NYC health board votes to ban trans fats

[Professor]

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_he_me/diet_trans_fat_ban

NYC health board votes to ban trans fats
By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the nation's first city to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants — from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries.

The board, which passed the ban unanimously, did give restaurants a slight break by relaxing what had been considered a tight deadline for compliance. Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008.

But restaurant industry representatives called the ban burdensome and unnecessary.

"We don't think that a municipal health agency has any business banning a product the Food and Drug Administration has already approved," said Dan Fleshler, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association.

Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said recently that officials seriously weighed complaints from the restaurant industry, which argued that it was unrealistic to give them six months to replace cooking oils and shortening and 18 months to phase out the ingredients altogether.

The ban contains some exceptions; for instance, it would allow restaurants to serve foods that come in the manufacturer's original packaging.

Trans fats are believed to be harmful because they contribute to heart disease by raising bad cholesterol and lowering good cholesterol at the same time. Some experts say that makes trans fats worse than saturated fat.

The panel also passed another measure that has made restaurants unhappy: Some that chose to inform customers about calorie content will have to list the information right on the menu. The rule would generally apply to fast-food restaurants and other major chains.

Sheila Weiss, director of nutritional policy for the restaurant association, said the rule would be a disincentive for restaurants to provide any nutritional information.

Trans fats are formed when liquid oils are made into solid fats by adding hydrogen in a process called hydrogenation. A common example of this is partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which is used for frying and baking and turns up in processed foods like cookies, pizza dough and crackers. Trans fats, which are favored because of their long shelf life, are also found in pre-made blends like pancake and hot chocolate mix.

The FDA estimates the average American eats 4.7 pounds of trans fats each year.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who banned smoking in bars and restaurants during his first term, is somewhat health-obsessed, and even maintains a weight-loss competition with one of his friends in order to stay slim.

He has dismissed cries that New York is crossing a line by trying to legislate diets.

"Nobody wants to take away your french fries and hamburgers — I love those things, too," he said recently. "But if you can make them with something that is less damaging to your health, we should do that."

Many food makers have stopped using trans fats on their own, after the Food and Drug Administration began requiring companies to list trans fat content on labels.

Fast-food restaurants and other major chains were particularly interested in the board's decision on Tuesday, because for these companies, a trans-fat ban wouldn't just involve substituting one ingredient for another. In addition to overhauling recipes, they have to disrupt nationwide supply operations and try to convince customers that the new french fries and doughnuts will taste just as good as the originals.

Already, McDonald's Corp. has been quietly experimenting with more than a dozen healthier oil blends but has not committed to a full switch. At an investor conference last month, CEO Jim Skinner said the company is making "very good progress," at developing an alternative, and vowed to be ready for a New York City ban.

Wendy's International Inc. introduced a zero-trans fat oil in August and Yum Brands Inc.'s KFC and Taco Bell said they also will cut the trans fats from their kitchens.

Taco Bell worked for more than two years to find a substitute, conducting blind consumer taste tests and extensive research, the company said.

Chicago is also considering its own trans fat law, which wouldn't ban them outright but would severely restrict the amount that kitchens can use. The measure would apply only to large restaurants, defined as those that make more than $20 million in sales per year.

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.

[bobbylien]

I'm interested to see how well this works out, it seems like a good idea to me. So many people out there have no idea about the dangers of trans fats.

[NortheastCynic]

This is one of the most ridiculous laws I have EVER heard of. It is not the government's job to control the diet of their citizens, period. It is not the government's job to inform people of the dangers of anything they eat, period. It is not the government's job to control ANYTHING that goes in and out of a person's body by choice, period. Nanny government at it's worst, thanks New York!

-NC

[Buck Laser]

I've been learning recently what nasty things transfats can do to the body. So I'm inclined to think that removing transfats is a bit like banning the use of lead in paint pigments. If people won't take the initiative to do it themselves, then the gummint needs to step in.

[NortheastCynic]

If people won't take the initiative to do it themselves, then the gummint needs to step in.A horrifying statement. No, not at all, lead paint harms anyone in the area, transfat harms the person consuming them and only the person consuming them. If people won't take the initiatives to do it themselves they have a heart attack, end of story. The government needs to get its fingers out of my french fries...

-NC

[Labrocca]

Yeah people banned asbestos and lead paint. I think it's just as important to ban smoking in public areas and if need be...foods that are overtly harmful.

[NortheastCynic]

And once again, asbestos and lead paint harm more than the person buying/using them.Â*Â*This is a red herring fallacy, folks.Â*Â*The fact is that transfat harms only the person eating them, period.Â*Â*If you guys think that the government should stop people from hurting themselves, come out and say it, but hiding behind arguments that have nothing to do with the topic isn't proving anything.Â*Â*Again, every example you have given me of the goverment banning something harmful is irrelevant; the substances you have mentioned harm EVERYONE, meaning they are harmed without consent, consuming transfat is consent, any harm from that is an occupational hazard, if you will.

-NC

[bobbylien]

If people won't take the initiative to do it themselves, then the gummint needs to step in.A horrifying statement. No, not at all, lead paint harms anyone in the area, transfat harms the person consuming them and only the person consuming them. If people won't take the initiatives to do it themselves they have a heart attack, end of story. The government needs to get its fingers out of my french fries...

-NC

Maybe but there is no reason to use these transfats other than to save a buck for these resturants. They can suck it up and stop killing people.

