Board of Health went ahead & banned trans fats from the city, restaurants have until July 2007 to comply. They're going to appeal it of course, but the fact that they managed to ban it at this level is disturbing.
What's next on the list, snacky cakes?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
wtf food police 
Densetsu fucked around with this message on 12-05-2006 at 02:28 PM.
I applaud this motion.
And if you think NYC has it bad, remember that if a whole country can stomach it, one city certainly can.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Mr. Gainsborough fucked around with this message on 12-05-2006 at 02:55 PM.
quote:
x--Asha'manO-('-'Q) :
See, the thing is most food which currently carry trans fats can be manufactured perfectly well with a lot less, if any of them. To the point it's simply stupid (or overly capitalistic) to argue that such a motion is anything but beneficial. The only valid argument I can see against this change is the greater costs attached to using oils and fats without trans fat. To which I say, this little expense will go a long way towards reducing health care costs incurred by cardiovascular diseases and obesity.I applaud this motion.
And if you think NYC has it bad, remember that if a whole country can stomach it, one city certainly can.
What you just said here is unbelievably stupid.
I'm sure you're not advocating pointing a gun at the public and forcing them to stop eating certain foods FOR THEIR OWN GOOD, right? Oh, wait, that's exactly what you're advocating. If you applaud the banning of trans fats because they are "unhealthy" then you must believe that it is the place of government to dictate people's behavior for their own good.
This ridiculous mindset is rooted in the basic fallacy of all collectivism: That people are better off with a centralized authority making decisions for them. This sentiment that you describe as "overly capitalistic" is nothing more than people's desire to run their OWN lives (the gall!)
What you're advocating here is a fascist, totalitarian order of government.
Did you even stop to think about the implications of your beliefs? Probably not, no, you just saw that the trans-fat debate was a major arguing point of extreme left advocacy groups and thought "WELL SHIT I BETTER GET ON THIS BOAT!" Maradon! fucked around with this message on 12-05-2006 at 04:19 PM.
quote:
Maradon! Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Did you even stop to think about the implications of your beliefs? Probably not, no, you just saw that the trans-fat debate was a major arguing point of extreme left advocacy groups and thought "WELL SHIT I BETTER GET ON THIS BOAT!"
Just like someone we know and right-wing views. 
quote:
At least I'm not Asha'man
Just like someone we know and right-wing views.
He's absolutely right in this case. Every personal freedom stepped upon, every attempt by the government to tell the people what's best for them must be fought tooth and nail. Nanny states simply don't work, as Britain and its rampant violent crime rates will prove.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Asha'man booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Just like someone we know and right-wing views.
Even though I vocally disagree with the majority of contemporary right wing views, right?
Excess trans fats are only the byproduct of a bad process when hydrogenating oils. These oils can be processed differently so as to minimize these amounts of fats to a natural trace. And guess what? It doesn't change the food you eat. Legislating this only forces food manufacturers to stop being lazy and invest in efficient processes. Once that's said and done, you're going to eat the same potato chips, the same peanut butter, it'll have the same taste but it won't slowly kill you.
I believe I can make a fairly safe assertion that you already are educated enough to know the health risks associated with trans fats. And thus, if you do opt to eat foods with high amounts of it, then you do so fully aware that you might be endangering your health and of the costs this incurs in the long run. Unfortunately, not everyone is this enlightened, and will still eat whatever junk food they're already eating because they don't know any reason to.
I don't know how privatized America's health care system is, and how much of your income tax goes to paying for other people's healths, but you are already aware there's extensive public health coverage in Canada. And yes, it works very well, for a public machine of such size. If I told you one of the primary expense of this public health system is cardiovascular and other diseases incurred by obesity, and that cutting down on this source somewhat would free up resources for every other treatment, would you not agree it's very reasonable to strive to do so?
Of course, trans fats are not by any means the only source of obesity, but it is one that can be eliminated without altering anyone's lifestyles. A real, long-term solution would most likely imply ingraining public awareness with this rising health issue. The solutions to that likely would alter people's lifestyles. But trans fats won't. And the little extra money their reduction will net the public health system benefits everyone at the detriment of none.
And there's my line of reasoning. It is very reasonable, and not just left-wing bandwagonism like some people would like to imply. Asha'man fucked around with this message on 12-05-2006 at 06:31 PM.
Sorry, but freedom includes the freedom to be stupid and hurt yourself.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
And that's exactly what stupid people are doing by eating fatty foods when there is a public health care system to tend for them.
quote:
I don't think you realize how little this affects you.Excess trans fats are only the byproduct of a bad process when hydrogenating oils. These oils can be processed differently so as to minimize these amounts of fats to a natural trace. And guess what? It doesn't change the food you eat. Legislating this only forces food manufacturers to stop being lazy and invest in efficient processes. Once that's said and done, you're going to eat the same potato chips, the same peanut butter, it'll have the same taste but it won't slowly kill you.
