NYC Bans Trans Fats At Restaurants

[Zrow]

Yeah you know what guys, you're right. We don't have food with trans fat anymore, America's freedom is doomed....

You're missing the point. Not allowing restaurants to serve trans fats is a freedom lost. Maybe not a huge freedom, but a freedom nonetheless.

When you lose a lot of little freedoms, you start to lose all of your freedom.

 

[a6m5]

I don't know how harmful trans fat is to our health, but I don't believe this ban is that big of a deal, if: a) Trans fat really is a serious enough health risk 2) cheap alternative is available

Way I look at it, they also ban asbestos from those restaurants, right? OK, not a great example. But I guess I feel that if acceptable substitue is available, and if this really is going to help people's health, I'd be OK with it. From reading you guys' posts, seems that trans fat is not some kind of delicacy or anything....

I'm affected by it. I eat in NYC at least once a month.

I think the law sucks deleterious polyunsaturated pork right out of a barrel. Nothing happens in that town unless someone stands to make a buck.

Sometime this week, I intend to excersise my constitutional right to eat tasty crap that will kill you at the nearby KFC. On the other (my) side of the Hudson.

Long live Colonel Sanders' Original Recipe.


M

OK. It's either KFC's really good on that side of the country, or Popeye's really suck over there.

 

[OZZYGT]

You're missing the point. Not allowing restaurants to serve trans fats is a freedom lost. Maybe not a huge freedom, but a freedom nonetheless.

When you lose a lot of little freedoms, you start to lose all of your freedom.

I know that Zrow, I was just intentionally exaggerating.





Ciao!

 

[Swift]

I know that Zrow, I was just intentionally exaggerating.





Ciao!

But you're serious about your point none the less.

 

[Mark T]

I can understand that people are angry because they have lost the right to use this transfat, but shouldn't we look at it as a benefit to peoples health?

 

[niky]

It's not really about the trans-saturated fats themselves... it's about the whole idea of the thing.

There are lots of things that can kill us or harm us in food today that are next in line for this... refined sugar, for one, MSG, for another... all other kinds of fat, too. Sodium is one biggie...

I can just see it now, years from now... you walk into a burger joint in NYC and all you can get is an odorless, flavorless paste.

Who mentioned Demolition Man, again? I'll have two tacos to go.

Yes, it's good for people not to have to worry about the horrors of trans-fats... but it's just plain ridiculous. People will still go on eating fatty foods, they'll still get overweight, and they'll still fall over dead with a bum ticker. Just because a food is health-i-er, doesn't actually mean it's really health-y.

Just you wait... one of these days, they're going to ban Lobsters because some people are allergic to seafood, and most people are too damn stupid to know better. The day that happens, you'll all be moving to the Third World just to find something good to eat.

 

[FoolKiller]

Not to mention the previous references to Demolition man(everything not "good" for people is outlawed. Right down to sex") and 1984.

It is kind of scary that I can make a serious reference to that otherwise horrid movie. But nothing is scarier than when you can make a serious reference to any anti-utopian story.

Fair point... I just don't see how this is cause for alarm (that doesn't mean that I approve of it). It's not like they banned trans fat from our diets entirely. It's just not allowed to be served in restaurants or the like. Laws like this can always be overturned anyway if they're that unpopular. I don't hear anyone coming up with any reasons why trans fats should be allowed in restaurants...

Well, as Danoff pointed out early on there has been discussion of banning trans-fat by the FDA. But my issue is that they are regulating an otherwise legal product from use by private businesses. The fact that they do this in the name of the public good is scary because you have to ask how far that will go.

Which brings me back to my original question... aside from the obvious ideological objections (government regulation), does anyone have any opinions as to why this is a bad thing?

