NYC Bans Trans Fats At Restaurants

[Swift]

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.

You're still missing my point. Actually, I don't think you are. You trying to make a point of this is not a big deal. Well, it's not a big deal. Until they use this same reasoning to outlaw an entire type of food.

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 )

If a restaraunt does it on it's own accord, fine. But why should the government have to tell it what to serve when it's on the FDA approved list? It's already met the government's standards.

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.

I'll do some research, it shouldn't be to hard to find out.

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

We can put a man on the moon, look at an atom but we can't make tobacco less addicting, come on.

 

[Danoff]

We can put a man on the moon, look at an atom but we can't make tobacco less addicting, come on.

The man on the moon thing wasn't actually all that difficult. Getting off the Earth is the hardest part.

 

[FoolKiller]

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 )

Perhaps you should research the Libertarian views on drugs. You just opened a door for Danoff.

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.

That doe not mean they are right.

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

Well, I honestly don't like Wendy's fries and they don't use trans-fats (I get chili instead), but I think that has to do with the thick way they are cut.

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!

So it is okay to limit the freedom of restaurant owners as long as it makes your life a littel bit easier? You know that food that uses trans fats (chips, chicken, fries, etc) are unhealthy foods, so why eat them if you want to be healthy?

Do you honestly think we will find a way to deep fry them in an oil that doesn't raise cholesterol or have some other adverse side effect long term? The last time they tried that it wasn't a good result. No one wants to read this on their bag of chips:

This Product Contains Olestra. Olestra may cause abdominal cramping and loose stools. Olestra inhibits the absorption of some vitamins and other nutrients. Vitamins A, D, E, and K have been added.[1]

WOW chips are hard to find nowadays and I am guessing that had something to do with it.

And don't forget that Trans-fats were the healthy alternative. Now we are going to jump to something else that also isn't good.

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

Did you request they make your fries in Olestra?


I really have one simple request: Quit screwing with my food, medicines, and vices and let me make my own decisions like a big boy. Don't make it healthier, tastier, or anything because I will decide what I want/like and my decisions will help to move the market forward.

 

[Danoff]

I really have one simple request: Quit screwing with my food, medicines, and vices and let me make my own decisions like a big boy. Don't make it healthier, tastier, or anything because I will decide what I want/like and my decisions will help to move the market forward.

Keep dreaming. What country do you think you're in? America?

 

[Zrow]

Hey, just remember what Patrick Henry said:

"Give me absolute safety and protection from anything that may be remotely harmful to my health or life, or give me death."

 

[a6m5]

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.

I guess. It is selfish of me, that's for sure. Stripping the Americans rights to use trans fat in restaurants is not a big issue to me, that I admit. Just remember that I wouldn't personally put this ban in play, though I do selfishly appreciate it.

You're still missing my point. Actually, I don't think you are. You trying to make a point of this is not a big deal. Well, it's not a big deal. Until they use this same reasoning to outlaw an entire type of food.

Swift. I don't know how many more times we can argue on this point. As I keep on stating, banning trans fat is not same as banning types of food, unless there is a dish that can not be made without using trans fat. Let's drop this argument as we are just looping.

If a restaraunt does it on it's own accord, fine. But why should the government have to tell it what to serve when it's on the FDA approved list? It's already met the government's standards.

I agree.

I'll do some research, it shouldn't be to hard to find out.

Okay.

We can put a man on the moon, look at an atom but we can't make tobacco less addicting, come on.

Can't say, Swift. This is pretty much FamineZone.

Perhaps you should research the Libertarian views on drugs. You just opened a door for Danoff.

danoff and I don't see eye to eye on that issue, we've been there before.

That doe not mean they are right.

I agree, but this will not change. It's the way it's been before this country was born, and it will be that way when this country is gone.

Well, I honestly don't like Wendy's fries and they don't use trans-fats (I get chili instead), but I think that has to do with the thick way they are cut.

If I'm sure about anything in this thread, it's about the Wendy's fries. You have not experienced the wonder of Wendy's fries until you learn to enjoy them with those chilis. Everybody knows that.

So it is okay to limit the freedom of restaurant owners as long as it makes your life a littel bit easier? You know that food that uses trans fats (chips, chicken, fries, etc) are unhealthy foods, so why eat them if you want to be healthy?

