NYC & Chi. to Ban Trans Fats?

Nutrition
21

True. However obesity costs a lot to our society as a whole and affects everyone indirectly through insurance premiums. Obese/unhealthy people are more likely to fall ill and it affects those who are around as well.

As an analogy, vaccinations were made mandatory and it prevented spread of illnesses. Should it not be mandatory?

Why do you think they even started looking at this issue? Because of all the recent talk about America become obese and health care spendings going through the roof.

Both extremes - no regulation and all regulation are no good. Where do draw a line between these 2 extremes is a difficult problem which is being solved dynamically.

P.S. Aside from this line of argumentation laurionb makes a good point.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
skor wrote:
Nephorm: one word for you - externality.

Again, there is a difference between regulating something like the car industry to prevent pollution (since it affects all of us, and no one is asking to be polluted anyhow) and regulating what people can knowingly put in their own bodies.[/quote]

22

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
My issue here isn’t the trans-fats. My issue here is our individual freedoms. The government gets a hair brained idea, and acts on it, and the people pay the price for it. Lets use historical examples.

The prohibition banned alcohol.
Every Tom, Dick and Harry made booze.
The booze was more available and less safe.
The public paid the price.

Automatic weapons were banned for civillian use.
High Powered rifles were banned for civilian use.
Soon they will be coming for my pistol.

Steroids got banned.
1-test got banned.
Ephedra got banned.
Creatine, DHEA And tribulis are up for banning.
Whats next fish oil?

Every time we, as the people, surrender a liberty without fighting, we allow the next liberty to be taken more easily than the last. If the US Government now tells us what we can eat, what’s next?

Tiribulus wrote:
@TrainerinDC :
This is a huge topic and the more I take time to think this through the more I’m inclined to recant my original position though I’m not quite there yet.

The voice on one side says “it’s people’s own resposibility to learn about what they put in their bodies and to not do it if it’s bad for them. If they’re ignorant enough to do it anyway ph**k em. I know about this, if they give a shit they can find out too”.

The voice on the other side is still saying though “there has to be some civilized limits based in sound science, not limiting what the individual can do, but limiting what businesses can do to a yet unsuspecting populous who every reason to have confidence that they won’t be outright poisoned by eating publicly available food”.

Unhealthy in certain amounts is one thing(white flour, high fructose corn syrup for example), but having no maximum safe level is another. I do think the sound science thing is a major sticking point. So much legislation is based on anything but(tryptophan, ephedra among many others). They were never sold in food though.

I don’t know. I’ll have to give it some more thought.

–Tiribulus->

[/quote]

I thought handguns were banned in the DC area.

23

[quote]skor wrote:
True. However obesity costs a lot to our society as a whole and affects everyone indirectly through insurance premiums. Obese/unhealthy people are more likely to fall ill and it affects those who are around as well.
[/quote]

Then charge obese people more.
I ought not to be coerced by the government for the benefit of a weak minority.

Vaccinations are not mandatory. You live in the US, correct? Parents refuse to vaccinate children all the time. Some vaccinations could have serious health effects… should the government get to decide that I have to be saved from myself?

Right… so as usual, that means we all must be screwed for the so-called “common good.” BS.

I never said “no regulation.” Regulations should respect personal rights, not usurp them from some misguided sense of utilitarianism.

24

At what point should the Govt. (supposedly run my us, the people, but that’s another post) interfere and enforce the production of high quality foods?

It’s getting harder and harder to find less-processed, highly nutritional food at a fair price.

Even our fruit and vegetables are getting to be less nutritious than they once were due to injecting them with hormones so they last longer, or look brighter to improve their sales and for the mass transit of them.

I agree about not wanting Govt. interference with many and most subjects (supplements, guns, even drugs that only harm the individual and nobody else), but making our beds and sleeping in it goes both ways.

Keep letting nutritional ignorance, and marketing lead the way for making what’s available to eat, and we’ll need to start growing our own food just to stay healthy.

25

Every time I start a new post about this I quit because it just touches on more areas than are practical to discuss on a forum like this. This is just one more footnote in the balancing act between personal freedom and responsibility and reasonable expectation of public safety.

The sad truth is most of the sheep now inhabiting this once great nation are more than willing to sacrifice both of the former for more of the latter. In that light and in the interest of dying with the knowledge that my offspring will get to live in some vague semblance of whatever freedom is left, I recant and will err on the side of individual responsibility.

