http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_he_me/diet_trans_fat_ban

Quote :

"Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids. The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil. Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts. Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens. "Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association. He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves. The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts. Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy. "It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient," Frieden said. "No one will miss it when it's gone." A similar ban on trans fats in restaurant food has been proposed in Chicago and is still under consideration, although it has been ridiculed by some as unnecessary government meddling. The latest version of the Chicago plan would only apply to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million, a provision aimed exclusively at fast-food giants. A few companies have moved to eliminate trans fats on their own. Wendy's announced in August that it had switched to a new cooking oil that contains no trans fatty acids. Crisco now sells a shortening that contains zero trans fats. Frito-Lay removed trans fats from its Doritos and Cheetos. Kraft's took trans fats out of Oreos. McDonald's began using a trans fat-free cooking oil in Denmark after that country banned artificial trans fats in processed food, but it has yet to do so in the United States. Walt Riker, vice president of corporate communications at McDonald's, said in a statement Tuesday that the company would review New York's proposal. "McDonald's knows this is an important issue, which is why we continue to test in earnest to find ways to further reduce (trans fatty acid) levels," he said. New York's health department had asked restaurants to impose a voluntary ban last year but found use of trans fats unchanged in recent surveys. Under the New York proposal, restaurants would need to get artificial trans fats out of cooking oils, margarine and shortening by July 1, 2007, and all other foodstuffs by July 1, 2008. It would not affect grocery stores. It also would not apply to naturally occurring trans fats, which are found in some meats and dairy. The Board of Health has yet to approve the proposal and will not do so until at least December, Frieden said. The U.S.Food and Drug Administration began requiring food labels to list trans fats in January. Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives. "Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year," he said. "The federal government should have done this long ago." "

Thank you for keeping us safe from decisions. Sure glad we have the government to tell us how to live our lives. This is the beginning of the slope that leads us to a "Demolition Man" type society where red meat is banned.

What's going on America?

9/27/2006 9:11:26 PM

Smoking is one thing, since you can make a case that a person's cigarette smoke is hurting others secondhand. However, this is merely bad for the individual. Nor does consumption of this substance pose any real and immediate threat to others, such as excessive alcohol consumption. Of all the things to ban in the name of health... this is just excessive and stupid. If they really wanna improve health and safety, they should ban public alcohol sales and consumption first.

(No, I am not suggesting that they ban alcohol, I'm simply saying that this is flat out stupid.)

9/27/2006 9:35:46 PM

The title is wrong. This shit "begun" three years ago with the smoking ban.

9/27/2006 9:38:14 PM

It seems to me there should be bi-partisan support on this. It restricts personal freedom AND it represents big government oversight in your life.

My question is: How the fuck did this get enough popular support to be implemented?

9/27/2006 9:41:42 PM

Sorry GOP, I'm a hardcore conservative, but I approve of the ban on smoking in restaurants and wish it was implemented more. Here's why.

Where my wife works, the "smoking" and no smoking sections are seperated by....AIR. Thats it. Nothing stops it from blowing into my breathing space. That fucking effects me. If they have a seperate smoking and no smoking room, I could give a fuck. But I can't stand when somebody smokes next to my table and I'm in the nonsmoking table.

9/27/2006 9:45:39 PM

I'm a fairly libertarian conservative Repub too and I don't mind smoking bans in general, but I think they should be administered by the individual restaurant, not by the government.

For instance, on Sullivan's Island, SC where my grandmother lives and 10 minutes from my place, you aren't even allowed to smoke inside a bar! That's ludicrous, part of the appeal of a bar is the atmosphere of smoke, liquor, and stale personalities.

9/27/2006 9:50:26 PM

Trans fats are pretty bad.

9/27/2006 9:53:00 PM

a no smoking section in a restaurant is like a no pissing section in a pool

but trans fat makes food tasty, fuck the government

9/27/2006 9:57:25 PM

Quote :

"Thank you for keeping us safe from decisions."

I feel you on this man...but we don't even have the option of making the decision since it's not labelled. So I guess you're saying we just shouldn't eat out if we want to avoid the completely unnecesary trans fats? That's fine, I guess.