Do you honestly think we will find a way to deep fry them in an oil that doesn't raise cholesterol or have some other adverse side effect long term? The last time they tried that it wasn't a good result. No one wants to read this on their bag of chips:

And this is the same argument as the one that Swift keeps bringing up about banning types of food. IMO, it has nothing to do with banning fried chicken or fries. They will replace trans fat with other kind of fat. You will eat same food as before, it will be cooked with different oil/fat. As for the side effects of alternative oil, I can't say for sure how negative they will be. Less than trans fats', I hope.

And don't forget that Trans-fats were the healthy alternative. Now we are going to jump to something else that also isn't good.

Isn't that how our science and technology work in just about everything? We find something better, but sometimes we are wrong. I think that all we can do in these kind of situation(nothing to do with ban of trans fats) is to go with the best option that is known to us, and is proven to be safe at the time.

Did you request they make your fries in Olestra?

I went with the Japanese/Chinese Deli food today. It's getting cold, thanks to you guys.

I really have one simple request: Quit screwing with my food, medicines, and vices and let me make my own decisions like a big boy. Don't make it healthier, tastier, or anything because I will decide what I want/like and my decisions will help to move the market forward.

And I respect your position, I really do. Like I said, personally and very selfishly, I think cutting trans fat from fast food is great for me. But if I was in the position to put something like this in place, would I pull the trigger? No.

 

[ledhed]

IDIOTS

 

[FoolKiller]

Keep dreaming. What country do you think you're in? America?

Once upon a time, I thought so.

If I'm sure about anything in this thread, it's about the Wendy's fries. You have not experienced the wonder of Wendy's fries until you learn to enjoy them with those chilis. Everybody knows that.

My wife dips them in her frosty.

Since they let me chose something else for a side I get chili or a salad. As you can see, a trans-fat ban would not affect me, but I am opposed based on moral and ideological grounds.

And this is the same argument as the one that Swift keeps bringing up about banning types of food. IMO, it has nothing to do with banning fried chicken or fries. They will replace trans fat with other kind of fat. You will eat same food as before, it will be cooked with different oil/fat. As for the side effects of alternative oil, I can't say for sure how negative they will be. Less than trans fats', I hope.

Isn't that how our science and technology work in just about everything? We find something better, but sometimes we are wrong. I think that all we can do in these kind of situation(nothing to do with ban of trans fats) is to go with the best option that is known to us, and is proven to be safe at the time.

My main issue was ideological, but I was just trying to counter the reasoning behind the ban on its own level - it won't work. But as I said above, that isn't my concern, the ideology is.

I went with the Japanese/Chinese Deli food today. It's getting cold, thanks to you guys.

Yeah, when I see one of these debates starting on GTP I grab a cold sandwhich from the local grocery store deli section because I realize a hot meal will be interrupted too many times to be enjoyed.

And I respect your position, I really do. Like I said, personally and very selfishly, I think cutting trans fat from fast food is great for me. But if I was in the position to put something like this in place, would I pull the trigger? No.

Honstly, I don't know whether it would be more disturbing to see someone that just doesn't understand and respect my position (like my brother) or someone who does, but they admittedly don't care or are too selfish (like yourself).

 

[a6m5]

Honstly, I don't know whether it would be more disturbing to see someone that just doesn't understand and respect my position (like my brother) or someone who does, but they admittedly don't care or are too selfish (like yourself).

danoff feels the same way about me as well. I'm shoving my views or moral standard on everybody else. And while I admit I am, this goes back to my disagreement I have with danoff in prostitution, or drugs thread. You guys believe that since this is a free country, you should have the total freedom to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't harm other people. Again, I do understand your views, I respect your views, but I still say no to drugs and prostitution.......... for now. I'm not a very religious person either, so it's not like I'm trying to push some religious guidelines on other people. I just believe that sometimes, line has to be drawn somewhere. Some common sense. Yes, that would be very selfish, I know, I know.

And the final note on trans fat ban, I do think that they could have handled it differently. I did suggest earlier that they should have went with signs or warnings to give the heads up to the consumers, instead of putting a total ban in place. I still think that is the way to go.

P.S. My brother dips fries in the frosty, also. Weirdo.

 

[Danoff]

P.S. My brother dips fries in the frosty, also. Weirdo.

You should try it... that's good stuff right there.

 

[a6m5]

You should try it... that's good stuff right there.

Never. Weirdo.