The ideological issue is the major problem. But since you want something more: This highlights the futility of our attempts to make things better. Taking the most commonly known trans-fat products, Margarine and Crisco, they were used as a healthier replacement for butter and lard. Now we are banning the trans-fats, does that mean we will see some people going back to butter and lard? I hope so, it tastes better. Or will those also be banned to prevent us really giving ourselves heart attacks? How many other "improvements" have we made that are actually not better?

Returning to the ideological issue: In "V for Vendetta" butter was a banned product. I ask again, how many things will we allow this to happen to, how many freedoms will we let be taken away in the name of the public good?

Didn’t KFC recently change their ingredients so that they don’t use trans fats anymore?

[edit]: Ah, they’ll be phasing it in Spring 2007 – so you still have time to get the good stuff!

My cousin works for them (Yum is based in Louisville, KY) in research and instead of making new recipes he has been wasting the last year testing different oils. It isn't as if I didn't know fried chicken would be bad for me. Just the fact that he has had to go through multiple different oils tells me that the taste difference might actually happen. I haven't heard anything about the price. I'll ask if I see him at Christmas.

this just means that fat people wont feel so guilty about eating so much fastfood and they'll eat even more

Kind of like that guy that drinks light beer but drinks the entire case?

MORONS

Wow, you summed up my entire rant in one word.

As far as I know...

Trans fats do not make you fat... and they don't make the food tastier. They're high in cholesterol and it's cheap for restaurants. Alternatives are not significantly more expensive, and have little to no impact on taste but contain less cholesterol.

That's the situation as I understand it. I'm not a doctor, though, obviously.

You are also a smart man who chooses to make himself well informed. More people will view this the way Gabkicks said and the long-term health effects will probably be small.

I don't think in this case that anyone will be harmed... only freedom eroded from the point of view of principle.

I truly fail to see a difference. No one will be physically harmed, but you harm everyone when you erode freedoms.

What are you guys talking about???!!?

<snip>

This is a favor that they're doing to us, and even though I know the price might increase, I really don't see why should complain for something like this...I really can't believe it, people complaining about it..pffsss,

<snip>

That's why I said "they're doing us a favor".

They would also be doing you a favor to remove sugar, electronically limit your car's speed to 35 mph, and force you to get all available vaccinations. Is that okay?

Doing everyone a favor and creating a "better world" at the cost of freedoms, no matter how small, is a bad thing in the end.

What if they decided to come into your house and say that any trans fats had to go? What if they determined that video games do cause teens to become violent and banned all video games? It's doing us a favor, right?

I don't know about what the pace of a city in Maryland is like, or Kentucky or California or Florida...etc, what's in those states anyway?? J/K.

Hey! I would estimate 50% of your fast food chains come from Kentucky in some way.

if you complaint about this new law, what don't you complain about?!

I will not miss the trans fats, but as I said before a small freedom is still a freedom.

I'm not saying this will resolve New Yorkers bad eating habits, but it sure helps. What do we loose? a dollar or two on lunch?

A freedom, which is worth more than any money.

I don't know how harmful trans fat is to our health, but I don't believe this ban is that big of a deal, if: a) Trans fat really is a serious enough health risk 2) cheap alternative is available

Way I look at it, they also ban asbestos from those restaurants, right? OK, not a great example. But I guess I feel that if acceptable substitue is available, and if this really is going to help people's health, I'd be OK with it. From reading you guys' posts, seems that trans fat is not some kind of delicacy or anything....

I cannot tell if asbestos is in a building, so either they have to take it out or inform me. It is easier to make them take it out. I know that fried foods are bad. This is a decision limiting the freedom of a restaurant owner, because the city officials think that their citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions. That mentality borders on dictatorship. The "if they won't make a good decision we will make it for them" philosophy should scare you to death because there are a lot worse things than dietary decisions that are good for you and you don't choose it.

OK. It's either KFC's really good on that side of the country, or Popeye's really suck over there.

It's cultural. We don't like the spicy as much unless it is covered in buffalo sauce.