Quote :

"Where my wife works, the "smoking" and no smoking sections are seperated by....AIR. Thats it. Nothing stops it from blowing into my breathing space. That fucking effects me. If they have a seperate smoking and no smoking room, I could give a fuck. But I can't stand when somebody smokes next to my table and I'm in the nonsmoking table."

I think it's adorable that you're offended by the AIR thing...that's how the sections are done; if this is a problem, you should only eat at restaurants that don't have a Smoking section. If my suggestion doesn't work out, you should leave NC.

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 10:01 PM. Reason : Peace.]

9/27/2006 10:00:49 PM

Quote :

"but trans fat makes food tasty, fuck the government"

No different than unsaturated fat. It just happens to be cheaper is all.

9/27/2006 10:06:43 PM

Quote :

"I feel you on this man...but we don't even have the option of making the decision since it's not labelled. So I guess you're saying we just shouldn't eat out if we want to avoid the completely unnecesary trans fats? That's fine, I guess. "

I'm glad we feel similar on this topic.

Here's where I step in and disagree though. You say these foods aren't labeled? Well, you're right, they aren't. You can get the nutrition information from the restaurant though, so people CAN access it. Would you be happier if it were posted several places in the restaurant? I'd probably be ok with that. Then people wouldn't have to make any extra effort to see that the big mac is killing them.

9/27/2006 10:13:59 PM

Quote :

"Trans fats are pretty bad."

Sure they are, and I encourage you to avoid them. They can kill you. But so can a lot of things, like skydiving (a lot of fun though, IMO) and overusing salt.

We shouldn't ban everything that is dangerous.

9/27/2006 10:15:51 PM

Yeah, I know. But I still have a hard time caring about this. Many companies are moving away from trans fats anyway.

9/27/2006 10:24:50 PM

i don't really get it

mcdonalds and the like will find a way to make hamburgers and french fries without the trans fats, and then you die less quickly than before

what's the problem

9/27/2006 10:37:48 PM

I guess this is one of the situations where I think it's good the government play a role, especially if the unintended consequences will be virtually nil.

It's like, if you had a choice A and B where everything is equal except A is a little worse for your heart, you'd choose B. But since you really don't think about it in your day to day activities, and because A has been traditionally/historically the choice, you continue to choose it.

Well now, the government steps in and says, we would like to make our people healthier, and we are going to help them do it by making them choose B.

The people never know the difference, and they go about their business in a healthier way.

9/27/2006 10:40:46 PM

cause its the murican way!!!!11

durp de durrrr!

(fast food was going to cut it out anyway, why not encourage it?)

go ahead, flame on.

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 10:43 PM. Reason : ^pretty much how i feel]

9/27/2006 10:40:56 PM

I doubt the founding fathers intended the General Welfare clause in the Constitution to mean that the gov't tells us what we can and cannot eat.

This mommy-state mentality is a lot more dangerous than trans-fat.

Quote :

"we would like to make our people healthier, and we are going to help them do it by making them choose B."

Paging George Orwell....

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 12:06 AM. Reason : .]

9/28/2006 12:05:52 AM

Quote :

"Thank you for keeping us safe from decisions. Sure glad we have the government to tell us how to live our lives. This is the beginning of the slope that leads us to a "Demolition Man" type society where red meat is banned. What's going on America?"

Health care costs are getting too high and the country is getting older. I found out today that the company I work is pretty much doubling our contributory costs for next year and getting rid of one of our options altogether in 2008.

(They're also sponsoring a "Biggest Loser" competition, where the person in the plant that signs up loses the highest percentage of weight will get $1600.)

It sucks, but the majority of people in this country (Republicans and Democrats equally) are too stupid to take care of themselves, so they appoint someone else (government) to take care of them. Look at what an absolute waste the education system is today, and parents don't teach their kids anything cause they think that is the school's job.

Another sad part of it is 70% of people in surveys think they're above average intelligence.

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 12:23 AM. Reason : /]

9/28/2006 12:19:24 AM

OH SHIT, SIMON PHEONIX IS GOING TO TAKE OVER THE CITY

9/28/2006 12:26:52 AM

if you dont like it, dont go to NYC. if citizens dont like it, theyll do something. thats why democracy is cool.

if it's horrible and undesirable, the businesses and citizens will rebel, and the city council will cave. its not like the fucking borg is running local govts like you libertarians think.

these comparisons to facist states are huge stretches.