[NortheastCynic]

Maybe but there is no reason to use these transfats other than to save a buck for these resturants. They can suck it up and stop killing people."Killing people"?Â*Â*No, people are killing themselves, let's start taking responsibility for what goes into OUR bodies.Â*Â*And so what if the restauraunts are trying to save a buck?Â*Â*It's their business and they reserve the right to do so, and guess what, if people don't like it they can stop going there.Â*Â*Simple solution, no government involved.

-NC

[Drocket]

I think the main thing to remember about trans-fats is that they're almost entirely man-made. They're artificial products that are proven to be unsafe, and pretty much only exist so that McDonalds and other companies can save a couple of pennies. When you look at it in that light, I think a ban on them starts to look quite reasonable.

There isn't any need for trans-fats in products, and replacing trans-fats isn't difficult: all you do is go back to the oils used in the products originally, before some beancounter realized you could cut the costs of french fries by 0.3% by using a product that deadly in the long term.

[NortheastCynic]

Whether or not replacing them is easy and whether or not they're man-made or used for money saving reasons is completely and utterly irrelevant, Drocket. These are red herrings and serve only as distrations. The main point is: should the gov't regulate diets or change the private practices of a businesses in this case? As I've said several times, the government should not be regulating our diets, interfering with a business' products or preventing people from harming themselves...Would anyone like to make a comment on the actual argument?

-NC

[Drocket]

To some degree, I would agree with you. The fly in the ointment is the old saying, 'no man is an island'. Something like whether or not you eat trans-fats does, at first glance, seem like an entirely private decision, but ultimately isn't. Even ignoring the reality that if/when you suffer that massive heart attack, the government is going to wind up paying a large chunk of the bill (since I'm sure you'll disagree with their responsibility to do so, which isn't going to change the fact that they will.) You still have the fact that your payment into society is gone - you're no longer paying taxes and your work is no longer available to advance the economy. More than that, odds are that your loved ones will miss work to attend your funeral (assuming they don't get stuck taking care of you while you linger for a year or two...), plus a mourning period during which their productivity is lowered.

All of which is to say, even on the coldest, most heartless level, society as a whole suffers from your 'private' choice. If society is forced to suffer (quite needlessly, in this case), then shouldn't society have a right to make some basic demands to avoid that?

[bobbylien]

As I've said several times, the government should not be regulating our diets, interfering with a business' products or preventing people from harming themselves...Would anyone like to make a comment on the actual argument?

Just how exactly would this problem be fixed if we just left it be? This is a quick fix that will benefit the health of the entire city without even cutting into their choices. The entire libertarian philosophy is dependent on everyone caring for each other and thats just not the case. Business owners will allow their customers to be unknowingly harmed just to save a few bucks. I will concede that I don't like the government getting involved in everything but in this case I am willing to make an exception.

[NortheastCynic]

Drocket, your entire post is a great argument for eliminating the government from the healthcare system, not for preventing people from eating transfat.

Even ignoring the reality that if/when you suffer that massive heart attack, the government is going to wind up paying a large chunk of the bill (since I'm sure you'll disagree with their responsibility to do so, which isn't going to change the fact that they will.)Â*Â*You still have the fact that your payment into society is gone - you're no longer paying taxes and your work is no longer available to advance the economy.Â*Â*More than that, odds are that your loved ones will miss work to attend your funeral (assuming they don't get stuck taking care of you while you linger for a year or two...), plus a mourning period during which their productivity is lowered.Yes, the family suffers, we can do this all day Drocket, since when is it the government's responsibility to make sure that I don't kill myself?Â*Â*If you want to make the argument that because family is affected when a loved one dies, I could use that same argument to justify the government banning ALL unhealthy decisions.Â*Â*Plain and simple, you put it in your body, it's your problem, whatever happens to your family as a result of it is YOUR fault, not society's and not the government's.

All of which is to say, even on the coldest, most heartless level, society as a whole suffers from your 'private' choice.Â*Â*If society is forced to suffer (quite needlessly, in this case), then shouldn't society have a right to make some basic demands to avoid that? No.Â*Â*Society has no place deciding what I eat, doing so is tyranny of the majority, because, as the saying goes, "the smallest minority is the individual".Â*Â*I have individual sovereignty over my body, it is a natural and basic animal right, no group of people can legitimately take it away.Â*Â*In addition, the government should not be paying for health care and doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so in the first place.

Just how exactly would this problem be fixed if we just left it be? This is a quick fix that will benefit the health of the entire city without even cutting into their choicesThis problem?Â*Â*Who's problem?Â*Â*If you're fat and unhealthy it isn't our problem.Â*Â*The problem wouldn't be fixed [unless all of the unhealthy people die] because it isn't a social problem, it's a problem that many individuals have.Â*Â*Just as a point of order, do you not have a problem with the government regulating our diet?

The entire libertarian philosophy is dependent on everyone caring for each other and thats just not the case.Wow...Okay, I'm not trying to be a prick here, but if you believe that then you have a huge fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism.Â*Â*Libertarianism is about individual sovereignty and responsibility not helping each other, libertarians see people as individuals, not society.

Business owners will allow their customers to be unknowingly harmed just to save a few bucks. Again you blame the owners...Why don't you believe that people are responsible for what they put in their body?

-NC

[bobbylien]

Again you blame the owners...Why don't you believe that people are responsible for what they put in their body?

People are absolutely responsible for what goes into their bodies, but people don't know if they are consuming products with transfats or not. Its not like looking at a big piece of pizza and knowing its bad for you.

[NortheastCynic]

It is required that fast food restaurants list the nutrient facts now, people do know what's in their food, that's not an excuse.