I can understand that people are angry because they have lost the right to use this transfat, but shouldn't we look at it as a benefit to peoples health?

One, you are benefiting their health without their permission. Can we force them to take certain medicines next? Two, doing things for the common good of the people is not a reason to remove freedoms. How far can that go? Look at movies like I Robot, V for Vendetta, Serenity, Demolition Man, or a book like 1984. They are exaggerated cases of this benefiting the people gone wrong. Eventually what someone feels is the best for you is not what you think is the best for you and then what? Benefiting the people is never a reasonable excuse for losing a right.

Am I repeating myself?

Who mentioned Demolition Man, again? I'll have two tacos to go.

All unhealthy food is banned, but we have Taco Bell!

Just because a food is health-i-er, doesn't actually mean it's really health-y.

This is how we wound up with trans fats in the first place.

 

[///M-Spec]

OK. It's either KFC's really good on that side of the country, or Popeye's really suck over there.

Eh, I have no strong preferrence for KFC over any other chicken chain. There's just one nearby the office and I haven't had deep fried anything in about 3 or 4 months.

I've been in central Jersey since July and I haven't seen a single Popeye's.


M

 

[OZZYGT]

*[off topic]* Don't eat Popeye's, the only good thing from that place is the mashed potatoes and the popcorn shrimp, FKC...whoops I mean KFC food is way better *[/off topic]*





Ciao!

 

[FoolKiller]

*[off topic]* FKC...whoops I mean KFC food is way better *[/off topic]*

Just because my dad has actually met Colonel Sanders (so he claims), my family enjoys eating at the restaurant he founded after he sold Kentucky Fried Chicken (Claudia Sanders' - All you can eat, country-style dinners), and I have family that works for them doesn't make it mine.

Honestly though, can you beat their biscuits?


Anyway, the good colonel would roll over in his grave if he could see the things that government regulation has turned his original recipe into.

 

[Swift]

I can understand that people are angry because they have lost the right to use this transfat, but shouldn't we look at it as a benefit to peoples health?

Then why not ban smoking, drinking, contact sports, high levels of sodium, all snack foods, etc?

Because it would take away freedom from the people. It's really sad that this has gone through. Hopefully the voters of NYC will make them repeal this stupid law.

 

[FoolKiller]

Because it would take away freedom from the people. It's really sad that this has gone through. Hopefully the voters of NYC will make them repeal this stupid law.

Somehow I doubt it. Either the media is being selective in their street interviews or most people think "it's good for the people, so it's okay with me."



I'm going to start building my cabin in the woods now.

 

[Swift]

Somehow I doubt it. Either the media is being selective in their street interviews or most people think "it's good for the people, so it's okay with me."

That attitude is what is absolutely crippling this country from all sides and in all forms of government. It just scares me that people don't take 5 seconds to think about the long term effects of something rather then the effect "right now"

I'm going to start building my cabin in the woods now.

I'll give you a hand. 👍

 

[Danoff]

The problem is not so much transfats, because none of us are particularly attached to them. The problem is the line of reasoning used to ban trans fat. The same line of reasoning can be used to ban literally thousands of products. You don't have to change the argument at all. It even applies to other abuses like forcing people to exercise, take medicine, make television and couches illegal, etc. etc. There is almost no end to the regulation that can be proposed with the exact argument that is made against trans-fat.

This small freedom has the potential to kill a massive amount of personal choice.

But this small freedom was already gone. Restaurants were already not allowed to serve what they want - they already have to have their ingredients show up on an approved list (or stay off of a dissapprove list). We're already not allowed to take experimental medicines that might save our lives, or try the latest sugar substitute that might keep us healthy. Restaurants are already not allowed to serve these things. At least with trans-fats, we can still buy them (even in NYC), just not at restaurants. With many products it's illegal to buy or sell them anywhere in the country.