9/28/2006 12:41:18 AM

Quote :

"It sucks, but the majority of people in this country (Republicans and Democrats equally) are too stupid to take care of themselves, so they appoint someone else (government) to take care of them."

Yes.

But in this case, it's a terrible ingredient that could be replaced with something better, but in the name of capitalism, it remains. So label it or get rid of it...

Let me reiterate the general idea:

"Hey, fuckfaces, quit poisoning the public so you can save a buck."



I'm interested in the politics behind this particular proposal though. Is it genuinely about public health...or is something else at play? Will this open a door that should likely stay closed? What next? I dunno.

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 12:47 AM. Reason : sss]

9/28/2006 12:44:55 AM

i think it might have something to do with

Quote :

"Health care costs are getting too high and the country is getting older. "

9/28/2006 12:45:57 AM

^Yes, but what next?

9/28/2006 12:47:49 AM

THE USURPATION OF ALL CONTROL OVER NUTRITION BY THE GOVERNMENT

/libertarians

whereever the people allow it to go, is the best answer i can give.

9/28/2006 12:51:31 AM

The libertarian knee-jerk reaction "OMFG teh government is intruding in our lives!!!111" is predictable, but stupid.

Quit being such an alarmist reactionary. Heart disease sucks. Just like lung cancer sucks. Sometimes the benefits to society far outweigh the minor annoyance of new regulations. This may be one of those times.

Quote :

"For instance, on Sullivan's Island, SC where my grandmother lives and 10 minutes from my place, you aren't even allowed to smoke inside a bar! "

You act like that is the craziest concept in the world. In California it's been that way for a while, and its just good policy. Most people don't want to breathe in that nasty secondhand shit. Nowadays when I go back to Raleigh I can't stand the bars because they smell like an ashtray.

9/28/2006 12:54:10 AM

yeah, i was shocked that he didnt realize that NYC has a ban on smoking in bars

9/28/2006 12:55:01 AM

Quote :

"i don't really get it mcdonalds and the like will find a way to make hamburgers and french fries without the trans fats, and then you die less quickly than before what's the problem"

The problem is, the government is stepping in a regulating something which they shouldn't be. Where's the public health hazard here? If you don't want to eat trans fats, here's a brilliant idea, don't eat out.

Quote :

"I guess this is one of the situations where I think it's good the government play a role, especially if the unintended consequences will be virtually nil. "

Never underestimate the unintended consequences of government.

Quote :

"It's like, if you had a choice A and B where everything is equal except A is a little worse for your heart, you'd choose B. But since you really don't think about it in your day to day activities, and because A has been traditionally/historically the choice, you continue to choose it. "

That's your own damn stupidity. It's not like McDonalds is health food or anything.

Quote :

"Well now, the government steps in and says, we would like to make our people healthier, and we are going to help them do it by making them choose B. "

Until A is something that you like. I mean, if it's just making people healthier why not just out and out ban fast food entirely?

Quote :

"fast food was going to cut it out anyway, why not encourage it?"

Encourage it with your wallet, not guns.

Quote :

"if it's horrible and undesirable, the businesses and citizens will rebel, and the city council will cave."

And George Bush will never be elected to a second term...

Quote :

"But in this case, it's a terrible ingredient that could be replaced with something better, but in the name of capitalism, it remains. So label it or get rid of it... Let me reiterate the general idea: "Hey, fuckfaces, quit poisoning the public so you can save a buck." "

In the end though, it's because the public asks for it that we get such poison. It's not like it hasn't been public knowledge for years that fast foos is bad for you. But the public demands more, and demands it cheaper, so the companies "save a buck" and give us more. Again, if you don't like it vote with your wallet.

Quote :

"I'm interested in the politics behind this particular proposal though. Is it genuinely about public health...or is something else at play?"

As always, follow the money. Who stands to gain the most by this?

Quote :

"Heart disease sucks. Just like lung cancer sucks. Sometimes the benefits to society far outweigh the minor annoyance of new regulations. This may be one of those times."