-NC

[Drocket]

You already conceded that it was OK for the government to ban lead-based paints because they harm people in general. Your poor health harms people in general, even if it is in a more indirect way. This would raise the question, at what point does 'harm in general' change from 'OK' to 'Not OK'?

Also, this ban in no way, shape or form affects your options. You can eat all of the same foods that you used to. The ONLY direct effect here is that companies such as McDonalds are no longer permitted to use harmful man-made fats in their products in order to save a few cents. Your rights as an individual have in no way been changed. The only 'rights' which have been infringed are those of companies, who in my opinion have no rights, since they not living beings.

[NortheastCynic]

You already conceded that it was OK for the government to ban lead-based paints because they harm people in general. Your poor health harms people in general, even if it is in a more indirect way. This would raise the question, at what point does 'harm in general' change from 'OK' to 'Not OK'?I never conceded that it was okay, I DID explain what the difference was between these two instances. Lead based paint in non-government buildings is NOT a social problem unless the person with the lead-based paint does not tell people who enter his/her property that they are in danger simply by entering the property. But again, I've conceded nothing.

Also, this ban in no way, shape or form affects your options. You can eat all of the same foods that you used to.As far as I know, I've never claimed that the ban affects my options.

The ONLY direct effect here is that companies such as McDonalds are no longer permitted to use harmful man-made fats in their products in order to save a few cents. Your rights as an individual have in no way been changed. The only 'rights' which have been infringed are those of companies, who in my opinion have no rights, since they not living beings.I disagree, while it may seem small and useless, I have a right to consume whatever chemicals/substances I want, so you're wrong, it does violate my natural right to put anything I want in my body. Second of all, corporations, being groups OF people, do have rights, I as a leader of an organization have all the rights in the world to run that organization as I wish.

-NC

[lily]

I have to admit, going from post to post I changed my mind each time. Bobbylein and Drocket you both made compelling arguments, but the statement below makes me have to agree with Cynic. It seems to me Bloomberg is forcing his beliefs on the people.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who banned smoking in bars and restaurants during his first term, is somewhat health-obsessed, and even maintains a weight-loss competition with one of his friends in order to stay slim.

[NortheastCynic]

Not just that Lily, but as I have said, the government cannot force people to be healthy and they can't force private organizations [businesses] to make people healthy, laws prohibiting ANYTHING unhealthy is wrong, with one caveat, if you have, say, lead-based paint in your house, you are legally and morally lible for someone else's injuries unless you tell them PRIOR to entering your house that it would be unhealthy to do so. Information should be freely available, but no decisions should be forced.

-NC

[lily]

We're in agreement Cynic. I also don't believe in seatbelt laws or helmet laws, but unfortunatly the insurance companies have big lobbyists.........but then that's off topic, I guess.

It's obvious from what the article states that getting rid of trans fats will effect the way the food tastes, otherwise they wouldn't be doing blind taste tests and they would have gotten rid of it before being told to do so. Let's face it.........if someone want their fries that bad, they'll drive to the next state to get them. The only upside I do see to this is that it might help the kids that eat that crap. If they were really serious about it, they wouldn't allow it in packaged food, which gets the exception.

[Drocket]

It's obvious from what the article states that getting rid of trans fats will effect the way the food tastes, otherwise they wouldn't be doing blind taste tests and they would have gotten rid of it before being told to do so.

There isn't any difference in taste between hydrogenated oils and the oil in its normal, natural state. The reason that they need to do do any work beyond simply switching to the regular version is that the stuff they've been using is trash - there IS no normal version of it, because its quite literally garbage that would have otherwise been thrown away (or more accurately, used for livestock feed without first going through the processing to remove the oils.) This is pretty much the reason that its so cheap - its otherwise pretty much unfit for human consumption (I'm sure a lot of people in Africa would disagree with that last statement, but hey, we're living in America... The reality is that in America, its livestock feed.)

[Buck Laser]

One of the things that really annoys me about libertarians in general is their tendency to whine loudly about laws they don't like. NECynic's rant about banning transfats in NYC is a prime example of that. Meanwhile, we stand idly by and let REAL travesties on justice, like the "Patriot Act" and the administration's heedless intention to practice torture when and where it pleases pass essentially unchallenged.

NECynic, if you really care about freedom, why don't you go after the idiotic rules and laws being passed to deprive us of consititutional liberties instead of piddly-assed things like banning transfats?

[NortheastCynic]

Buck, I like you a lot, but that last post made ZERO sense.

One of the things that really annoys me about libertarians in general is their tendency to whine loudly about laws they don't like.Â*Â*NECynic's rant about banning transfats in NYC is a prime example of that. Meanwhile, we stand idly by and let REAL travesties on justice, like the "Patriot Act" and the administration's heedless intention to practice torture when and where it pleases pass essentially unchallenged.Buck, this particular thread's topic is the NYC health board banning transfat, that's the topic, so that's what I'm "ranting" about.Â*Â*If the topic were the USA PATRIOT ACT, I'd be "ranting" about that.Â*Â*Honestly, how stupid would I look talking about the PATRIOT ACT in a thread about transfat in NYC? And by the way, I'm pretty sure all people whine about laws they don't like, libertarians simply don't like most laws.

