NY may ban trans fat??
- Thread starter shesulsa
- Start date
I am not a New Yorker, but NYC DID ban trans fat today. Seems to me that those officials have too much time on their hands and scewed priorities....I'd rather they get the bugs out of the kitchen then the fat...
They are as bad as Chicago which banned goose liver patee (sp?) earlier this year.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/05/ny.trans.fat.ap/index.html <--- now banned
They are as bad as Chicago which banned goose liver patee (sp?) earlier this year.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/05/ny.trans.fat.ap/index.html <--- now banned
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
I'm from NY but not NYC and I have heard nothing about it here in the wilds of NY but that is not really all that surprising.
:soapbox:
I just love when lawmakers get involved in protecting me from myself, because I'm too stupid or lazy to educate myself and make my own decisions.
I love that if I choose to clog my arteries, destroy my liver, pollute my lungs, drive without the benefit of a seatbelt, or take part in any other questionable behavior that will have a deliterious affect on nobody but me, that my governement is there to make a law to protect me from enjoying my life the way I see fit. It's a good thing, because then I don't have to sue somebody for something that should be my responsiblity and overburden the courts.
I don't live in NYC, but I do live in NY, and I wish these people would find something more important to do than protect me from myself.
I just love when lawmakers get involved in protecting me from myself, because I'm too stupid or lazy to educate myself and make my own decisions.
I love that if I choose to clog my arteries, destroy my liver, pollute my lungs, drive without the benefit of a seatbelt, or take part in any other questionable behavior that will have a deliterious affect on nobody but me, that my governement is there to make a law to protect me from enjoying my life the way I see fit. It's a good thing, because then I don't have to sue somebody for something that should be my responsiblity and overburden the courts.
I don't live in NYC, but I do live in NY, and I wish these people would find something more important to do than protect me from myself.
Ninjamom
2nd Black Belt
Amen, Bro! If you hadn'ta said it, I woulda!!!!!morph4me said:
They would have been better off making nutrition education mandatory in say, middle school, and then letting people decide for themselves.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Of course now I am seeing guys standing in dark alleys in NYC going.
Pssst hey buddy…come here….. wanna buy some primo transfat, just $5 a bag.
Pssst hey buddy…come here….. wanna buy some primo transfat, just $5 a bag.
Of course now I am seeing guys standing in dark alleys in NYC going.
Pssst hey buddy come here .. wanna buy some primo transfat, just $5 a bag.
That is just too funny
I have been watching this thread today and I am all for the government not getting into the business of saving me from myself. However... I can also make this argument.
The government regulates business to prevent them from polluting the water that we drink with chemicals that are dangerous to our bodies. In many respects, this is a situation where companies in the name of a $ have been allowed to pollute the food we eat with chemicals at the expense of our bodies.
Yes, there is such a thing as personal responsibility, however, companies should NOT be allowed to harm the populace just so they can sell their product cheaper. Just like they are not allowed to dump their chemical byproducts into the rivers because it is cheaper to dispose of that way.
I am really on the fence on this one. I can see both sides. The reality is... this is a bigger issue than trans-fats.
Am I way off base here?
The government regulates business to prevent them from polluting the water that we drink with chemicals that are dangerous to our bodies. In many respects, this is a situation where companies in the name of a $ have been allowed to pollute the food we eat with chemicals at the expense of our bodies.
Yes, there is such a thing as personal responsibility, however, companies should NOT be allowed to harm the populace just so they can sell their product cheaper. Just like they are not allowed to dump their chemical byproducts into the rivers because it is cheaper to dispose of that way.
I am really on the fence on this one. I can see both sides. The reality is... this is a bigger issue than trans-fats.
Am I way off base here?
Not at all, I just have a problem with tax dollars interfering with natural selection. The governmet should educate the public, once educated, can refuse to order foods that have transfats, if that happens the companies don't make the money. If, however, the public doesn't do that, then it's not the governments place to protect them from themselves.
This is the key, in my mind - this is a bigger issue than trans-fats. Yes, obesity is a problem in this country - but this isn't going to fix it. This looks to me like a meaningless law passed so that legislators can slap each other on the back and say "see!!! we made a difference!!!!" - and so they can say the same things to their constituents when re-election rolls around. The same money could have been spent on many other things that could make a much bigger difference - education, exercise programs, reduced rates at community rec centers...