Ok, you know heart disease sucks, you know lung cance sucks, why the fuck do you need the government to step in and stop you from doing stupid things if you already know they're stupid?

Quote :

"Most people don't want to breathe in that nasty secondhand shit. "

They should maybe, oh I don't know, avoid places that allow smoking?

Quote :

"Nowadays when I go back to Raleigh I can't stand the bars because they smell like an ashtray."

Perhaps you should avoid bars then. Liver failure sucks you know, I think we need a new ban on alcohol.

9/28/2006 1:37:36 AM

^Consider not taking posts out of context.

All I see are a bunch of responses to a couple sentences taken from other people's posts.

Every "argument" you just shared has already been stated, many of them by me...so what are you doing? If you have no other practical angles to cover, then you should share your opinion.

9/28/2006 1:52:06 AM

Quote :

"the minor annoyance of new regulations."

I can't recall one time when the annoyance of a new regulation was minor. Be prepared, as you allow the camel's nose of the "Health Police" to intrude into your tent, to give up all of your favorite vices. In its natural quest for more control, the gov't will surely get around to banning them as well.

9/28/2006 1:54:59 AM

I agree, I don't think for one second that most politicians give a shit about our "health and safety". It's about control and money.

9/28/2006 3:07:40 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_he_me/fattie_out

Quote :

"Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: sedentary lifestyle The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would force all XX million Californians to exercise at least thirty minutes a day with the exception of those who can prove such a program would be of no further benefit or hazardous to their health. Fatties are found in most every part of the state especially when foods such as pies to French fries to doughnuts are present. Doctors agree that regular exercise is healthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the fattening food industry said he was stunned the city would seek to enforce a lifestyle found in millions of American houses. “Encouraging people to work out is one thing, but when they totally enforce exercise it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the California State Fatties Club. He said the proposal could create havoc: Fatties would be forced to discard their old ways and scrutinize every roll on their body. A fatty could face a fine if an inspector finds that he is still being a fatty and not following the exercise requirements. The proposal also would create a huge problem for national fatty stores. Among the outfitters that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: Big and Tall, Fatties ‘r Us, and several other varieties of fatty clothing stores. Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for fatties, but he said sitting on your ass eating potato chips can easily be replaced with a light workout routine that would be the same or better and is far less unhealthy. “It (fatness) is a dangerous and unnecessary state,” Frieden said. “No one will miss those fat rolls when they are gone.” A similar exercise requirement for fatties has been proposed in Chicago and is still under consideration, although it has been ridiculed by some as unnecessary government meddling. The latest version of the Chicago plan would only apply to fatties with a body mass index >30, a provision aimed exclusively at the obese. A few companies have moved to eliminate fatties on their own. Wendy’s announced in August that it would not let fatties in their stores. Crisco now stopped selling shortening to fatties. Frito-Lay has mandated that their Doritos and Cheetos be available only after completing 5 push ups and 10 sit-ups. Kraft took fatties away from Oreos. McDonald’s began using a special scale in Denmark after that country banned fatties in fast food stores, but it has yet to do so in the United States. Walt Riker, vice president of corporate communications at McDonald's, said in a statement Tuesday that the company would review California's proposal. "McDonald's knows this is an important issue, which is why we continue to test in earnest to find ways to further reduce (fatty) levels," he said. California’s health department had asked restaurants to impose a voluntary ban of fatties last year but found levels of fatties unchanged in recent surveys. Under the California proposal, restaurants would need to fatties away from cooking oils, margarine and shortening by July 1, 2007, and all other foodstuffs by July 1, 2008. It would not affect grocery stores. It also would not apply to naturally occurring fatties, which prefer some meats and dairy. The Board of Health has yet to approve the proposal and will not do so until at least December, Frieden said. The U.S.Food and Drug Administration began requiring food labels to list if their products appeal to fatties in January. "

9/28/2006 6:33:01 AM

Quote :

"Thank you for keeping us safe from decisions."

Ok, outright banning it might be too extreme but I'd support a law to get the stuff labeled so you can make the decision you want to make. If you have made the personal decision to not consume trans fats how are you going to be able to stick to that decision unless the food is labeled? Where to put the label? Right there on the menu.