NECynic, if you really care about freedom, why don't you go after the idiotic rules and laws being passed to deprive us of consititutional liberties instead of piddly-assed things like banning transfats? "Go after", what does that mean Buck?Â*Â*I can't "go after" anyone in the sense of changing the laws, I can go after them in the sense of bitching online, but what the hell does "go after" them mean?Â*Â*As for me "really" caring about freedom, this is nonsense, I've consistantly defended civil and Constitutional rights here and elsewhere online but if you really need an example of me "going after" bigger issues that aren't piddly-assed, here you go: http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2066
http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=1843

-NC

[Elrathin]

I am going to have to side with NC on this one folks. The government has no right to ban something like this IMO.

If people will not try to eat healthy that is on them. It seems we are living in a country in which the people do not accept responsibility anymore.

If you get fat it MUST be someone elses fault, blame transfat.
If you are lazy, it MUST be someone elses fault, blame your parents.
If you get injured spilling hot coffee on your lap in your car, it MUST be someone elses fault, sue whoever gave you the coffee.
If your child does something horrible, it MUST be someone elses fault, blame the schools.

This country is becoming (if not already) the land of "Someone elses fault". Accept personal responsibility.

I once had a coworker that said she had a eating disorder and it wasn't her fault she was fat. The only eating disorder I saw she had is that she didn't put her f**king hands off food and shoving it down her fat gut along with the fact she didn't seem to realize that if you eat McDonalds Hamburgers for 3 meals a day every day for a year that it IS NOT HEALTHY.

I knew ONE person personally that had an ACTUAL eating disorder in which it was a thyroid gland, BUT she still worked out everyday and was not as heavy as some of these people that "CLAIM" to have an eating disorder but have not ever seen a doctor about it nor tried to.

I've put on 15 pounds in the past month due to poor eating habits, maybe I should join the crowd and blame someone else instead of doing what I have been doing since I got back and actually working out.

[Professor]

I think this law is ridiculous. Like people have stated before, it's not the government's job to regulate what people put in their mouths. But I think there is more to it than the danger issue. There is a reason this law was passed in image conscious New York City, there is a lot people aren't saying. Yes, fear of ill health went into the decision but so did fear of fat.


I once had a coworker that said she had an eating disorder and it wasn't her fault she was fat. The only eating disorder I saw she had is that she didn't put her f**king hands off food and shoving it down her fat gut along with the fact she didn't seem to realize that if you eat McDonalds Hamburgers for 3 meals a day every day for a year that it IS NOT HEALTHY.


This can be an actual eating disorder. It's called Compulsive Overeating. He also has a Body Dimorphic Disorder, where a person's view of themselves physically is so distorted that they can't function. He hasn't told me his weight, but my guess is in the 400 pound range. He eats because he is addicted to it and justifies it because he can't see how he really looks, when he looks in the mirror he sees a normal guy. It's comparable to an 80 pound anorexic seeing someone who is overweight. He is in counseling and seeking help but like with any recovering addict, it's a slow process.

[Mayberry]

This whole thing is an unconstitutional travesty. One more example of big brother flexing his muscles. Soon we'll all be drooling puddles of goo, unable or not allowed to think for ourselves at all. Kinda like "Demolition Man". Sickening to think of.

[bobbylien]

I am going to have to side with NC on this one folks. The government has no right to ban something like this IMO.

If people will not try to eat healthy that is on them. It seems we are living in a country in which the people do not accept responsibility anymore.

If you get fat it MUST be someone elses fault, blame transfat.
If you are lazy, it MUST be someone elses fault, blame your parents.
If you get injured spilling hot coffee on your lap in your car, it MUST be someone elses fault, sue whoever gave you the coffee.
If your child does something horrible, it MUST be someone elses fault, blame the schools.

This country is becoming (if not already) the land of "Someone elses fault". Accept personal responsibility.

I once had a coworker that said she had a eating disorder and it wasn't her fault she was fat. The only eating disorder I saw she had is that she didn't put her f**king hands off food and shoving it down her fat gut along with the fact she didn't seem to realize that if you eat McDonalds Hamburgers for 3 meals a day every day for a year that it IS NOT HEALTHY.

I knew ONE person personally that had an ACTUAL eating disorder in which it was a thyroid gland, BUT she still worked out everyday and was not as heavy as some of these people that "CLAIM" to have an eating disorder but have not ever seen a doctor about it nor tried to.

I've put on 15 pounds in the past month due to poor eating habits, maybe I should join the crowd and blame someone else instead of doing what I have been doing since I got back and actually working out.

I just don't think you understand, this isnt about banning food with high fat content, its about banning the use of a particular man made fat that has no real advantage other than the cost. This fat is unjustifiably bad for you. People won't even notice its gone. What about the millions upon millions of kids who will buy fast food not understanding the dangers of these fats? I am willing to allow the ban to be lifted if resturants start to make their nutritional information more visible, I don't think I've ever gone into a single resturant and seen its nutritional information on the wall. Most don't even have it readily available. They should put an asterisk next to everything on the menu that has transfats in it. I am willing to wager that 98% of those consuming transfats have no idea they are doing so. Think of this like the warning on cigarette containers not being there. Banning transfats might be a little farther than we need to go but I absolutely believe that resturants that have these things in their food should be a little more transparent about it.

[Elrathin]

Bobby I understand where you are coming from on this issue, I really do. However, that is the responsibility of the person, not the restaraunt to ask.

If I go to a fast food place, I KNOW that the food is not healthy. I KNOW THIS.

If I go to a restaraunt, I KNOW it is not going to typically be healthy and I am eating there at my own risk. If I want HEALTHY food, I will cook it myself.

Again, the problem is personal responsibility and people not taking it and blaming others instead of blaming themselves.

I could go so far with you as to say that restaraunts should have to label what foods have transfat in them on the menu, but I am not for forcing the banning of it by the government. The government has NO BUSINESS forcing the ban of transfat.