I believe I can make a fairly safe assertion that you already are educated enough to know the health risks associated with trans fats. And thus, if you do opt to eat foods with high amounts of it, then you do so fully aware that you might be endangering your health and of the costs this incurs in the long run. Unfortunately, not everyone is this enlightened, and will still eat whatever junk food they're already eating because they don't know any reason to.
That's fine! That's awesome! So these trans fats are really bad for you and can be easily eliminated. Start a fucking public awareness group. Vote with your dollar and stop buying foods with trans fats and tell all your friends not to buy them.
DON'T point a legislative gun at your neighbor and pull the oreo out of his mouth. DON'T try to run other peopele's lives by force of arms.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Asha'man booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Funny, coming from the one who I recall was so actively anti-social security, anti-medicare, etc. because it mostly implies paying the state to fund people you don't want to fund.And that's exactly what stupid people are doing by eating fatty foods when there is a public health care system to tend for them.
All you've done here is illustrate one of the failures of socialism by using another failure of socialism as an example. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 12-05-2006 at 07:16 PM.
quote:
Maradon! painfully thought these words up:
All you've done here is illustrate one of the failures of socialism by using another failure of socialism as an example.
Obviously, because you don't agree with it, it conveniently happens to be a failure of socialism!
Since again, you clearly have no clue what you're talking of, I'm going to wait until you personally experience the public health care system of Canada to regard your opinion as worthwhile. And that probably won't happen for a while. As a matter of fact, America will probably be crumbling and imploding under the weight of its own obesity by then, to the point you have to come to Canada for health care. And, like Nero over Rome, I'll be laughing all along.
Sound like trolling? Good, because it's the last of me you'll see in a politics thread for quite a long time. I'm going to resume my vow not to try and argue with the retardedly xenophobic brick wall you are, and hie myself away from this thread after this very reply. I'm downright exhausted of your constant, retarded attempts at bashing and disregarding anything that's not your own as socialist propaganda. Politics threads were actually interesting when Drysart was around to smack your whiny ass back in line when you started spouting bullshit again. Now it's nearly all we get to see whenever something remotely politic gets posted.
Thus, your arguments can't even interface with beliefs founded in rationality, and, like a religious zealot facing the rational argument that god probably doesn't exist, you react with emotional vitriol and characterize your opposition as a fountain of hate speech.
I'm not a "brick wall", it's just that your point of view does not make a damn bit of sense.
Yet another step down the road to the government mandated diet.
I fail to find the difference between this and banning restaurants from using MSG. It does not seem to me that they are telling people you cannot eat foods fried with trans fats, but rather telling restaurants that they cannot sell foods that are prepared in a manner that is harmful.
In fact after reading several articles on this today this ban only applies to restaurants. You can still buy the stuff and prepare it at home if you insist on clogging your arteries to spite yourself.
To make matters even more ridiculous this is pretty much a lateral move for restaurants. The food will taste the same, cost about the same to prepare, and the people eating it will live longer to continue purchasing it. I am trying to figure out who loses here.
Last, even though it is totally irrelevant to what people are arguing about, the law is totally unenforceable. There are tens of thousands of restaurants in NYC, good luck finding the time to take a chemist to each one to test their cooking oil.
quote:
Tyewa Dawnsister wrote this stupid crap:
Last, even though it is totally irrelevant to what people are arguing about, the law is totally unenforceable. There are tens of thousands of restaurants in NYC, good luck finding the time to take a chemist to each one to test their cooking oil.
It is extremely easy to enforce.
I'm not sure if you're aware of it or not, but the health department stops at all of these restaurants more than once per year and checks an incredible amount of things for violations. It would be no challenge to add this to the list.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Asha'man!
I don't think you realize how little this affects you.
Actually, it has a big effect on those restaurants that use it and it is more expensive to produce food without trans fat. Wendys and Kraft spent a ton to make sure their food has little to no trans fat. Whether this will affect prices or not is up in the air.
The discussion is kind of moot though, since the restaurant industry is appealing this and taking the issue to court. Considering the power they have over the city, I can't see this sticking.
Its a good thing that Kraft removed trans fat from Oreos late last year though. I don't like the idea of having to smuggle Oreos of all things if I go into the city.