The FDA respresents the death of personal control over health issues. We said goodbye to this so many years ago, and it's cost us thousands of lives. I struggle to think of another department of the government that is responsible for as many deaths as the FDA. They kill more people than the DoD, and probably every other government agency combined.

...but yay for the FDA! Keep making health decisions for us! It's ok if 10's of thousands die in the process, it's for our own good.

 

[Swift]

The same line of reasoning can be used to ban literally thousands of products. You don't have to change the argument at all. It even applies to other abuses like forcing people to exercise, take medicine, make television and couches illegal, etc. etc.

I was actually going to say exactly that! Hmm...should have followed through with it huh?

*snip*

...but yay for the FDA! Keep making health decisions for us! It's ok if 10's of thousands die in the process, it's for our own good.

Though I know exactly what you mean, I'm really looking forward to the replies to this bomb.

 

[a6m5]

I cannot tell if asbestos is in a building, so either they have to take it out or inform me. It is easier to make them take it out. I know that fried foods are bad. This is a decision limiting the freedom of a restaurant owner, because the city officials think that their citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions. That mentality borders on dictatorship. The "if they won't make a good decision we will make it for them" philosophy should scare you to death because there are a lot worse things than dietary decisions that are good for you and you don't choose it.

I do see where all of you are coming from. As I said in my post, I'm for it only if trans fat is a serious health risk(like FDA banning dangerous ingredients), and if there is a cheap alternative(cheap, as reasonable. alternative, as something that we can use in the place of trans fat without people tasting the food going, "what the hells going on here! ".

Personally, I'd have gone to some sort of labeling, or warning system like with cigarettes. Give people the choice, but do warn them, educate them on the dangers of trans fat.

*[off topic]* Don't eat Popeye's, the only good thing from that place is the mashed potatoes and the popcorn shrimp, FKC...whoops I mean KFC food is way better *[/off topic]*

Jambalaya! is my favorite. As far as fried chickens go, KFC is totally outclassed. Trust me. I mean I'm from Japan. I must know my chicken, right?

Just because my dad has actually met Colonel Sanders (so he claims)

My mom, too! I think she said it was in front of the KFC of my hometown, Tsunashima/Yokahama, Japan. Anyway, it was one of the Japanese KFCs, and I believe her, because not many people look like Colonel Sanders over there. She claims that he was dressed in that trademark white suit and everything.

And no, it wasn't this she saw(before someone makes a smart alec comment):

The problem is not so much transfats, because none of us are particularly attached to them. The problem is the line of reasoning used to ban trans fat. The same line of reasoning can be used to ban literally thousands of products. You don't have to change the argument at all. It even applies to other abuses like forcing people to exercise, take medicine, make television and couches illegal, etc. etc. There is almost no end to the regulation that can be proposed with the exact argument that is made against trans-fat.

This small freedom has the potential to kill a massive amount of personal choice.

But this small freedom was already gone. Restaurants were already not allowed to serve what they want - they already have to have their ingredients show up on an approved list (or stay off of a dissapprove list). We're already not allowed to take experimental medicines that might save our lives, or try the latest sugar substitute that might keep us healthy. Restaurants are already not allowed to serve these things. At least with trans-fats, we can still buy them (even in NYC), just not at restaurants. With many products it's illegal to buy or sell them anywhere in the country.

The FDA respresents the death of personal control over health issues. We said goodbye to this so many years ago, and it's cost us thousands of lives. I struggle to think of another department of the government that is responsible for as many deaths as the FDA. They kill more people than the DoD, and probably every other government agency combined.

...but yay for the FDA! Keep making health decisions for us! It's ok if 10's of thousands die in the process, it's for our own good.

I do agree that they are chipping away our rights, little by little. But where we usually disagree is that I think there is a gray area, where we can draw a reasonable line, sort of a compromise for everyone. You see it as black and white. Like either they give you the total rights, or they are short changing you.