[Disenfranchised]

NC, by that way of thinking Heroine, Methamphamine, Cocaine etc should all be completely legal. They don't hurt anyone else's health but the user's. But like those other substances, transfat does cost society through lost productivity and health care that in many cases falls on the taxpayers. And it is hard to avoid in todays culture.

I think banning it is a good idea for society and the individual who won't avoid it on their own.

[lily]

NC, by that way of thinking Heroine, Methamphamine, Cocaine etc should all be completely legal.Â*Â*They don't hurt anyone else's health but the user's.Â*Â*

Actually the fumes and explosions that come from Meth labs do hurt people.

[Elrathin]

They don't hurt anyone else's health but the user's.

They don't? Obviously you never met someone that was going through a bad acid trip.


I think banning it is a good idea for society and the individual who won't avoid it on their own.


So the government knows best? Wow, just wow is all I have to say if you really believe that.

[Mayberry]

For once, Elrathin and I agree. Government has no business telling anyone what they can or can't eat. They have no business telling a business owner what he can or can't cook. If you aren't smart enough to figure out that eating Big Macs every day will kill you, well then I say let nature take it's course. Harsh? Maybe. But people need to start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions. It is not government's job to wipe their arse for them. And my concern is: after trans fats, what's next? What freedom will be lost after this one is gone?

[lily]

What freedom will be lost after this one is gone?

Privacy?

[Labrocca]

Maybe but there is no reason to use these transfats other than to save a buck for these resturants. They can suck it up and stop killing people."Killing people"?Â*Â*No, people are killing themselves, let's start taking responsibility for what goes into OUR bodies.Â*Â*And so what if the restauraunts are trying to save a buck?Â*Â*It's their business and they reserve the right to do so, and guess what, if people don't like it they can stop going there.Â*Â*Simple solution, no government involved.

-NC


You are right that people should be personally responsible. However government is ALREADY involved in public health issues. It's our tax dollars that pay for heart surgery on the elderly after they spent a lifetime of eating cheap fast food. Which is the real problem...that poor people don't have much choice but to eat cheap foods. Companies take advantage of this and sell them cheap menu items with the worst ingredients. I worked in fast food for a number of years. The industry is a POS with labor, food quality, and management.

[Mayberry]

Privacy?
You mean we still have that?:P

[BoogyMan]

You are right that people should be personally responsible. However government is ALREADY involved in public health issues.Â*Â*It's our tax dollars that pay for heart surgery on the elderly after they spent a lifetime of eating cheap fast food.Â*Â*Which is the real problem...that poor people don't have much choice but to eat cheap foods. Companies take advantage of this and sell them cheap menu items with the worst ingredients. I worked in fast food for a number of years. The industry is a POS with labor, food quality, and management.

You are right that our tax dollars pay for the services needed by the elderly as a result of poor eating, but using that kind of logic as a driver we could justify forcing everyone to become a vegetarian. I don't know about you, but I don't think I could stare down an asparagus burger every day. :P

I would have to come down on the side of keeping the government out of this.

[Mayberry]

using that kind of logic as a driver we could justify forcing everyone to become a vegetarian. STOP GIVING THEM IDEAS!!!! That is the fear I was referring to as to what's next. I'm a Texan dammit, I eat beef! Nothing will change that. If I can't eat what I want, just shoot me now!

[BoogyMan]

using that kind of logic as a driver we could justify forcing everyone to become a vegetarian. STOP GIVING THEM IDEAS!!!! That is the fear I was referring to as to what's next. I'm a Texan dammit, I eat beef! Nothing will change that. If I can't eat what I want, just shoot me now!


Heheheh. I guess the the rutabega steak patty substitute would be a bad follow-up to the asperagus burger huh?

[Disenfranchised]

They don't hurt anyone else's health but the user's.

They don't? Obviously you never met someone that was going through a bad acid trip.

I've been on bad acid trips. And it didn't hurt anyone. Not even me.


I think banning it is a good idea for society and the individual who won't avoid it on their own.


So the government knows best? Wow, just wow is all I have to say if you really believe that.


In many cases I think the government does know best. With all the studies that have been done the FDA has more information and more good, well trained minds evaluating such things as what we eat in our food and what these things do to us than the average person does.

Besides, some people just don't seem to be able to act intelligently even when it is in their own self interest.



You are right that people should be personally responsible. However government is ALREADY involved in public health issues. It's our tax dollars that pay for heart surgery on the elderly after they spent a lifetime of eating cheap fast food. Which is the real problem...that poor people don't have much choice but to eat cheap foods. Companies take advantage of this and sell them cheap menu items with the worst ingredients. I worked in fast food for a number of years. The industry is a POS with labor, food quality, and management.


And as Labrocca said, it's our taxes that pay for a good bit of cost of trans fat in our food.

If the government doesn't act on information that we are being harmed by something the government is failing to do its job as mandated in the Constitution, to "promote the general welfare". It is the governments job to protect us when we won't protect ourselves.