 

[Danoff]

I thought it was weird too, till I tried it.

 

[FoolKiller]

You should try it... that's good stuff right there.

Sorry, but cold and fries just don't mix.

I'm so anal about cold fries that I eat all my fries before touching my burger so that none of them get cold.

 

[DuckRacer]

You should try it... that's good stuff right there.

Really?

*races off to Wendy's*

 

[a6m5]

I tried it. It wasn't as bad as I thought. I still prefer ketchup though.

 

[TopHat]

Sorry, but cold and fries just don't mix.

I'm so anal about cold fries that I eat all my fries before touching my burger so that none of them get cold.

[beevis]Hehe. You said ANAL!!! [/beevis]

I like putting my fries in the frosty too.

 

[Evolution.]

Banning trans fat..

How do they plan to enforce this effectively?

 

[OZZYGT]

Did you read the article, the whole thread AND search further on the issue?





Ciao!

 

[Omnis]

Have you guys ever seen trans fat in person? 'Tis pretty nasty-ola.

 

[FoolKiller]

Banning trans fat..

How do they plan to enforce this effectively?

I'm sure it will fall in with regular health inspections.

Have you guys ever seen trans fat in person? 'Tis pretty nasty-ola.

I have worked my fair share of burger flipping, pizza making, sub creating, popcorn popping jobs when I was younger. In the form you use for cooking it doesn't appear any different than any other form of oil or fat.

Are you sure you haven't seen the used product? That can become pretty nasty after it has somewhat cooked out other oils from the foods. For example, fresh deep frying oil pours out, looking like every other cooking oil, but after a couple of days of french fries, chicken patties, fish filets, cheese sticks, poppers, and whatever else it congeals like bacon grease when it gets cold.

My all time favorite has to be "butter-flavored popcorn topping" from my movie theater days. That shocked me because I thought it was still butter. It is basically an oily grease with butter flavor to it. I always skimmed from the butter salt we added during the popping process. Much better tasting and not so oily.

Junk Science addressed the issue this week.

It takes a while to sort through the article because he appears to foolishly attack the science used by New York City, but after a while het gets to the point: based on the studies of other foods by the same scientists and the argumenst for public health used New York should also ban certain vegetables, sunflower oil in Indian foods, red meat, and soft drinks (diet or regular). Based on these studies and arguments they should also mandate drinking caffeinated coffee and eating pizza as they may reduce diabetes and prostate cancer, respectively.

The point is that this was a knee-jerk reaction to a single product that has recently become politically correct to not want or like, thus making it a topic to safely attack from a political viewpoint.

Looking at all the other unhealthy common food products/ingredients one wonders when they will be banned as well. Because now that tobacco and trans fats are being banned, what is next for politicians to use to show they truly "care" about us and our health?

 

[Tornado]

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.

I have to say this, and this felt like the best time to do so: When something comes up that violates your freedoms in a meaningful way, then complain and try to get it repealed. Yes, this takes away a freedom of choice. So does making narcotics illegal. So does government at its core. Whats your point? I see no reason to go up in arms over it. Ever read The Jungle? I'm rather glad the government regulates the way food is produced.
If politicians start using this as precedent to ban other things, if they ban something that truly effects a good enough portion of something (like, say, alcohol as a historical example), then rally against the move to do so. But for something as insignificant as this, why bother?

 

[OZZYGT]

Completely agreed, I just can't believe that this law, which might end up helping you, is being attacked by people who are completely paranoid about freedom. This is just ridiculous, people are angry because McDonald's is unhealthy food, now people will still be angry because we're trying to make a change for the better.

You have to look at what is being banned before you start bitching about freedom. And if trans-fats are part of you dairy life and you just can't live without them, you will find other ways of eating disorderly, trust me on that one.

Like Toronado said, I'd understand if they banned, let's say, cigarettes for example, but this?

Boy, where are we getting to.






Ciao!

 

[Zrow]

I know I'm not angry about McDonalds food.

You have to look at WHY something is being banned, not WHAT. I could care less about trans fats. I care a lot of about banning something because its bad for you.

It's a simple question. Why shouldn't I be able to sell somebody trans fats, and why shouldn't they be able to buy it if they really want to?

 

[Tornado]

Answer me this: why shouldn't I be able to sell somebody trans fats, and why shouldn't they be able to buy it? Serious question.