I guess all the people that are against the ban of trans fats are also against the banning of things like marijuana?

Meh, if health officials come out with studies that showed that a widely used, unnecessary ingredient that is commonly used in foods was nothing more than a poison I'd expect:

1) The people making the food to take the ingredient out asap.

2) If the people that made the food were too lazy to get with the program I could see the government stepping in (FDA).

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 7:33 AM. Reason : -]

9/28/2006 7:32:21 AM

Quote :

"You act like that is the craziest concept in the world. In California it's been that way for a while, and its just good policy. Most people don't want to breathe in that nasty secondhand shit."

So, let me get the opposition straight on this: If I don't like the ban on trans-fat, I need to stay out of NYC. But if someone is smoking in an area, and I don't like it, I'm free to use the government to force them to stop?

Quote :

"Yeah, I know. But I still have a hard time caring about this. Many companies are moving away from trans fats anyway. "

Good for them, people should always be allowed to "vote with their feet" and pressure companies into using healthier products. But it doesn't mean the government is allowed to compel you to.

Quote :

"if you dont like it, dont go to NYC. if citizens dont like it, theyll do something. thats why democracy is cool."

If I'm not mistaken, this action wasn't a referrendum.

Quote :

"these comparisons to facist states are huge stretches."

At this point they are. But if the current path is followed for a while, we'll soon be mandating exercise and banning red meat. After all, it is unhealthy for you to not exercise and red meat is worse for you than chicken.

9/28/2006 7:36:57 AM

someone smoking affects me

someone eating red meat does nothing to me

two different things

9/28/2006 8:16:45 AM

Exactly. Someone eating trans-fat doesn't either.
Unless you're blaming them for the increase in premiums at the insurance company.

9/28/2006 8:21:42 AM

Quote :

"I doubt the founding fathers intended the General Welfare clause in the Constitution to mean that the gov't tells us what we can and cannot eat. This mommy-state mentality is a lot more dangerous than trans-fat."

I disagree. So you don't mind the government banning dangerous pesticide use because it shows an elevated risk of cancer, but you do mind them banning trans fat use, which shows an elevated risk of heart disease and so on? It's like my A/B comparison, the average consumer wouldn't know they are eating bad pesticide versus good pesticide veggies.

Quote :

" Paging George Orwell...."

Quote :

"^Yes, but what next?"

Quote :

"Quit being such an alarmist reactionary."

Go cry some more and make the slippery slope that you are so afraid of even wetter.

Quote :

"The problem is, the government is stepping in a regulating something which they shouldn't be. Where's the public health hazard here? If you don't want to eat trans fats, here's a brilliant idea, don't eat out."

The public health hazard? Are you blind? Look around you in a crowd, how many fat people are there?

Quote :

"Never underestimate the unintended consequences of government."

This is such an innocuous change, it should have been done sooner.

Quote :

"That's your own damn stupidity. It's not like McDonalds is health food or anything."

Quote :

"Until A is something that you like. I mean, if it's just making people healthier why not just out and out ban fast food entirely?"

That's wonderful pal, limit your argument to a singal anecdote (fast food) to try and make a point.
It also shows your ignorance. Fast food doesn't have to be all that unhealthy.

Quote :

"In the end though, it's because the public asks for it that we get such poison. It's not like it hasn't been public knowledge for years that fast foos is bad for you. But the public demands more, and demands it cheaper, so the companies "save a buck" and give us more. Again, if you don't like it vote with your wallet."

Thats an easy statment to make when you are priveleged college kid. The reality is there is a massive amount of people out there that have to turn to the cheap food to survive.

Quote :

"I can't recall one time when the annoyance of a new regulation was minor. "

That implies there will actually be an annoyance from this ban, which we don't know if it is true or not.

9/28/2006 10:13:24 AM

Quote :

"Thats an easy statment to make when you are priveleged college kid. The reality is there is a massive amount of people out there that have to turn to the cheap food to survive"

Please, I was an upper-middle class college kid and I ate worse then than I do now, while I'm poor.

There aren't that many people that couldn't eat something healthier if they tried. And for about the same cost too. I eat a turkey sandwich on multi-grain bread every day and it costs me less than the cost of McDonald's food to do so.