[NortheastCynic]

You are right that people should be personally responsible. However government is ALREADY involved in public health issues. It's our tax dollars that pay for heart surgery on the elderly after they spent a lifetime of eating cheap fast food. Which is the real problem...that poor people don't have much choice but to eat cheap foods. Companies take advantage of this and sell them cheap menu items with the worst ingredients. I worked in fast food for a number of years. The industry is a POS with labor, food quality, and management. Again, this is a perfect argument to get the gov't out of healthcare. Simply saying that the gov't is "already doing it" is not a justification for them "doing it" it's simply saying that there is precedent. My point is that precedent is wrong. Your argument of classism is interesting but irrelevant, as it still hinges upon the notion that the federal gov't has the authority to regulate our diets. In addition, I reject the notion that there isn't food out there that is both cheap and transfat free. In addition, let's take your logic further. Poor people can only afford cheap food which you think should be regulated, therefore, the gov't should be responsible for ensuring that that food is up to the same standards and is equally as good as food that wealthy people can afford. Let's be consistant, if you believe the gov't should regulate diets for any reason, they should be allowed to do it COMPLETELY, because if you choose to draw a line it will be subjective and meaningless, unless, you choose, as I do to draw the line at the beginning and say "the gov't has no right to regulate diets."

-NC

[wonder cow]

Thank you mommy government for protecting me from "trans fat", the latest media frenzied health buzz word.

As we all know, buzz words can hurt us, and I'm too stupid and pathetic to not know that McDonald's food is bad for my health.

Thank you once again, mommy government, for protecting me from myself. Please bring me a glass of milk, tuck me in, and read me the story about the big bad wolf eating three little pigs (full of trans fat) and how if only the pigs had given up all their constitutional rights mommy government could have saved them.

[Labrocca]

The FDA already has a large say in what foods and drugs we take. Legal prescription drugs are highly regulated. Like it or not the government has a say. Do I agree they should? Not really...but what's done is done.

[NortheastCynic]

That's a weak argument Labrocca. "What's done is done?" Are you at least conceding that this transfat ban is ridiculous, despite the fact that there is precedent for it?

-NC

[AlonzoMourning23]

That's a weak argument Labrocca.Â*Â*"What's done is done?"Â*Â*Are you at least conceding that this transfat ban is ridiculous, despite the fact that there is precedent for it?

-NC


It makes more sense to work with what you've got than just denouncing it all, even though it's highly unlikely that it will simply be abolished. Accepting reality has to be done in some instances since changing certain aspects of it are unreasonable given political environments.

[NortheastCynic]

Accepting reality? Slavery was a reality, Nazism was a reality, Soviet Communism was a reality, police brutality is a reality, racism is a reality, the death penalty is a reality, the gap between the rich and poor is a reality, our underachieving K-12 education system is a reality, injustice in general is a reality. Fighting a system that is wrong/unConstitutional is always logical and always the right thing to do.

-NC

[Disenfranchised]

So, Cynic, what is unConstitutional about the NYC ban on trans fats?

[Elrathin]

Sorry, but I think this is wrong. I'm waiting for the time when the government decides to turn us all into vegetarians or forced exercise in view of a "government representative".

I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to eat trans fat foods, that is their choice. Just like it is their choice to drink alcohol till their liver dies.

There are many BAD things for the body, where do you draw the line?[/align]

[BoogyMan]

Sorry, but I think this is wrong.Â*Â*I'm waiting for the time when the government decides to turn us all into vegetarians or forced exercise in view of a "government representative".

I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to eat trans fat foods, that is their choice.Â*Â*Just like it is their choice to drink alcohol till their liver dies.

There are many BAD things for the body, where do you draw the line?


There is a veggie burger in a government warehouse with your name on Elrathin! :)

[Disenfranchised]

Sorry, but I think this is wrong. I'm waiting for the time when the government decides to turn us all into vegetarians or forced exercise in view of a "government representative".

I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to eat trans fat foods, that is their choice. Just like it is their choice to drink alcohol till their liver dies.

There are many BAD things for the body, where do you draw the line?[/align]


Just where do you draw the line? Total freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't directly adversely affect someone else? That would be ok with me if society didn't have to pay for caring for those who acted stupidly. Should we let them starve if they couldn't earn enough, or beg enough, to live on after they got hurt or sick due to their behavior? Or maybe we should just eliminate those who can't support themselves and need caring for. Is that what you want? If not, where do you draw the line on where society has the right and the duty to regulate itself?

[Elrathin]

If not, where do you draw the line on where society has the right and the duty to regulate itself?


So you think that if the government bans trans fat then society will no longer have to pay for them when their health deteriorates?

Here's a wake up call, people will ALWAYS have to be taken care of when they get older or in deteriorating health, whether it be from transfat, pollution, laziness, lack of exercise or whatever. You have not shown that by banning transfat you are going to solve the problem of society taking care of people in deteriorating health.

Show me the stats that by banning trans fat alone this will somehow change the rate at which society has to take care of people.

Here's another clue, lack of exercise, not trans fat is the culprit. So are you for instituting a government policy to force people to exercise now?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Accepting reality?Â*Â*Slavery was a reality, Nazism was a reality, Soviet Communism was a reality, police brutality is a reality, racism is a reality, the death penalty is a reality, the gap between the rich and poor is a reality, our underachieving K-12 education system is a reality, injustice in general is a reality.Â*Â*Fighting a system that is wrong/unConstitutional is always logical and always the right thing to do.

-NC


Really?

I'll bite. So you're living in soviet russia and you are offered the job of running a gulag or joining an underground group fighting the government. Which do you take?

Now, realistically, the chance of such a group being succesful is extremely small. At the same time, conditions for prisoners would likely be better if you were running the gulag than someone who sees no problem with such places.

Idealism may make you feel good and let you sleep at night, but without making decisions on whether you can realistically change things you may end up making a worse decision in terms of helping people in society.