And if you have time, can you educate me on how FDA killed tens of thousands of people? Not questioning your claim, I honestly don't know much about FDA. If you are busy, I can research it later myself, but thanks anyway, danoff!

 

[Mark T]

Then why not ban smoking, drinking, contact sports, high levels of sodium, all snack foods, etc?

Because it would take away freedom from the people. It's really sad that this has gone through. Hopefully the voters of NYC will make them repeal this stupid law.

Just because they have used the law to ban this one thing does not mean they will use it to ban everything else. Maybe this transfat was particularly bad for peoples health and was included in a lot of popular foods.

A: It's important to know about trans fat because there is a direct, proven relationship between diets high in trans fat content and LDL ("bad") cholesterol levels and, therefore, an increased risk of coronary heart disease &#8211; a leading cause of death in the US

Taken from http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/transfat/q_a.html

I know that there are plenty of other bad habits out there but surely if it helps people shouldn't it be enforced?

Are there healthier substitutes for this transfat?

 

[Danoff]

And if you have time, can you educate me on how FDA killed tens of thousands of people? Not questioning your claim, I honestly don't know much about FDA. If you are busy, I can research it later myself, but thanks anyway, danoff!

Periodically the FDA approves a drug that they estimate will save x number of lives/year. For example, they'll approve a cholesterol reducing drug that they estimate will save 50,000 lives per year or some such number.

That means that the previous year, when the drug existed but they didn't approve it, the FDA was responsible for preventing 50,000 people from getting a drug that might have saved their lives.

But it takes years for the FDA to approve a drug. So if it saves 50,000 lives/year and it takes them 3 years to approve it, they've killed 150,000 people.

 

[a6m5]

Periodically the FDA approves a drug that they estimate will save x number of lives/year. For example, they'll approve a cholesterol reducing drug that they estimate will save 50,000 lives per year or some such number.

That means that the previous year, when the drug existed but they didn't approve it, the FDA was responsible for preventing 50,000 people from getting a drug that might have saved their lives.

But it takes years for the FDA to approve a drug. So if it saves 50,000 lives/year and it takes them 3 years to approve it, they've killed 150,000 people.

Gotcha. I do hear that from time to time. Thanks. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

Personally, I'd have gone to some sort of labeling, or warning system like with cigarettes. Give people the choice, but do warn them, educate them on the dangers of trans fat.

Find me one person, of semi-moderate intelligence, in the western world that isn't aware that fried foods are not healthy.

My mom, too! I think she said it was in front of the KFC of my hometown, Tsunashima/Yokahama, Japan. Anyway, it was one of the Japanese KFCs, and I believe her, because not many people look like Colonel Sanders over there. She claims that he was dressed in that trademark white suit and everything.

Yeah, he personally opened all of his stores, and I have never seen him not in that white suit.

Just because they have used the law to ban this one thing does not mean they will use it to ban everything else. Maybe this transfat was particularly bad for peoples health and was included in a lot of popular foods.

So? Too much sugar can make you diabetic, lead to heart disease, and I even heard one study that thought it might be linked to Alzheimer's (although they were stretching). Should we ban sugar?

Taken from http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/transfat/q_a.html

Once again, is this news to anyone? No, but we still eat fast food and other fried things. Why? Because we want to.

I know that there are plenty of other bad habits out there but surely if it helps people shouldn't it be enforced?

Why can't the people make that decision themselves?

Are there healthier substitutes for this transfat?

Supposedly, but keep in mind that trans-fat was supposed to be the healthier alternative. So, what will the new alternative bring?

And if I prefer trans-fat on my McDonald's fries and KFC chicken why can't I have it? Why can't the restaurant owner offer it to me?

 

[a6m5]

Find me one person, of semi-moderate intelligence, in the western world that isn't aware that fried foods are not healthy.

They aren't banning fried foods.

Yeah, he personally opened all of his stores, and I have never seen him not in that white suit.

That is amazing. I'm sure it was a pretty hectic full-time job.

