NYC Bans Trans Fats At Restaurants

[Swift]

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

Until of course, you start sucking up taxpayers dollars by going to emergency rooms.

But cocaine is not a remotely far comparison. Caffeine on the other hand is. They ADD caffeine to coke, food, and other products just because it makes it more addictive. There is not other reason to do it(look at all the caffeine free versions of similar products). So why not get rid of caffeine?

Again, the problem is NOT transfats, but the ideology behind the law.

 

[Danoff]

Until of course, you start sucking up taxpayers dollars by going to emergency rooms.

...and the easiest way to fix that minor problem is to ban the substance? That would be like banning deep fried turkeys because some people burn their houses down.

 

[Swift]

...and the easiest way to fix that minor problem is to ban the substance? That would be like banning deep fried turkeys because some people burn their houses down.

That wasn't my point at all. You were saying that it's your body so it's your business. That's fine until you start involving other people and other people's money. If you start using the emergency room for drug related illness, is it still just "your body" and you can do what you want? Even when you're taking other people's money for your healthcare? I know that's a subject for another thread, I just wanted to hit that point real quick.

 

[Danoff]

That wasn't my point at all. You were saying that it's your body so it's your business. That's fine until you start involving other people and other people's money. If you start using the emergency room for drug related illness, is it still just "your body" and you can do what you want? Even when you're taking other people's money for your healthcare? I know that's a subject for another thread, I just wanted to hit that point real quick.

My point about burning your house down is still valid. Afterall, tax money (often) used to send firetrucks to your home.

 

[Swift]

My point about burning your house down is still valid. Afterall, tax money (often) used to send firetrucks to your home.

right, but how many people burn down their homes with a deep fryer compared to people going to the ER for drug related illness? I'm quite sure there numbers are radically scewed. Also, keeping your house from burning down not only helps you but others in your neighborhood. Going to the ER for drugs only helps you and possibly you immediate family.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's fine until you start involving other people and other people's money. If you start using the emergency room for drug related illness, is it still just "your body" and you can do what you want? Even when you're taking other people's money for your healthcare? I know that's a subject for another thread, I just wanted to hit that point real quick.

I think it is moderately related, as the whole making people healthier saves hospital bills, and other people's money as well.

Which of course brings up the whole social medicine issue. With a growing trend towards socialized medicine why couldn't the government eventually start banning anything based on its effect on human health? Afterall it is their money being spent to treat the ill effects.

You can look at a trans-fat ban as something small and simple, but when you combine it with other trends you see a collision course where the government volunteers to take care of our healthcare needs, but we have to behave in healthy ways.


EDIT: I don't care what you all do with your crack, but could you please stop talking about banning turkey friers before cops confiscate my mom's and ruin my holidays?

Thank you.

 

[Swift]

EDIT: I don't care what you all do with your crack, but could you please stop talking about banning turkey friers before cops confiscate my mom's and ruin my holidays?

Thank you.

Heh heh, no problem and enjoy!

 

[Tornado]

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?

Because when the big issue comes up that actually matters it will be worth pursuing. Not when they decide to outlaw something that makes no difference other than one is more healthy than the other. Its not worth the trouble to fight against something that is helping you.

Sometimes, when you wait for the big issue the momentum is too much to stop.

That's a good point, but do you really think it will apply? I don't think it will ever come to people essentially giving up free will to follow the leader in such a ridiculous fashion.

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.

What are you talking about? It sounds like you are contradicting yourself, but I'm not sure.

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?

Because they can do so, and until something happens that actually matters there is no logical reason for them not to do so.

Some of the hostility towards this seems to be the lack of choice. Now, forgive me for being ignorant, but I've never been able to choose what fat was put into my food at an Italian restaurant (for example). The restaurant patron has never had the choice, and all this law does is take the choice away from the restaurant owner. So it really doesn't change John Q. Schmuck's rights at all. It only forces the restaurant owner to be more health conscientious.

 

[Swift]

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. ?

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.
Ciao!

Are trans-fats approved by the FDA, a government organization? Yes, so why do we need a law banning a legal food additive? If anything, they should try to get the FDA to get trans-fats off the approved list.

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 even remotely the same as the trans-fats issue. See my post a few above this one for a rebuttal to that.

BTW, sorry for the late reply.