Companies use trans fat when saturated fat would make the food too solid/stiff/hard, but they still want all the heart-stopping flavor. It would make more sense just to lump saturated and trans fats together (i.e. use their combined total for the USRDA percentages), then call it a day.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Tyewa Dawnsister who doth quote:
I find this entire thread rather comical.I fail to find the difference between this and banning restaurants from using MSG. It does not seem to me that they are telling people you cannot eat foods fried with trans fats, but rather telling restaurants that they cannot sell foods that are prepared in a manner that is harmful.
There is no difference between telling people not to sell it and telling people not to eat it. You're still using force of arms to govern people's behavior, for what you percieve to be "their own good."
If you agree with this, you are, by definition, a fascist.
quote:
In fact after reading several articles on this today this ban only applies to restaurants. You can still buy the stuff and prepare it at home if you insist on clogging your arteries to spite yourself.
Ah, so the law is only selectively applied to certain, arbitrarily determined groups then? I guess that makes it A-OK!
quote:
To make matters even more ridiculous this is pretty much a lateral move for restaurants. The food will taste the same, cost about the same to prepare, and the people eating it will live longer to continue purchasing it. I am trying to figure out who loses here.
Being a good idea is not sufficient justification to force a practice down people's throats at the threat of violence.
quote:
Last, even though it is totally irrelevant to what people are arguing about, the law is totally unenforceable. There are tens of thousands of restaurants in NYC, good luck finding the time to take a chemist to each one to test their cooking oil.
You're right, that is irrelevant. If anything it's an argument against the ban, not for it.
quote:
x--`DocO-('-'Q) :
What I find funniest about this is that trans fats are basically almost-saturated fats... like fats that tried to be saturated but couldn't jump that last fatty hurdle. Many reference sources describe trans fats and saturated fats as exactly the same. (I first checked because every food I ate suddenly hyped that it had no trans fats, even if saturated and/or unsaturated fats were through the roof.)Companies use trans fat when saturated fat would make the food too solid/stiff/hard, but they still want all the heart-stopping flavor. It would make more sense just to lump saturated and trans fats together (i.e. use their combined total for the USRDA percentages), then call it a day.
Yeah, I didn't want to bring it up because it's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, but there is a substantial body of evidence that says the trans fatty acid scare is completely unfounded.
For other totally bogus health scares, see: The acrylamide scare, the MSG scare, the DDT scare, and the rBGH scare.
Call me what you want, being called a fascist by you is almost a compliment.
quote:So what you're saying is we should forget about food and be scared of letters?
Maradon! really knows where their towel is...
For other totally bogus health scares, see: The acrylamide scare, the MSG scare, the DDT scare, and the rBGH scare.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Tyewa Dawnsister who doth quote:
Maradon, they are not telling you that you cannot buy, consume it, inject it, whatever. They are telling restaurants that they cannot prepare food with it. So if you want it, by all means buy it and prepare it yourself. There is a difference here, a big one.
No, actually, there isn't - not even an academic one.
It doesn't matter if you're banning it from general consumption or banning it from restaraunts or banning it from being packed into tiny capsules and inserted into the anuses of cows before you cook them, you're still saying that it's OK for government to point a gun at people and tell them what to eat. Otherwise what would be the point of the ban?
The only reason to limit it to restaraunts is because they don't think they can get away with making Oreos a controlled substance.
And so long as you realize that you're advocating the fundimental ideals of totalitarianism I really don't have any problem with you, but here in America we're doing this whole "individual liberty" experiment dealie and your beliefs really have no place here. Perhaps you'd be happier somewhere like china, cuba, or, to a lesser extent, singapore.
You know, Singapore? Where gum is illegal because it's dirty and people really have no explicit need for it?
Hah, oops my fault, they legalized certain brands of gum determined to be beneficial to dental health - how gracious of them! Maradon! fucked around with this message on 12-06-2006 at 02:56 AM.
This is a simple public health issue, no different than making sure restaurants do not have dead rats in their soup. Individual rights have nothing to do with the issue at all since no individual is being denied the right to consume something. Restaurants are simply being told not to prepare foods with a harmful substance.
I just cannot find what there is to object to here, it's a minor burden at best to restaurant owners. It has nothing but positive implications for the public, no civil or individual rights are being violated, why the uproar? If you want to put this stuff in your body, feel free to do so, no one is even trying to stop you.
quote:
Tyewa Dawnsister's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
By your logic harmful things should be allowed to be prepared and served as food by restaurants. I'll have a side of mercury with my fries please, no make that arsenic.
Trans fats provide no immediate threat to anyone anymore then any other 'unhealthy' food does.
quote:
Sakkra enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
You know it could have been a straw man, but Maradon opened the door with this juicy quote.
quote:
It doesn't matter if you're banning it from general consumption or banning it from restaraunts or banning it from being packed into tiny capsules and inserted into the anuses of cows before you cook them, you're still saying that it's OK for government to point a gun at people and tell them what to eat. Otherwise what would be the point of the ban?