 

[Swift]

Just because they have used the law to ban this one thing does not mean they will use it to ban everything else. Maybe this transfat was particularly bad for peoples health and was included in a lot of popular foods.

Taken from http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/transfat/q_a.html

I know that there are plenty of other bad habits out there but surely if it helps people shouldn't it be enforced?

Are there healthier substitutes for this transfat?

Thank you for making my point.

If this was really about people's health, then there is NO WAY tobacco would still be legal as there are many studies that prove tobacco cause all kinds of illness.

It would certainly be for the good of the people's health to ban smoking. So, why don't we?

 

[a6m5]

It would certainly be for the good of the people's health to ban smoking. So, why don't we?

Isn't this same as the FoolKiller's argument? They are banning an ingredient, not the final product.

 

[FoolKiller]

They aren't banning fried foods.

no, just the oil we drop them in to be fried, hence what makes them unhealthy. A piece of raw potato isn't going to do a thing to your heart or cholesterol, but drop it into a vat of boiling trans fat and it comes out tasting ten times better but having a very adverse effect on your cardiovascular system, when consumed regularly.

The same goes for fried chicken. I can coat it with breading and bake it and it tastes pretty good and is somewhat healthy, but drop it in a vat of boiling trans fat and it tastes better and is somewhat unhealthy.

I used fried foods because it is the most common use of trans fats.

That is amazing. I'm sure it was a pretty hectic full-time job.

He sold the company long before it became as big as it is today. He sold it in 1964, and most stores were franchises, not being his stores. He acted as a spokesperson for a few years after that, doing store openings and advertisements.

 

[Swift]

Isn't this same as the FoolKiller's argument? They are banning an ingredient, not the final product.

Ok, so then why not ban all the extra stuff they put in tobacco to make it more addictive. Or make them remove the nicotine like the remove caffeine from coffee.

Oh, speaking of caffeine....

 

[a6m5]

Ok, so then why not ban all the extra stuff they put in tobacco to make it more addictive. Or make them remove the nicotine like the remove caffeine from coffee.

Oh, speaking of caffeine....

If there were healthier substitute for them, that's entirely possible.

Dog gone it! Sorry for the double post.

 

[Swift]

If there were healthier substitute for them, that's entirely possible.

You're so missing the point. It's very possible to NOT eat trans-fats just like it's possible to not smoke. But for the government to say, "You can't serve trans fats." has nothing to do with flavor of food or health for that matter. It has to do with public perception and money.

The public, as uninformed as it is, sees this and says, "That's good. They're trying to make restaurants more healthy." Not thinking that it's more control over what we can and can't do that has NOTHING to do with violating another person's rights.

Someone has to be getting ready to make a lot of money on this deal. I'm not sure how, but there are very few things that happen in politics that don't result in someone making lots of money.

You can't tell me they can't make a cigarette less addictive. But they're not going to, why? Because the government makes a FORTUNE on the taxes of cigarettes.

 

[FoolKiller]

That "ten times better" part is your personal opinion, right?

Ever eaten raw potato?

Seriously though, how much would this ban take away from the flavor? I honestly don't know. Is it as serious of a change as some of you suggest?

The flavor is the least of my concern, as chain restaurants are known by their taste and will find whatever best replicates their taste. The concern is government regulating where they don't belong. I was just explaining why I said what I did about fried foods. It is the trans fat, currently, that makes them what they are. So, asking if anyone isn't aware if a fried food is unhealthy is the same as asking if they don't know trans fats are unhealthy, even if they don't realize that is what they call it.

The point being, why ban something to help us make a better decision when its unhealthiness is common knowledge? Who's decision is that to make, mine or the government's?

Yeah, I figured it was like the deal with Dave from Wendy's. Touring, opening stores and meeting the fans(kind of) must've felt like a rock tour.

Oh, oh, trivia time.