 

[Danoff]

Because they can do so, and until something happens that actually matters there is no logical reason for them not to do so.

Aside from principle, sound government policy, and... I don't know.. maybe the entire concept of America. Nice argument BTW... "because they can". Brilliant, why didn't I think of that?

Some of the hostility towards this seems to be the lack of choice.

For restaurant owners and patrons alike. Normally as a consumer, you have the option to take your business elsewhere if you don't like something. If no restaurant is allowed to give you what you want, you can't exactly exert that purchasing power can you?

 

[Tornado]

Aside from principle, sound government policy, and... I don't know.. maybe the entire concept of America.

Actually, no. The entire concept of America is that if people care enough what their elected officials are doing, they attempt to do something about it. That's what democracy is. The only people who seem to care about this care about it based on principle and not on benefits. Its like going against something for spite instead of having an actual reason for it.

Nice argument BTW... "because they can". Brilliant, why didn't I think of that?

Give me a better one, then. They have to power. They use it. Doesn't seem to off the wall to me.

For restaurant owners and patrons alike. Normally as a consumer, you have the option to take your business elsewhere if you don't like something. If no restaurant is allowed to give you what you want, you can't exactly exert that purchasing power can you?

So, you find me 1 person not on this forum who both gives a damn about this law and can tell the difference when the food is cooked. Then I will buy that answer, because that answer tells me that the person can have a preference to the taste of one kind of fat used and would therefore shop somewhere else . If the person cannot tell the difference, the only reason they would eat somewhere else would be for health concerns, which doesn't apply in this case anyways.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, no. The entire concept of America is that if people care enough what their elected officials are doing, they attempt to do something about it. The only people who seem to care about this care about it based on principle and not on benefits. Its like going against something for spite instead of having an actual reason for it.

You, like most people, seem to be under the mistaken impression that America is a pure democracy, and that pure democracy is even a good thing. The whole point of a constitution and bill of rights is to ensure that these freedoms aren't infringed by the majority - even if it's what the majority wants (check my sig).

Give me a better one, then. They have [the] power. They use it. Doesn't seem to off the wall to me.

They don't have the power (legitimately), they never had the power. It violates the principles of government upon which Ameirca was founded.

So, you find me 1 person not on this forum who both gives a damn about this law and can tell the difference when the food is cooked. Then I will buy that answer, because that answer tells me that the person can have a preference to the taste of one kind of fat used and would therefore shop somewhere else . If the person cannot tell the difference, the only reason they would eat somewhere else would be for health concerns, which doesn't apply in this case anyways.

You're either unwilling or unable to see anything besides a practical argument (for which there pretty much isn't one in this case). Perhaps you're one of these people who think morality/justice/principle doesn't exist.

 

[Tornado]

You, like most people, seem to be under the mistaken impression that America is a pure democracy, and that pure democracy is even a good thing. The whole point of a constitution and bill of rights is to ensure that these freedoms aren't infringed by the majority - even if it's what the majority wants (check my sig).

Fair enough.

You're either unwilling or unable to see anything besides a practical argument (for which there pretty much isn't one in this case).

Being serious, how else am I supposed to look at it? In my opinion the health benefits are very real and not to be ignored just because there is a slim chance that it may be used in the future. It also doesn't seem logical to me to complain about something based on simple principle.

Perhaps you're one of these people who think morality/justice/principle doesn't exist.

Nonsense (though I doubt you meant anything by it).

They don't have the power (legitimately), they never had the power. It violates the principles of government upon which Ameirca was founded.

Could you explain that part? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.

 

[Flame-returns]

Wahoo, do I hear a job opportunity for Jamie Oliver across the pond? I think I do! Anything to stop him making another TV series in which he accuses parents who allow their children to go to McDonalds of child abuse…

No seriously this has got to stop, first the UK and then the USA. This unhealthy obsession with healthy eating must end. America is at risk of losing its fat people and if that happens the British will have to come up with thousands of new jokes to replace the obsolete ones.

Freedom is not an American thing; it is a basic human right. Like all human rights, men die to protect freedom only to have their struggle demeaned by people who like to find others to blame personal problems on.

 

[Zrow]

Being serious, how else am I supposed to look at it? In my opinion the health benefits are very real and not to be ignored just because there is a slim chance that it may be used in the future. It also doesn't seem logical to me to complain about something based on simple principle.