Sometimes ideas only work when theyÂ*Â*can be fully implemented, working with existing political realities and making alterations to them is often more beneficial.

but using that kind of logic as a driver we could justify forcing everyone to become a vegetarian.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

[bobbylien]

I have changed my stance on this issue. I think that doing this will send the message that its the governments job to make sure you don't eat anything unhealthy when I absolutely believe that it is our job. I have been noticing more and more companies dropping transfats anyways. Though it is true that many of the things with transfats in them would be bad for you anyways it is also true that many of them are in fact good for you. An item with transfats in it can be healthy aside from the transfats, its not like looking at a big cheesburger and knowing its bad for you. I think resturants should be required to give out more detailed and easier to access nutritional information.

[NortheastCynic]

Now, realistically, the chance of such a group being succesful is extremely small. At the same time, conditions for prisoners would likely be better if you were running the gulag than someone who sees no problem with such places.

Idealism may make you feel good and let you sleep at night, but without making decisions on whether you can realistically change things you may end up making a worse decision in terms of helping people in society.

Sometimes ideas only work when they can be fully implemented, working with existing political realities and making alterations to them is often more beneficial.My idea, which can be fully implemented is to get the gov't out of our diet and our health care industry, both can be done, both should be done. As for your question [not that I believe it to be all that relevant], I would join the resistance movement for the unrelated fact that if I ran a kinder and gentler gulag, that would not go over well with Joey S. over in Moscow...

As the thread goes on I'm hearing less and less arguments for this ban, but more and more arguments against mine for reasons of pragmatism.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.�-Barry Goldwater

-NC

[AlonzoMourning23]

My idea, which can be fully implemented is to get the gov't out of our diet and our health care industry, both can be done, both should be done.Â*Â*

I don't see any practical reason why. I don't see how that would improve the welfare of society.

But, I also think its naive to believe that you would ever have the political force to abolish all government involvement in health care and food. It seems like you're going for a one in a million thing.

[NortheastCynic]

9:54 AM, December 11, 2006: I've been called "naive".
Hold on for one second...
Aha...ahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha.

Sorry.

No, not naive at all, I KNOW that there is no way that 99.9% of libertarian reforms will occur.Â*Â*I know this for several reasons
Fact: Politicians are corrupt
Fact: Politicians will not limit there own power
Fact: The American public is unbelievably stupid
Fact: The media doesn't give any exposure to an alternative party

Those four facts make it IMPOSSIBLE for libertarian ideals to be implemented, and I am certainly NOT naive enough to believe any other way...

That having been said, we've strayed from the original topic...One in which ONE libertarian ideal that was a reality was taken away and should be restored, the freedom to eat what you wish with no fear of gov't involvement. It is not "naive" nor "one in a million" to force the gov't to keep it's business out of my goddamn Big Mac, not in the least. If it is naive for me to want the government to stop legislating "healty practices" then I'd hate to know what you have to be to want them to continue doing so.

Naive, I'll be giggling about that all day.

-NC

[AlonzoMourning23]

So do you think this is possible or not?

My idea, which can be fully implemented is to get the gov't out of our diet and our health care industry, both can be done, both should be done.

[NortheastCynic]

Yes, especially in the case of the gov't banning transfat [the topic of the thread no less].

-NC

[Elrathin]

So do you think this is possible or not?


It's definately possible. If anything has been proven throughout our country's history is that it is possible.

It requires people to become to involved and it may take time, but it is possible. Every great idea or action in this country had a start somewhere and it was generally a small start with just a few people.

[NortheastCynic]

NC, by that way of thinking Heroine, Methamphamine, Cocaine etc should all be completely legal.Â*Â*They don't hurt anyone else's health but the user's.Â*Â*But like those other substances, transfat does cost society through lost productivity and health care that in many cases falls on the taxpayers.Â*Â*And it is hard to avoid in todays culture.

I think banning it is a good idea for society and the individual who won't avoid it on their own. Sorry it took so long to respond, I didn't see your post at first, no on to your point.

YES, heroine, meth, cocaine, crack, pot, smack, acid ALL OF THEM should be LEGAL.Â*Â*My point is that what goes into MY body is MY responsibility, period.Â*Â*And again, I'm getting sick of this "but it drains the health care system" argument; my whole point is that the government should not be involved in health care anyway.

Second of all, banning those drugs on a federal and state level is unConstitutional, no power is given to the gov't to stop people from doing something harmful to themselves, none whatsoever.Â*Â*

So there you go.

BTW, your argument about the "general welfare clause" is inaccurate.Â*Â*The general welfare clause referrs to the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for the general welfare of the states, not protect people from themselves.

The Congress shall have Power to...pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
In other words, Congress provides for the defense and general welfare of THE STATES, as in their protection and territorial integrity.Â*Â*No where does the Constitution give the gov't power to regulate what people put in their own bodies.Â*Â*The War on Drugs and this transfat ban are simply illegal.

-NC

[AlonzoMourning23]

So do you think this is possible or not?


It's definately possible.Â*Â*If anything has been proven throughout our country's history is that it is possible.

It requires people to become to involved and it may take time, but it is possible.Â*Â*Every great idea or action in this country had a start somewhere and it was generally a small start with just a few people.


While I'd certainly dispute it being beneficial or a good idea, it just seems extremely idealistic to me. And it seems to be something primarily based on doing the "right thing", and not based on doing what is actually most beneficial to people in society. It's more of a moral choice than a practical one to me. Balancing the two is good, but this seems to disregard the practical needs of the population.

Considering that, I find it extremely naive to think that you could actually convince enough people in the united states to be able to achieve a total overhaul of the food and health care system, in the direction of abolishing government involvement in both that is.

