

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.

let's compromise. people think they know what foods are healthy. or better yet; are suppose to be healthy. we're told to eat veggies and fruits but we're not told that the fruits are ripened in the truck with gasses. they don't tell you your carrots are dyed nor do you get information about the dyes and additives. you can eat the perfect diet while ingesting carsinogens with every bite. so banning trans fats won't make much of a difference right now. what it does is put companies on notice that the government is watching our health and food supply. research is proving that the way we grow and produce our food is dangerous to our health. the price of food is going to jump as profit motivated producers are forced out of business. i think we're moving in the right direction.

onelongsong

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.

you're forgetting the extra deep fryers and added ventilation; plus the disposal fee. your fries are up around $5.00 now.

surferdude

soulsinging wrote:

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?

I'm for levels of government implementing legislation for what they've been granted authority for. In doing anything else the checks and balances of the system are bypassed. Those checks and balances are there primarily to protect the individual. Banning the public consumption of a food falls well outiside city level governance authority. It's NYC basically saying we think the FDA (or other federal or state agency menat to protect us against trans fat) is broken and we are going to make up rules as we go. Oh yeah, in making up rules we trampled all over peoples rights. But that's beside the point, this is for their own good. People on this board rightly have a shit when Bush tries to bypass the constitution and they should equally care about cities taken on legislation they have no authority for.

mammasan

surferdude wrote:

I'm for levels of government implementing legislation for what they've been granted authority for. In doing anything else the checks and balances of the system are bypassed. Those checks and balances are there primarily to protect the individual. Banning the public consumption of a food falls well outiside city level governance authority. It's NYC basically saying we think the FDA (or other federal or state agency menat to protect us against trans fat) is broken and we are going to make up rules as we go. Oh yeah, in making up rules we trampled all over peoples rights. But that's beside the point, this is for their own good. People on this board rightly have a shit when Bush tries to bypass the constitution and they should equally care about cities taken on legislation they have no authority for.

Thank you for stating that much more eliquently than I did.

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

Thank you for stating that much more eliquently than I did.

all he said was that corporations should be allowed to poison an unsuspecting public until the federal government steps in and does something about it. he claimed that the city health dept has no say in the matter nor does the state. he also points out that cities should not be allowed to be pro-active in protecting its citizens. he insinuates that even though proven harmful; not enough people have died to make change. did i get that right?

onelongsong

surferdude wrote:

I'm for levels of government implementing legislation for what they've been granted authority for. In doing anything else the checks and balances of the system are bypassed. Those checks and balances are there primarily to protect the individual. Banning the public consumption of a food falls well outiside city level governance authority. It's NYC basically saying we think the FDA (or other federal or state agency menat to protect us against trans fat) is broken and we are going to make up rules as we go. Oh yeah, in making up rules we trampled all over peoples rights. But that's beside the point, this is for their own good. People on this board rightly have a shit when Bush tries to bypass the constitution and they should equally care about cities taken on legislation they have no authority for.

i can't find any classification of trans fats as a food. do you have a link?

mammasan

onelongsong wrote:

all he said was that corporations should be allowed to poison an unsuspecting public until the federal government steps in and does something about it. he claimed that the city health dept has no say in the matter nor does the state. he also points out that cities should not be allowed to be pro-active in protecting its citizens. he insinuates that even though proven harmful; not enough people have died to make change. did i get that right?

What is the difference between cigerettes and trans fats. Both are proven harmful yet our government sees no need in banning the production of tobacco products. It has educated the public on the dangers of smoking and leaves the final decision to the consumer. The same should be done with trans fats. Inform the public on the dangers, make sure that food is labeled (and restuarant patrons are informed) and then leave it in the hands of the consumer. That is how I interpret what he has said. There is no need for our government to be our mommy.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

I'm for levels of government implementing legislation for what they've been granted authority for. In doing anything else the checks and balances of the system are bypassed. Those checks and balances are there primarily to protect the individual. Banning the public consumption of a food falls well outiside city level governance authority. It's NYC basically saying we think the FDA (or other federal or state agency menat to protect us against trans fat) is broken and we are going to make up rules as we go. Oh yeah, in making up rules we trampled all over peoples rights. But that's beside the point, this is for their own good. People on this board rightly have a shit when Bush tries to bypass the constitution and they should equally care about cities taken on legislation they have no authority for.

1. given that you live in canada, why do you spend so much time reading abotu our system of checks and balances?

2. how is that any different from a city passing a noise ordinance? saying "our citizens don't like loud noise and since congress won't do anything about it, we will."

3. power not specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the states. can you tell me where in the constitution it says anything remotely similar to "only congress shall have the power to regulate cooking processes"? seems to me this is EXACTLY the sort of thing that should be left to individual states or cities.

soulsinging

mammasan wrote:

What is the difference between cigerettes and trans fats. Both are proven harmful yet our government sees no need in banning the production of tobacco products. It has educated the public on the dangers of smoking and leaves the final decision to the consumer. The same should be done with trans fats. Inform the public on the dangers, make sure that food is labeled (and restuarant patrons are informed) and then leave it in the hands of the consumer. That is how I interpret what he has said. There is no need for our government to be our mommy.

cigarettes are also banned from use in public places and restricted to use only by adults. any kid can go into mcdonald's and load themselves with these products at will. that is when the obesity epidemic starts... in childhood when kids don't have the ability to make conscious health decisions, they just go by what tastes better. by your logic, we ought to sell cigarettes to children as long as we warn them on the package that smoking is bad for them.

mammasan

soulsinging wrote:

cigarettes are also banned from use in public places and restricted to use only by adults. any kid can go into mcdonald's and load themselves with these products at will. that is when the obesity epidemic starts... in childhood when kids don't have the ability to make conscious health decisions, they just go by what tastes better. by your logic, we ought to sell cigarettes to children as long as we warn them on the package that smoking is bad for them.