WHAT?! Blacks used to be enslaved and sold. It was practically great for the slaveowners because they got work for free. You're right, that's not worth arguing based on a simple principle.


YOUR argument could be used for ANYTHING that's bad for you. Your argument could be used on the governments new banning of Little Debbies.

 

[Danoff]

Freedom is not an American thing; it is a basic human right. Like all human rights, men die to protect freedom only to have their struggle demeaned by people who like to find others to blame personal problems on.

Freedom is an American thing, but we didn't invent it. But since this is happening in America, I get to moan about how it's unAmerican.

Could you explain that part? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.

Banning substances for heath purposes violates the concept of limited government and personal responsibility upon which the country was founded. I'm quite confident that if I wanted to put some time into it, I could find a way to argue that this ban was illegal and should be overturned by the supreme court. But I could do the same for other freedoms we don't have as well.

I can definitely tell you that the existence of the FDA is unconstitutional and should be stricken down by the supreme court. The same goes for all government created regulatory agencies. But the FDA doesn't seem to have a problem with selling trans-fats so I digress.

 

[Tornado]

WHAT?! Blacks used to be enslaved and sold. It was practically great for the slaveowners because they got work for free. You're right, that's not worth arguing based on a simple principle.

Thats about as crass as my cocaine example was. And the abolishonist movement wasn't based on simple principle. At all.

YOUR argument could be used for ANYTHING that's bad for you. Your argument could be used on the governments new banning of Little Debbies.

Your argument could be used as a barricade against anything a government does at all. Such as the very concept of law in itself (it limits my rights, therefore it is wrong).

Banning substances for heath purposes violates the concept of limited government and personal responsibility upon which the country was founded. I'm quite confident that if I wanted to put some time into it, I could find a way to argue that this ban was illegal and should be overturned by the supreme court. But I could do the same for other freedoms we don't have as well.

Okay. But would you really think it would be worth it?

I can definitely tell you that the existence of the FDA is unconstitutional and should be stricken down by the supreme court. The same goes for all government created regulatory agencies.

While I understand your reasoning behind that, I cannot agree with it. If the FDA wasn't around, what is to stop companies from reverting back to early 20th century levels of barbarism? Now, the banning the ability to purchase certain things I can disagree with somewhat, but completely getting rid of regulatory agencies allows free reign for companies to stop caring about safety, standards and health concerns. The power to choose which company you wanted to purchase from wouldn't matter, because they would all be corrupt and horrible in both the way they sold things and the content of the things they sold such as in The Jungle.

 

[Swift]

Actually, no. The entire concept of America is that if people care enough what their elected officials are doing, they attempt to do something about it. That's what democracy is. The only people who seem to care about this care about it based on principle and not on benefits. Its like going against something for spite instead of having an actual reason for it.

You, like most people, seem to be under the mistaken impression that America is a pure democracy, and that pure democracy is even a good thing. The whole point of a constitution and bill of rights is to ensure that these freedoms aren't infringed by the majority - even if it's what the majority wants (check my sig).

Just to add a little bit to what Danoff said here. We live in a democratic REPUBLIC. That is the form of government for America. If it was a pure democracy, the majority could vote the rights and/or privileges of the minority away with no problem. Our constitution prevents this. However, the system isn't perfect. That's why you MUST look at the foundation of a law, not just the results of a law.

Your argument could be used as a barricade against anything a government does at all. Such as the very concept of law in itself (it limits my rights, therefore it is wrong).

Incorrect. Laws should exists to maintain the individual rights of the citizens. So laws SHOULD exist against theft, assault, murder, rape, fraud, etc. But laws against a food additive because some "progressive" politicians think it will help people to be healthier is a clear over stepping of what our government is here to do.

 

[Danoff]

Your argument could be used as a barricade against anything a government does at all. Such as the very concept of law in itself (it limits my rights, therefore it is wrong).

Not if you define "rights" properly.

Okay. But would you really think it would be worth it?

Yup.

While I understand your reasoning behind that, I cannot agree with it. If the FDA wasn't around, what is to stop companies from reverting back to early 20th century levels of barbarism? Now, the banning the ability to purchase certain things I can disagree with somewhat, but completely getting rid of regulatory agencies allows free reign for companies to stop caring about safety, standards and health concerns. The power to choose which company you wanted to purchase from wouldn't matter, because they would all be corrupt and horrible in both the way they sold things and the content of the things they sold such as in The Jungle.