As long as the info is available let people choose to or not to eat someplace that includes trans fats in it’s cuisine. If not for the bigger issues I may think differently and it’s not a comfortable decision. How did life ever get this frickin complicated?

–Tiribulus->

–Tiribulus->

26

The reason for restaurant regulation is that we don’t know how the food was prepared, while when we cook for ourselves, this is a known. When we buy food at the supermarket, it is required to list the ingredients. Not all restaurants provide ingredients lists (only the national chains).

That’s why unnecessary and toxic ingredients should be banned from restaurant use. How am I supposed to know if Ma and Pa used trans fats, if they don’t know themselves? This is doing the small business restaurant industry a favor.

27

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
As long as the info is available let people choose to or not to eat someplace that includes trans fats in it’s cuisine.

–Tiribulus->[/quote]

And that info is not always available.

How about the personal freedom to walk into a restaurant, and eat a meal prepared from food rather than chemicals? This is a freedom that previous generations enjoyed, yet the libertarian extremists of this website would deny themselves and others.

Yes, slippery slope arguments are most often made by extremists. Its the only way they can think.

28

These are good points and add to the discomfort of what I wrote above.

–Tiribulus->

29

I have to echo the thoughts of others here. I can’t see how banning trans fats is the answer. To me, the answer should be, education. Get the information out there, make people aware of what trans fats are and how they affect the body. Make restaurants post what is in their food or if they use trans fats. Banning them is not the answer.

Let people make the choice to eat trans fats or not.

30

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
nephorm wrote:
No, it isn’t.

If I want to eat shitty food, it is my right to do so.

Nobody could be a more unabashed limited government conservative than I am. However trans fats are damn near poisonous and looked at in that light does anyone think anti-freeze should be legal as a prepared food ingredient because it’s sweet and relatively cheap? If you want to run down to Pep Boys and grab a bottle of Prestone for this weekend’s party go ahead, but that doesn’t mean it should be allowed in food.

If someone WANTS to buy a gallon of hydrogenated oil and pour it on everything they should be allowed, but that doesn’t mean food industries should be able to include a cheap, potentially toxic substance in their food. This has nothing to do with supplements and is no different than a million other ingredients that are currently illegal in food.

At least this is my quick and dirty view after having heard this on Fox this morning and not really giving it alot more thought than that.

–Tiribulus->

[/quote]

I agree. I am for less gvernment interference but if trans fats are as bad as they seem to be they should not be allowed in the food supply.

Outlawing trans fats might be a good idea. Outlawing french fries is a bad idea.

31

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
I would like to cast my vote for the Reverend Nephorm for president.

Just remember, if the governments starts banning one thing, they will ban everything they can. Whats even better, soon they will ban your right to vote, and take away your guns.

Which is fine with me, because in a police-state, the police fair very well.[/quote]

Governments ban thousands of things. It is what they do. The slippery slope argument does not really apply here.

32

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:
I would like to cast my vote for the Reverend Nephorm for president.

Just remember, if the governments starts banning one thing, they will ban everything they can. Whats even better, soon they will ban your right to vote, and take away your guns.

Which is fine with me, because in a police-state, the police fair very well.

Governments ban thousands of things. It is what they do. The slippery slope argument does not really apply here.[/quote]

Sure it’s what they do. But is it what they are meant to do?

I guess I look at it this way. They are spending too much time on stuff like this when there are more important and pressing issues to deal with. Issues that will affect the lives of Americans more than eating trans fats will.

33

If it wasn’t for the slppery slope thing and the fact that so little of this type of legislation is actually based in sound science, I would’ve stuck with my original assessment. If it was just trans fats and other similar things I would’ve remained supportive. The fact of the matter is though this government does not make many of it’s decisions based on science and they live their very lives and ours in a prepetual state of sliding down that slippery slope. Whether it logically doesn’t apply isn’t the question. They make it apply even when it doesn’t too many times.

The guy on the last page made a great point about guns. In NY they demanded long gun registration “just to be able to keep track”. The politicians were indignant when it was suggested that this was a slippery first step toward confiscation. Outrageous they said!! We would never do that. Ask anyone from NY what happened. I realize this isn’t exactly the same thing, but it’s indicative of how things rapidly deteriorate once the door is cracked. It could be argued that any regulation at all constitutes the door being cracked already I suppose.