9/28/2006 10:21:45 AM

Guess what. There are a lot of folks that don't have a fridge to store that turkey in. And I'm not trying to be a bleeding heart liberal here, but its true. Eating healthy isn't as cut and dried as your educated ass just made it seem.

9/28/2006 10:23:46 AM

it's about fucking time.

9/28/2006 10:26:54 AM

For all you national health care fans, here is a little glimpse of things to come...gov't dictating your eating habits and behaviors. What's next...a tax on dangerous sports or occupations? How about a tax on the time you're sitting on the couch watching TV instead of exercising? The potential for tyranny is immense.

With its fine track record on market interference, the gov't Fat Police will have us all on the North Korean Diet in no time.

9/28/2006 11:04:09 AM

So how long will it take to make this leap from "the government passed a law to make sure the levels of arsenic in my water is as low as possible" to "I have to eat exactly 4 oz. of green beans this Thursday?"

9/28/2006 11:23:20 AM

Quote :

"EarthDogg All American 1121 Posts user info edit post For all you national health care fans, here is a little glimpse of things to come...gov't dictating your eating habits and behaviors. What's next...a tax on dangerous sports or occupations? How about a tax on the time you're sitting on the couch watching TV instead of exercising? The potential for tyranny is immense. With its fine track record on market interference, the gov't Fat Police will have us all on the North Korean Diet in no time. 9/28/2006 11:04:09 AM jbtilley All American 2629 Posts user info edit post So how long will it take to make this leap from "the government passed a law to make sure the levels of arsenic in my water is as low as possible" to "I have to eat exactly 4 oz. of green beans this Thursday?" "

Oh noes, we are already on the slippery slope and there is no turning back.

Personally, if my health care costs weren't affected by the atrocious health of this country (not saying that is the entire reason for elevated costs, but a non trivial portion) then I'd be all for a fatty getting the heart clogged death they have coming to them if they are fully capable of eating healthier (being educated, having the income to do so), which as already pointed out isn't necessarily always the case.

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 11:26 AM. Reason : a]

9/28/2006 11:24:48 AM

I am curious. Those who are opposed to this, are they also opposed to the law requiring seat belt use?

I mean, if you are not wearing a seat belt, you are only endangering your life, not that of others.

So, is it hypocricy, or do they have some explanation?

9/28/2006 11:30:35 AM

The slippery slopers have a point. That is, we have to be careful not to traverse it. Otherwise, they really aren't arguing anything realistically.

9/28/2006 11:33:34 AM

Quote :

"The public health hazard? Are you blind? Look around you in a crowd, how many fat people are there? "

And the point is? They have plenty of options. Stop eating out, exercise and start eating healthy. Are you suggesting the government should start regulating everything that could make you fat?

Quote :

"This is such an innocuous change, it should have been done sooner."

If it's so innocuous, why do we need the government to force it? Shouldn't a little consumer action be all it takes? It seemed to be sufficient for wendy's

Quote :

"It also shows your ignorance. Fast food doesn't have to be all that unhealthy."

True, it doesn't have to be, and you don't have to eat it. But it is, and you do. Why is there a need for government action?

Quote :

"Thats an easy statment to make when you are priveleged college kid. The reality is there is a massive amount of people out there that have to turn to the cheap food to survive."

Bullshit. I feed two people on less than $11 / day. There is no way that eating out generates a cheaper meal than eating cheap and healthy.

Quote :

"Personally, if my health care costs weren't affected by the atrocious health of this country (not saying that is the entire reason for elevated costs, but a non trivial portion) then I'd be all for a fatty getting the heart clogged death they have coming to them if they are fully capable of eating healthier (being educated, having the income to do so), "

Or you could petition your health insurance company to stop providing insurance to people who are grossly overwieght and are choosing an unhealthy lifestyle.

Quote :

"I am curious. Those who are opposed to this, are they also opposed to the law requiring seat belt use?"

Yes.

9/28/2006 11:46:40 AM

Quote :

"And the point is? They have plenty of options. Stop eating out, exercise and start eating healthy. Are you suggesting the government should start regulating everything that could make you fat?"