Once again, I wasn't making a practical argument. In this case I'm making a legal argument. Congress does not have the authority to delegate it's regulatory powers. This is because the people it delegates the powers to are not elected. The FDA makes law, essentially, but you don't elect the members of the FDA who make the law. That's why it violates the parameters of the constitution and should be stricken down by the supreme court.

But it isn't, because congress needs to have enough time to argue about Terri Schaivo. They can't be bothered to deal with the mundane details of their regulatory obligations.

...and eliminating the FDA would not necessarily eliminate regulation. It only eliminates your representative's delegation of their regulatory duties.

 

[Zrow]

It's not our job to say "why shouldn't this or that be a law?" The burden is on the state to give a justify thoroughly for why a law is in place.

The natural state of anything is legal. "Because it benefits a lot of people that don't want to be responsible for their own health" isn't justification to make something illegal.

 

[niky]

One question... what if my religion mandates the use of trans-saturated fats in cooking? Can I still use that in my restaurant.

I'm deadly serious... I'd like to see how that goes.

----

At anyone who considers the health benefits worth the risk... let me remind you... it's a percentage risk.

Changing over to trans-fats was already a statistical reduction in health-risk from what restuarants were previously using... changing down is merely a statistical reduction... again.

SO..... there is a very very VERY tiny statistical possibility of airplanes falling on my head... errh... should we ban them, too? I could be lactose-intolerant... should they ban all forms of natural milk products?

And I'm definitely diabetic... but do they force restaurants to stop serving refined sugar? Obviously not... why should they? Of course, the trans-fat lobby obviously isn't as powerful as the sugar lobbyists are... considering the sugar lobbyists once comissioned a study to "prove" that sugar was healthy.

And, as a by-the-bye, they haven't banned butter or pork, have they? Or the nodules of fat in pepperoni, either... So what the hell use is this law?

If they're so gung-ho about it... they should force restaurants to indicate whether they use it or not, and leave it at that. Fashion being what it is, the high-class restaurants will eventually stop using it, while the rest of us go on enjoying our fries.

 

[FoolKiller]

Because when the big issue comes up that actually matters it will be worth pursuing. Not when they decide to outlaw something that makes no difference other than one is more healthy than the other. Its not worth the trouble to fight against something that is helping you.

1) I am not so lazy that I can't help myself. 2) Limiting my rights in order to not have to choose a healthier alternative is not a fair trade.

That's a good point, but do you really think it will apply? I don't think it will ever come to people essentially giving up free will to follow the leader in such a ridiculous fashion.

It also seems ridiculous that peopel would follow leaders to commit genocide or other atrocities, but it happens. Generally, person is smart but when you put a lot of them together they act like automotons and make very stupid decisions.

What are you talking about? It sounds like you are contradicting yourself, but I'm not sure.

For some reason (I am blaming being at work) I left off teh tail end of my sentence. It should have said "If you get the 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 from being banned."

Some of the hostility towards this seems to be the lack of choice. Now, forgive me for being ignorant, but I've never been able to choose what fat was put into my food at an Italian restaurant (for example). The restaurant patron has never had the choice, and all this law does is take the choice away from the restaurant owner. So it really doesn't change John Q. Schmuck's rights at all. It only forces the restaurant owner to be more health conscientious.

There are health food restaurants and then youalways have teh choice of not eating at a restaurant at all. In fact, I challenge you to find me a dietician that will tell you eating out anywhere that doesn't specialize in tofu is a healthy choice.

I hope you weren't expecting me to think it was okay that the rights violated were the business owners and not my own. Rgeulating a private business in such a way does not make this any less problematic in my mind.

Actually, no. The entire concept of America is that if people care enough what their elected officials are doing, they attempt to do something about it. That's what democracy is. The only people who seem to care about this care about it based on principle and not on benefits. Its like going against something for spite instead of having an actual reason for it.

You sound as if it is a bad thing to have principles and stand by them. Yes, I am against this based on principles, because that is more important than having a healthy benefit regulated to me by law. If I don't have my principles I have nothing and would be a hollow shell of a human.