What is it with people telling me what the logic behind my statements are. Are you fucking psychic? No I did not imply, by my statement, that children should be allowed to buy cigerettesd and I would appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth in order to win an arguement. We disagree on this and you will not sway my mind so fucking get over yourself already and quit telling me what the logic behind my statement is when in reality you have not one fucking clue what that logic is.

surferdude

soulsinging wrote:

1. given that you live in canada, why do you spend so much time reading abotu our system of checks and balances?

Because your politics are interesting and they actually have a big impact on Canada. From do some studying in the states where I took a couple US history courses I have come to admire the American style of checks and balances, authority limits that are in the various levels of government. As an outsider who thinks you have a good system, it amazes me when people applaud the cirumventing of these rules when it meets their narrow focused objectives.

Did I pass your test?

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

What is the difference between cigerettes and trans fats. Both are proven harmful yet our government sees no need in banning the production of tobacco products. It has educated the public on the dangers of smoking and leaves the final decision to the consumer. The same should be done with trans fats. Inform the public on the dangers, make sure that food is labeled (and restuarant patrons are informed) and then leave it in the hands of the consumer. That is how I interpret what he has said. There is no need for our government to be our mommy.

cigarettes are not banned because of the number of tobacco farmers. tobacco farming is being phased out and you can actually now get a permit to grow hemp. the final decision is not left to the public. i cannot smoke in public as it puts carcenogens in other peoples air. same thing here. you cannot put a dangerous substance in anothers food. drink it straight at home all you want. you cannot poison someone else. that was the basis for the tobacco ruling; and i believe the precident nyc is standing on. trans fat is NOT a food by any deffinition. nyc is as much in its' rights just as cities which banned public smoking. several states banned public smoking this last election. they told us if we need to smoke; eat and drink at home. same here; if you want to poison yourself; do it at home. this is only the tip of the iceberg. once i find a lawyer bold enough to sue the oil companies for the pollution their product causes; all hell will break loose. this based on all the arguments from the tobacco suit. what's good for one is good for all.

onelongsong

surferdude wrote:

Because your politics are interesting and they actually have a big impact on Canada. From do some studying in the states where I took a couple US history courses I have come to admire the American style of checks and balances, authority limits that are in the various levels of government. As an outsider who thinks you have a good system, it amazes me when people applaud the cirumventing of these rules when it meets their narrow focused objectives.

Did I pass your test?

good answer dude. i'm really impressed. not to change the subject; but when i was in school; we were taught that the second ammendment was part of the checks and balances in that citizens are allowed to bear arms in the event all other checks and balances fail and we get a dictator in office. was this ever mentioned? they don't teach it like that anymore.

Pacomc79

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.

That could also be applied to our energy and environmental problems and hell a lot of other issues too. Basically, we consume too much of everything.

onelongsong

Pacomc79 wrote:

That could also be applied to our energy and environmental problems and hell a lot of other issues too. Basically, we consume too much of everything.

we have almost endless supplies of methane which will kill us when they defrost; but we can access it and solve the world energy crisis. it's clean burning yet nobody listens.

Abookamongstthemany

surferdude wrote:

Because your politics are interesting and they actually have a big impact on Canada. From do some studying in the states where I took a couple US history courses I have come to admire the American style of checks and balances, authority limits that are in the various levels of government. As an outsider who thinks you have a good system, it amazes me when people applaud the cirumventing of these rules when it meets their narrow focused objectives.

Did I pass your test?

So you are for businesses having to label their all their food? What about the costs to the business? I would like to see the labeling, myself but I thought you were against it...I could be wrong.

And I don't see it as giving up rights to ban something harmful and unnecessary. You have to use common sense with these things and drop the absolute type thinking. Weigh the pros and cons and look at things as they come up. Like the asbestos analogy, some things are done away with for good reason. Do you think people should be able to use asbestos? Or do you think the cons outweighed the pros? I have no problem with laws that protect the public. If the public prefered keeping the danger then that would be one thing but I've seen no evidence of support for trans fats.

surferdude

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

So you are for businesses having to label their all their food? What about the costs to the business? I would like to see the labeling, myself but I thought you were against it...I could be wrong.

And I don't see it as giving up rights to ban something harmful and unnecessary. You have to use common sense with these things and drop the absolute type thinking. Weigh the pros and cons and look at things as they come up. Like the asbestos analogy, some things are done away with for good reason. Do you think people should be able to use asbestos? Or do you think the cons outweighed the pros? I have no problem with laws that protect the public. If the public prefered keeping the danger then that would be one thing but I've seen no evidence of support for trans fats.

I'm not against the banning of trans fat. I'm against the way this is being done by a level of government that has no business to do so. In the same wasy I'd kick up a fuss if the federal government tried to charge me property taxes.

Abookamongstthemany

surferdude wrote:

I'm not against the banning of trans fat. I'm against the way this is being done by a level of government that has no business to do so. In the same wasy I'd kick up a fuss if the federal government tried to charge me property taxes.

But if the federal government is dragging it's feet or simply doing nothing, the local government should have the right to protect it's citizens.