Nyc to ban trans fats

1246789

Comments

  • hippiemom
    hippiemom 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
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu 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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu 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?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong 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.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    onelongsong wrote:
    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
  • mammasan
    mammasan 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
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong 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.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom 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
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong 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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu 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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu 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
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom 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
  • miller8966
    miller8966 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.
  • exhausted
    exhausted Posts: 6,638
    on the menu presumably.
  • 1970RR
    1970RR 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?
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 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.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom 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
  • 1970RR
    1970RR 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?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong 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?

Categories