Dave Thomas got his start by owning four Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises he purchased from Colonel Harlan Sanders. Later he sold them to open his own restaurant, which he eventually named after his second daughter, who was nicknamed Wendy.

Convenient that he had the same idea of doing his own advertising and later being a spokesperson after he sold it.

 

[a6m5]

You're so missing the point. It's very possible to NOT eat trans-fats just like it's possible to not smoke. But for the government to say, "You can't serve trans fats." has nothing to do with flavor of food or health for that matter. It has to do with public perception and money.

And I think you are. We have got to stop comparing smoking or caffeine to trans fat. Quiting coffee or smoking is not as same as quitting trans fat. If we were talking about banning fried chicken, then yes. And I'm not saying we have to ban trans fat. I just don't buy some of the arguments in this thread. Again, personally, I'd go for a trans fat warning sign in the customers' faces, rather than a ban.

The public, as uninformed as it is, sees this and says, "That's good. They're trying to make restaurants more healthy." Not thinking that it's more control over what we can and can't do that has NOTHING to do with violating another person's rights.

I am reading you, loud and clear. But as I've said before, if trans fat really is dangerous enough, and if there is a good alternative, what is the big deal? Come to think of it, this can go all the way to legalizing currently illegal drugs. If they are not hurting anybody else, why the ban?(don't do it, danoff. just don't )

Someone has to be getting ready to make a lot of money on this deal. I'm not sure how, but there are very few things that happen in politics that don't result in someone making lots of money.

I agree with you, but it's not like you have a proof of this. Also, that's how things have worked for a very long time. It is just the way things are.

Off topic, but I sometimes laugh that most people thinks that U.S. is after just oil, regarding Iraq. There must be billion ways the U.S. businesses are making money in Iraq.

You can't tell me they can't make a cigarette less addictive. But they're not going to, why? Because the government makes a FORTUNE on the taxes of cigarettes.

If what you say is true, I'd agree with you.

Ever eaten raw potato?

I was comparing deep fried potatoes, one cooked with trans fat, the other without.

The flavor is the least of my concern, as chain restaurants are known by their taste and will find whatever best replicates their taste. The concern is government regulating where they don't belong. I was just explaining why I said what I did about fried foods. It is the trans fat, currently, that makes them what they are. So, asking if anyone isn't aware if a fried food is unhealthy is the same as asking if they don't know trans fats are unhealthy, even if they don't realize that is what they call it.

The point being, why ban something to help us make a better decision when its unhealthiness is common knowledge? Who's decision is that to make, mine or the government's?

What you just said here actually makes me support the ban. As I demonstrated earlier of my love for Popeye's, I sure couldn't quit fried chicken. But with this ban in place, I don't have to. I still get to eat what I want, enjoy my fries(I eat a lot of those ). I can't go to local fast food joint and "yeah, no pickles, extra onions and hold the transfat!". Now I can minimize the trans fat intake without quiting fast food!

Oh, oh, trivia time.

Dave Thomas got his start by owning four Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises he purchased from Colonel Harlan Sanders. Later he sold them to open his own restaurant, which he eventually named after his second daughter, who was nicknamed Wendy.

Convenient that he had the same idea of doing his own advertising and later being a spokesperson after he sold it.

I forgot all about that. I do remember seeing the picture of them together, some where.

Edit: I'm going to go get lunch now. FK and Swift, you guys made me run quite a bit late.

 

[Danoff]

What you just said here actually makes me support the ban. As I demonstrated earlier of my love for Popeye's, I sure couldn't quit fried chicken. But with this ban in place, I don't have to. I still get to eat what I want, enjoy my fries(I eat a lot of those ). I can't go to local fast food joint and "yeah, no pickles, extra onions and hold the transfat!". Now I can minimize the trans fat intake without quiting fast food!

I love this argument. I can't be bothered to care enough about this issue to actually do something about it myself, but I care enough about it to strip every american rights.

Seems a little backward to me.