The public has a disturbing ability to ignore good advice in favor of cheap options... which end up costing much more in the long run, in this case, in medical bills. Unfortunately, it's those with the least money who are most likely to eat at cheap restaurants on a regular basis - and those are the people with the least insurance, so the cost devolves on society. Even so, I have a problem with this concept - smoking and alcohol have clear, demonstrable effects on those around the person using them, which is why I don't object to their regulation; this is much less appropriate in my mind.
That would be great in a perfect world, I agree! However, it is far cheaper to buy that Whopper and fries than it is buy a healthy vegatable and lean meat meal. Economics play a large factor in this.
Depending on what part of the country one lives in, it can be down right expensive to buy fruits, veggies, and quality lean meats.
Again I am on the fence. I agree with you regarding natural selection, but we have all but removed the human species from the circle of life.
I agree! The bigger issue is corporations exploiting the health and well being of the masses so they can make a buck. This is just one tiny form of it. I do like the angle you would approach it.
Again, I agree. You beat me to it about the economic factors! I was writing as you posted.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Im with Bigshadow on the fence here. Screw the government telling us what we can and cannot consume... but... at the same time, are they telling us that, or regulating a "dangerous chemical" in our foods?
I mean, I can probably sprinkle rat poison on food to flavor it cheaper than I can sprinkle on, say, organic sage, but is it OK for me to do that, and let you eat it in the name of saving money, when we know the food is more harmful WITH it than WITHOUT it AND A SAFER SUBSTITUE exists?
*Shrug*
I dunno. I really dont.
I mean, I can probably sprinkle rat poison on food to flavor it cheaper than I can sprinkle on, say, organic sage, but is it OK for me to do that, and let you eat it in the name of saving money, when we know the food is more harmful WITH it than WITHOUT it AND A SAFER SUBSTITUE exists?
*Shrug*
I dunno. I really dont.
I would like to elaborate more about this. Although I like the approach, it really doesn't solve the source of the problem, it only treats the symptoms. To solve the problem, first we have to treat the source, in this case the companies that are producing the toxic foods. Second, I think an education program has to be implemented. Even with toxin free foods, one can still become unhealthy for various reasons like over indulging and lack of exercise, so there must be an education program(s).
Just some more thoughts... For what they are worth...
For some reason I was just reminded of the bankers on Harry Potter! Damn that was a scary thought!
Why do we still have sugar substitutes that cause major health problems?
While I am on the fence and would prefer education, I understanding controlling a dangerous substance.
Me personally I would like them to remove cigarettes completly.
If they are worried about health costs and obesity so they ban trans fat why not also ban cyanide and cigarette smoke. This would help with health costs as well.
As to the issue of cost and income that is a big one.
As to obesity in general South Africa recently reported they have a major concern and rise in obesity now. It is similiar to some countries in South/Central America where the lighter your skin the less time you spent working in the field, and the heavier you are the richer you must be to be able to get like that.
Trans fat is not rat poison. If you eat rat poison once, you are dead. If I eat trans fat a few times a month, I am still pretty damn safe.
Big Shadow said:
Not in my experience. I work with a vegan and he spends less on food than anyone else it seems.
But the key point seems to be saving people from their own stupidity!
Hey, I take my kids to McDonalds here in Japan a couple times a month. They get to go wild on the play ground they have, mommy gets a few hours to herself at home and I get a free refill of coffee while I read the paper. I know that it is not healthy in the long run and keep things to just a few times every month. Contrast this with the liberal people now saying that the government needs to step in to stop people from making that choice. The key thing seems to be to stop people from being stupid.
When you say that people are too stupid to make their own mistakes, is tyranny far behind? If they can't even be trusted to put the right kind of food in their mouths, can you trust them with the vote? Of course, folks seem to justify this with the argument that we all pay for these folks medical bills..... but why should we if they do this to themselves?
First move, cover everyone in the name of 'compassion.' After all, you don't want children to die, do you? Next step, point out that many people are just not making right choices and since you pay for the consequences you have a right to tell them what they can and can't do. Last step, shove all their choices aside and take control of their lives for their own good.
To hell with the stealth fascists! I am going to take my kids to McDonalds ASAP while I still have control over my own life.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
- Reaction score
- 31
I go to McDonald's at LEAST three times a month for a Big Mac. No regrets here. In fact, I think I should go tomorrow! Seriously, I'm concerned with this over-legislation of safety/health/common sense, etc. Before long we're going to achieve the hell Robert Heinlein predicted - everything that isn't compulsory is forbidden. That would be a scary world indeed.
I don't eat at McDonald's, but once every 2 or 3 months I get a hankering for country fried chicken and I want it as I like it and don't want anyone messing with it. I know it is completely unhealthy, but I don't care!!!