By his own statement he is saying that any and all types of restrictions on "food" be it preparation, consumption, or sale are unacceptable.
To further validate the example used both of the items I listed were once upon a time considered acceptable, if not healthy, things to consume. I am quite sure that someone back in the day had this very same argument, is it any surprise it seems absurd now?
quote:
x--Tyewa DawnsisterO-('-'Q) :
This is a simple public health issue, no different than making sure restaurants do not have dead rats in their soup. Individual rights have nothing to do with the issue at all since no individual is being denied the right to consume something. Restaurants are simply being told not to prepare foods with a harmful substance.
Well, first off, we're not talking about a substance that is harmful in any amount - we're talking about a substance that is only (allegedly) harmful when abused, a substance that people have been consuming in large quantities, safely, for decades.
Secondly, restaraunteurs are individuals with rights just as anybody, and their establishments are generally not public, but even if this wasn't the case it would be something of an evasion to claim that an indirect violation of rights is somehow OK. Much like penalty taxing cigarettes rather than outright banning them, passing a law forbidding restaraunts to serve a substance is no better than passing a law forbidding people to eat that substance at whatever restaraunt they choose: the ultimate effect is identical, and it's still a violation of individual rights.
And lastly, the degree to which public health is the domain of government is questionable. Perhaps restaraunts SHOULD be allowed to serve up arsenic laced desserts, so long as they're clearly presented as such*. Public health interests, strictly, don't need to be federal institutions and would work just as well if privately administered on a voluntary basis. By now, though, public health is an entrenched federeal beuraucracy the nature of which extends well beyond our discussion here.
(*to do otherwise would be murder: a violation of rights, and you cannot have the right to violate the rights of another)
quote:
I just cannot find what there is to object to here, it's a minor burden at best to restaurant owners. It has nothing but positive implications for the public, no civil or individual rights are being violated, why the uproar? If you want to put this stuff in your body, feel free to do so, no one is even trying to stop you.
Once again, the degree of burden is irrelevant, and the implications for the public, whether positive or negative, are irrelevant. Individual rights are being violated and a dangerous precedent is being set.
These people are, in no uncertain terms, pointing a gun at the people and telling them what they can and can not put into their bodies. It doesn't matter that it only applies to restaraunts: The motivating ideology behind the ban, whatever it's scope, is that a federal institution should be the one making health choices for you.
If it were found that abortions were resulting in high mortality rates (a statistic for which there actually is some convincing evidence floating around) would you think it OK if bans on abortion clinics were issued? After all, they're only banning the clinic - not abortions themselves. "It's a simple public health issue. If you want to kill your baby, go ahead, nobody is even trying to stop you." Maradon! fucked around with this message on 12-06-2006 at 04:53 AM.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Maradon!:
The only reason to limit it to restaraunts is because they don't think they can get away with making Oreos a controlled substance.
Folks got away with that last year. Kraft removed trans fat from most of their food last year, including Oreos. Luckily there hasn't been a noticeable taste change and I can take my Oreos into the city.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Tyewa Dawnsister was all like:
I just cannot find what there is to object to here, it's a minor burden at best to restaurant owners. It has nothing but positive implications for the public, no civil or individual rights are being violated, why the uproar?
As I said earlier, it will be expensive for the restaurants to switch. Shamelessly stealing from from a fark post here, but it sums up it up well; "One of the major reasons that so many restaurants use partially hydrogenated fats & shortenings is that they are not only cheaper, but generally have a longer shelf life than completely non-hydrogenated cooking oils. Fast food places like McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Carl's Jr, etc., likely use more of these fats than the non-chain restaurants. One of the concerns I've been hearing is that, given the short amount of time to change to non-tran fats, is that these chains will begin using other fats that are unhealthy such as palm oil or coconut oil, both which are relatively high in saturated fat & are semi-solid at room tempature. Neither of them are healthy alternatives to trans fats."
You can't take one statement made by one person and use it as a definitive example of their political orientation. You hate it when people do it to you, taking your decidedly anti-liberal commentary in some threads as evidence of your "Right Wing Slant" right? So you can't say Tyewa's a facist based on her comment here.
Furthermore, threat of violence? No one is going to come down to these businesses and club someone for selling products with trans-fats. They'll get a fine. And then another fine. And then they'll be given a cease and desist order or have their restaurant license pulled. Violence will only come into play if the restaurant chooses to get ugly with the law enforcement officers.
Insinuating otherwise could be evidence that you're an alarmist.
Think I'm coming in on the anti-trans-fat side? I'm not. I think it's a stupid idea. I just don't like the Maradon style of argument.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