Answer me this: Why shouldn't I be able to sell somebody crack cocaine, and why shouldn't they be able to buy it? Serious question.

 

[Zrow]

Answer me this: Why shouldn't I be able to sell somebody crack cocaine, and why shouldn't they be able to buy it? Serious question.

I suppose because of the potential harm you may commit when you're high. There are a lot of good arguments for the legalization of all drugs; most libertarians are for it, I'm not so sure.

But anyway, I think you're reaching here. Trans fat isn't addictive or a mind altering substance. It's just bad for you, and it's not the government's job to ban something that's bad for me.

 

[Tornado]

But anyway, I think you're reaching here. Trans fat isn't addictive or a mind altering substance.

Nor does it make any difference whatsoever if it is banned.

It's just bad for you, and it's not the government's job to ban something that's bad for me.

So, when they ban something that matters you can fight it then. Yeah, its all well and good that its taking away freedoms and whatnot. However, if they want to use this as precedent and enough people step up against it they won't be able to use it as precedent.
Blocking this just because of the fight able possibility that it can be used in the future despite the health benefits is stupid and ignoring the fact that it is beneficial to people. Go right ahead and fight it if they ban something that is addictive (and if you say cigarettes I have legal permission to slap you, because that is an inane conclusion) or not actually harmful. But stop complaining if the government actually does something that helps you.

 

[Zrow]

Nor does it make any difference whatsoever if it is banned.

Forget about what physical, literal difference this makes. We're talking about the principle of government banning something on the grounds that it's bad for you. That is what's bad here.

But stop complaining if the government actually does something that helps you.

I don't want to be "helped" like this. What if I like consuming trans fats more than I like staying healthy? You're not helping me at all in that case.

 

[OZZYGT]

I don't want to be "helped" like this. What if I like consuming trans fats more than I like staying healthy? You're not helping me at all in that case.

But the lack of trans fats in your body intake will not solve your unhealthy eating disorder problems, you know that right?

You are protesting because you cannot do what you want with your body, and I believe that's the lack of freedom that you refer to. But this is not new at all buddy. Forget the crack or cocaine, because yeah, you might end up hurting somebody...(although we all know that the majority of deaths as a result of somebody consuming drugs happen to the drug user itself overdosing with it).

Anyway, take suicidal for instance; it's your body right? but it's a crime to against your body and that's why it's illegal. If you get caught...you go to jail 💡. Isn't that taking away the right of doing whatever you want to your body also?





Ciao!

 

[FoolKiller]

So, when they ban something that matters you can fight it then. Yeah, its all well and good that its taking away freedoms and whatnot. However, if they want to use this as precedent and enough people step up against it they won't be able to use it as precedent.

What is wrong with standing up and arguing against this and sending teh message that I won't tolerate any unnecessary infringements on my freedoms? Why wait for the big issue? Sometimes, when you wait for the big issue the momentum is too much to stop. How many times do we get people to start sounding like automotons saying, "It's good for my health, so it is fine with me," before they say that too many times? If you get teh public mindset going that it is fine because it is healthy then they won't stop something like red meat, or caffeine, or cigarettes, or alcohol, etc.

Blocking this just because of the fight able possibility that it can be used in the future despite the health benefits is stupid and ignoring the fact that it is beneficial to people. Go right ahead and fight it if they ban something that is addictive (and if you say cigarettes I have legal permission to slap you, because that is an inane conclusion) or not actually harmful. But stop complaining if the government actually does something that helps you.

Since when did the government have the right to force their help upon me in this way?

Infracstructure, security, and protecting me from foreign threats is all good, but why do they feel the need to protect me from myself?


EDIT:

Anyway, take suicidal for instance; it's your body right? but it's a crime to against your body and that's why it's illegal. If you get caught...you go to jail . Isn't that taking away the right of doing whatever you want to your body also?

Well, you actually go to a psych ward to try and help you with your problems and there is a big argument for allowing suicide.

 

[Danoff]

Answer me this: Why shouldn't I be able to sell somebody crack cocaine, and why shouldn't they be able to buy it? Serious question.

Not that there aren't about a million distinguishing factors between crack and trans-fat, the answer to the question is that they should. I see no reason why drugs should be illegal.

And the FDA (in its infinite wisdom) has approved many many physically addictive AND mind altering drugs for use.

Here's the biggie though, it's my body. If I want to put something in it, that's my business.