It was Ben Franklin who said “A man who would sacrifice freedom for security is deserving of neither”. Unfortunately this WILL wind being about a lot more than trans fats. Especially in places like the people’s republic of NY. I lived there 7 long miserable years (long story) and I saw the fruits of all this socialistic babysitting firsthand. I should’ve been slower to post my first response in this thread.

–Tiribulus->

34

[quote]Kailash wrote:
That’s why unnecessary and toxic ingredients should be banned from restaurant use. How am I supposed to know if Ma and Pa used trans fats, if they don’t know themselves? This is doing the small business restaurant industry a favor.[/quote]

Then require them to list them on the menu.
Hell… do what California did, and create a standard for what constitutes “organic” foods. Create standards for what constitutes “processed ingredients” and “heavily processed ingredients.” Have that listed on the menu.

35

[quote]Kailash wrote:
How about the personal freedom to walk into a restaurant, and eat a meal prepared from food rather than chemicals? This is a freedom that previous generations enjoyed, yet the libertarian extremists of this website would deny themselves and others.
[/quote]

You have already established yourself as a quasi-authoritarian in prior posts. It is clear that you don’t believe in individual responsibility or personal rights.

Trust me, if people wanted to eat healthy food… they would. But guess what? It doesn’t taste as good. This legislation essentially treats citizens as children who are incapable of understanding or learning what is good for them. Spend the money on an educational campaign. Hell, offer limited subsidies for restaurants with organic menus.

[quote]
Yes, slippery slope arguments are most often made by extremists. Its the only way they can think.[/quote]

When you start thinking, you let me know.

36

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Then require them to list them on the menu.
Hell… do what California did, and create a standard for what constitutes “organic” foods. Create standards for what constitutes “processed ingredients” and “heavily processed ingredients.” Have that listed on the menu.[/quote]

The list idea would be great and so would standards, but then we’re back to who does this and with what guidelines. They would either debate standards til the pyramids are dust or settle on something unscientific in all liklihood.

It is also a good point that people who really care about their health will learn what is necessary and people who don’t will eat anything that tastes good and all the education in the world won’t make any difference, but that IS their problem.

–Tiribulus->

37

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Then require them to list them on the menu.
Hell… do what California did, and create a standard for what constitutes “organic” foods. Create standards for what constitutes “processed ingredients” and “heavily processed ingredients.” Have that listed on the menu.

The list idea would be great and so would standards, but then we’re back to who does this and with what guidelines. They would either debate standards til the pyramids are dust or settle on something unscientific in all liklihood.

It is also a good point that people who really care about their health will learn what is necessary and people who don’t will eat anything that tastes good and all the education in the world won’t make any difference, but that IS their problem.

–Tiribulus->

[/quote]

Exactly, and why should I not be able to eat something to save those people who are to stupid or lazy to save themselves. It’s bullshiat. Why should I have to lose the freedom of choice to protect some morons from themselves? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

38

[quote]dre wrote:
Exactly, and why should I not be able to eat something to save those people who are to stupid or lazy to save themselves. It’s bullshiat. Why should I have to lose the freedom of choice to protect some morons from themselves? It just doesn’t make sense to me.[/quote]

To play the other side for a minute though. What about folks who aren’t “health nuts”, but do draw lines as to what they put in their bodies? I can hear some people saying “Do I have to become a damn PHD in order to eat somewhere without poisoning myself?”

Probably the answer is yes, figuratively speaking. If trans fats were abolished from the planet the food industry will invent some other new money saving abomination that tastes good. Gone are the days where what passes for food could pretty much be counted on not to kill you.

Whoever said pretty soon you’ll have to grow your own vegetables was right. It’s ridiculous how hard you have to work to get food that’s still good for you.

–Tiribulus->

39

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Whoever said pretty soon you’ll have to grow your own vegetables was right. It’s ridiculous how hard you have to work to get food that’s still good for you.

–Tiribulus->
[/quote]

Self-sufficiency is always the best answer.

40

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
I thought handguns were banned in the DC area.[/quote]

Technically, I live five minutes drive outside DC, in Virginia. Handguns are still legal here, for now. In the district itself, the only people allowed to be armed are on duty law enforcement personnell, and of course the gang bangers. Civillians are not allowed to be armed in their homes, unless they are law enforcement.

This is the embodiment of the slippery spoke previously spoken of. The founding fathers who wrote the constitution would have never considered the thought of no armed citizens in the nations capitol.