[Elrathin]

Considering that, I find it extremely naive to think that you could actually convince enough people in the united states to be able to achieve a total overhaul of the food and health care system, in the direction of abolishing government involvement in both that is.


Over a couple hundred years ago, you would find that same sentiment regarding blacks and women having rights as white men do.

On that note, I don't expect anything like an overhaul of this magnitutde to be quick. Most likely will take decades if not a century or more. But it is possible and movements start out small and grow larger over time but they have to start somewhere.

Nothing Naive about that. The only thing naive IMO is to sit there and believe that change cannot happen.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, there are countries with little or ineffective oversite of food related issues. And there are countries with little or ineffective oversite of health care related issues. They seem to be disasters, although most are that way due to poverty or corruption. But I'm not sure many people would agree that our businesses are more trustworthy than the FDA.

Look, your comparison may be valid with regards to abortion or animal rights, but its not the same here. One involves convincing people that X groups rights are important, the other involves convincing people that X system is more beneficial for you than Y system, even though many people currently rely on Y system for their health.

[NortheastCynic]

Considering that, I find it extremely naive to think that you could actually convince enough people in the united states to be able to achieve a total overhaul of the food and health care system, in the direction of abolishing government involvement in both that is. Oh, whoa whoa whoa. I never said that you would be able to convince enough people in America. What I'm saying is that an overhaul could be done. There's no way that Americans would go for it, they're too used to suckling on the teat of Washington D.C..

Just a thought, but don't you have to be naive to believe that the government can stop people from being unhealthy...

-NC

[AlonzoMourning23]

Oh, whoa whoa whoa.Â*Â*I never said that you would be able to convince enough people in America.Â*Â*What I'm saying is that an overhaul could be done.Â*Â*There's no way that Americans would go for it, they're too used to suckling on the teat of Washington D.C..

Just a thought, but don't you have to be naive to believe that the government can stop people from being unhealthy...

-NC


Well I kept asking whether you thought it was possible given the political climate, didn't mean possible in theory.

But I don't understand why you would fight for something that, by your own admission, won't happen. I'd prefer to fight to change what I believe actually has a shot at succeeding. Otherwise the energy is wasted, and things you could have changed remain the same.

[NortheastCynic]

But I don't understand why you would fight for something that, by your own admission, won't happen. I'd prefer to fight to change what I believe actually has a shot at succeeding. Otherwise the energy is wasted, and things you could have changed remain the same.
This thread is a perfect example of why I do what I do. The topic of this thread pertained to a ban of transfat in NYC. I don't believe in it and believe that it can and should be done away with. In response several posters attempt to challenge my argument, but in my opinion, didn't do a great job. So now comes the argument of the health care system because fat people are a drain on it. So in other words, I'm being told I cannot be against the ban and pro-gov't health care. I say I'm not pro-gov't health care, but since the gov't will not be removed from health care I shouldn't be anti-gov't health care...And through all of this, banning transfat is STILL illegal and STILL wrong and STILL ridiculous. Whether or not what I believe will occur is completely irrelevant. Prove me wrong, calling me an idealist or naive is not an argument, tell me why my ideals are wrong. I believe in what I believe not because its popular or because my policies are likely to be implemented, I believe in what I believe because I believe it to be just and right. I fight for change when I think it is necessary because I couldn't look at myself in the face if I conformed because "that's the things are". Call it naive, I call it logical. If something's wrong, disagree with it, pretty cut and dry.

-NC

[AlonzoMourning23]

I'm a big proponent of picking your battles. I'd rather give up all my ideals to implement one, instead of fighting for all of them and losing them all. I'd rather see my values implemented, even to small degree.

[NortheastCynic]

That assumes I'll lose them all. I can name several libertarian victories if you want me too, but rest assured, libertarians don't lose them all, so that point is moot.

-NC

[AlonzoMourning23]

But in certain areas they do, such as in this case. If you think you're going to lose in a certain area it would seem better to work to improve that area, and not simply call for something that has no chance (according to you).

It seems kind of like students organizing petitions to impeach bush.

[NortheastCynic]

But in certain areas they do, such as in this case. If you think you're going to lose in a certain area it would seem better to work to improve that area, and not simply call for something that has no chance (according to you)."In certain areas they do?"Â*Â*So do the Democrats, are you going to start voting Republican because of it?Â*Â*I don't understand this, if I think something is WRONG, I'm not going to support it. At this point Zo, you haven't even debated the reasons WHY I don't support it, you're asking me why I don't live with something I don't like. Are Democrats this appeasable and complacent? I don't think the gov't should regulate diets [and it's illegal to boot].Â*Â*They regulate diets...How can I make that situation better.Â*Â*What the gov't does is illegal, tempering one's ideology to ACCOMODATE for illegal action is wrong.Â*Â*The government should be tempering its ideology to conform to the law.Â*Â*Sorry, I don't buy this argument.Â*Â*

Libertarianism in general respects the rule of law and the natural laws [life, liberty, property], it is an uncompromising ideology.Â*Â*Someone has to be uncompromisingly supportive of the law, and the Rs and Ds sure as hell aren't.Â*Â*The way libertarianism becomes popular, if it ever does, is if a pro-liberty candidate from one of the two parties [Rudy Giuliani] comes into power and people see just how nice it is to be free.Â*Â*It probably won't happen, but if it does, ridiculous things like this won't happen.

And btw Zo, what exactly is your stance toward this law, because so far we've just debated by philosophical virtue and principles.

-NC