That's great you have all these easy answers. Tell a single mother working multiple jobs to support her family to get on an exercise plan and to cook healthy meals daily for herself and family. Make sure you don't consider how much energy she has just to make it through a day when you request more of her time to work out and cook (not to mention the time to get educated about such matters). The whole concept of "well, tell her not to have kids out if she can't handle it" juxtaposes with your "tell the government to stay out of my life" viewpoint. Whatever will you do?

And no, I don't suggest the government regulate everything that makes us fat, I rather enjoy indulging on my ice cream, but when they come to a brain dead conclusion to ban trans fats when non trans fats work just as equally in their place, to the betterment of the nations health, I think we should stand up and applaud them.

9/28/2006 11:58:37 AM

I hate fat people.

9/28/2006 12:03:33 PM

Quote :

"Guess what. There are a lot of folks that don't have a fridge to store that turkey in. And I'm not trying to be a bleeding heart liberal here, but its true. Eating healthy isn't as cut and dried as your educated ass just made it seem. "

Not that many people don't have refrigerators. I've known a lot of people in abject poverty and not that many didn't own a fridge. Plus, not all health food has to be kept cold.

Quote :

"I am curious. Those who are opposed to this, are they also opposed to the law requiring seat belt use? "

Yes, for adults. I think kids can be required to buckle because they aren't old enough to know better. I know "that's what parents are for" which is why I go either way on the child-seatbelt law.

You can bitch and bitch all you want that we're making a slippery slope argument that isn't justified. I can respect that opinion. I have to ask, though, how far down the slope we have to slide before you'll let us get all alarmist.


Also:

Quote :

". Tell a single mother working multiple jobs to support her family to get on an exercise plan and to cook healthy meals daily for herself and family. Make sure you don't consider how much energy she has just to make it through a day when you request more of her time to work out and cook (not to mention the time to get educated about such matters). The whole concept of "well, tell her not to have kids out if she can't handle it" juxtaposes with your "tell the government to stay out of my life" viewpoint. Whatever will you do? "

I'd tell her to eat at fast food places that don't use trans-fat. She could do that even though she's worked herself to the bone to feed all those kids, right? I mean it isn't like its difficult to find ones that don't use it.

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 12:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/28/2006 12:13:16 PM

Quote :

"If it's so innocuous, why do we need the government to force it? Shouldn't a little consumer action be all it takes? It seemed to be sufficient for wendy's"

You mean uneducated consumers that aren't aware of the issues?

Quote :

"Bullshit. I feed two people on less than $11 / day. There is no way that eating out generates a cheaper meal than eating cheap and healthy."

I guess if you are eating rice and canned foods all day you might can eat this cheaply, but the last time I figured it for myself it was around $10 on the aveage day. I figured $2 for breakfast (typically oatmeal, milk, peanut butter, protein powder and some fruit where most of the cost comes in), $3-5 for lunch (which very often contains a $1.50 can of tuna alone, and a similar value at dinner, plus all the fruit I have around during the day, which isn't cheap.

So I guess if you aren't really active and require quality nutrition, you might can get by on $5.50 a day, but I certainly can't.

Quote :

"I have to ask, though, how far down the slope we have to slide before you'll let us get all alarmist."

When the collective view looks at the proposal and says "what are they thinking". It's time to start worrying. It's all subjective though as to what type of proposal will garner that type of response, but I just don't see why this is one that would.
An outright ban on ice cream, for instance would be one to worry about.

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 12:17 PM. Reason : a]

9/28/2006 12:14:56 PM

Quote :

"I disagree. So you don't mind the government banning dangerous pesticide use because it shows an elevated risk of cancer, but you do mind them banning trans fat use, which shows an elevated risk of heart disease and so on? It's like my A/B comparison, the average consumer wouldn't know they are eating bad pesticide versus good pesticide veggies."

As someone who does eat fast food occasionally, I would enjoy it if they could cut the trans-fat, which is completely useless to the taste of the food, it is just much worse for you.

Perhaps they shouldn't ban spinach with e coli either, if you don't want e coli don't eat spinach, right?


[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 12:33 PM. Reason : spellin']

9/28/2006 12:29:53 PM