Nyc to ban trans fats

1235789

Comments

  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    onelongsong wrote:
    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.
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 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.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom 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
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    onelongsong wrote:
    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
  • RainDog
    RainDog 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.
  • stuckinline
    stuckinline Posts: 3,407
    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?
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom 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
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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.
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    hippiemom wrote:
    Butter and oil would be my guess.
    But dont these ingredients cause health problems as well?
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom 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
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    1970RR wrote:
    But dont these ingredients cause health problems as well?
    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?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    mammasan wrote:
    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.

    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.
  • 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


    well maybe this has something to do with him being a former commissioner. people normally dont have good things to say about their employers.

    I just always thought (hoped), a panel of doctors were smart enough to look out with our health in mind.

    I dont doubt what he said or what other evidence you have but damn, that sucks
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I just always thought (hoped), a panel of doctors were smart enough to look out with our health in mind.

    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.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • miller8966
    miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    hippiemom wrote:
    Yes, but not to the same extent. Jlew posted some good basic info a few pages back.

    Butter and oil will send you to the emergency room also
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    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?
    Yeah, asbestos. Its just like that. You convinced me, we must ban trans-fat nationwide!
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    1970RR wrote:
    Yeah, asbestos. Its just like that. You convinced me, we must ban trans-fat nationwide!


    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.
    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
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    1970RR wrote:
    Yeah, asbestos. Its just like that. You convinced me, we must ban trans-fat nationwide!
    So, why can't we build with asbestos, then? I mean, a couple of people got some scar tissue in their lungs - that's no reason for the nanny state to step in, is it? Contractors should have the freedom to build with whatever materials they want. If you don't want to breath in asbestos, don't go into those buildings.

    They could have fixed the whole problem with big labels on the doors, right?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    miller8966 wrote:
    Butter and oil will send you to the emergency room also


    you obviously dont know the difference between "good" oil and "bad" oil
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    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.
    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.

Categories