So, you find me 1 person not on this forum who both gives a damn about this law and can tell the difference when the food is cooked. Then I will buy that answer, because that answer tells me that the person can have a preference to the taste of one kind of fat used and would therefore shop somewhere else .

Come to the south. I can show you entire neighborhoods of people that can tell you what kind of butter was used or of it was margarine. They know lard from Crisco. I cook enough to tell you what replacements for butter can be used without risking the quality of your recipe. I know that the difference between salted and unsalted butter is enough to ruin the taste, and I know a low-fat, low-choletsterol butter will make your food extremely oily feeling. I know when it calls for butter that margarine won't cut it. I cook a lot so I know that when you change a recipe it requires careful selection of replacement products to maintain a recipe.

And the fact that many restaurant chains have been researching replacements for a year or more tells me that there is an issue.

If you want an exact quote of someone who cares: The exact quote from my mother when I sent her the story was, "America is starting to sound like Nazi Germany ... " That was copied and pasted directly from her email.

Freedom is not an American thing; it is a basic human right. Like all human rights, men die to protect freedom only to have their struggle demeaned by people who like to find others to blame personal problems on.

👍 I like the way you think.

Now, the banning the ability to purchase certain things I can disagree with somewhat, but completely getting rid of regulatory agencies allows free reign for companies to stop caring about safety, standards and health concerns. The power to choose which company you wanted to purchase from wouldn't matter, because they would all be corrupt and horrible in both the way they sold things and the content of the things they sold such as in The Jungle.

Because killing your customers is good business practice. You fear early 20th century medicine, but snake oil salesmen going from town to town never relied on repeat customers. The market is different today with conglomerates and corporations, as well as large competition. If Vioxx kills the patients then the patients go and buy Naproxen. Watch CNBC/Bloomberg and you will see that is exactly how that went down. Purposely disregarding the health of a customer in today's market is the quickest way to lose your business.

Now, in the case of food preperation the restaurants aren't doing anything different than you do at home, so it isn't a disregard for your health so much as it is giving the customer exactly what they like.

One question... what if my religion mandates the use of trans-saturated fats in cooking? Can I still use that in my restaurant.

I'm deadly serious... I'd like to see how that goes.

I'm sure violating your religious freedoms in the name of health doesn't matter to them either.

And, as a by-the-bye, they haven't banned butter or pork, have they? Or the nodules of fat in pepperoni, either... So what the hell use is this law?

Red meat in general has a ton of trans-fat in it naturally. This is why the ban makes a stipulation for the original content of an ingredient, so that these things won't be eliminated.

If they're so gung-ho about it... they should force restaurants to indicate whether they use it or not, and leave it at that. Fashion being what it is, the high-class restaurants will eventually stop using it, while the rest of us go on enjoying our fries.

Well, many restaurants were already doing this, or searching for an alternative. The market demand was already moving this way, but the government wanted to take claim for it themselves. The truth is that the free market was working and the change was taking place on its own, but the government wanted to claim responsibility and jumped in where they don't belong.

 

[niky]

As an aside, I like the way your mother thinks...

I personally try to eat healthy, but when I eat fast foods, I'm not blaming poor nutrition on them... hell, if I didn't want cholesterol, I'd be buying the salad (no dressing please) for Christ's Sake!

I'm sure violating your religious freedoms in the name of health doesn't matter to them either.

But they're not keen enough to ban knives at school because of those same religious freedoms... hmmm... there's a loophole there...

Red meat in general has a ton of trans-fat in it naturally. This is why the ban makes a stipulation for the original content of an ingredient, so that these things won't be eliminated.

This is exactly what I was waiting to hear. And if it's been mentioned earlier in the thread (sorry, I've been out), it's still worth repeating. This is a bull**** law... period. It's like banning brown sugar for not being as healthy as natural fructose, but still letting people eat white sugar. (oh, it's not an equal analogy, but it's relatively the same)

Well, many restaurants were already doing this, or searching for an alternative. The market demand was already moving this way, but the government wanted to take claim for it themselves. The truth is that the free market was working and the change was taking place on its own, but the government wanted to claim responsibility and jumped in where they don't belong.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is exactly what I was waiting to hear. And if it's been mentioned earlier in the thread (sorry, I've been out), it's still worth repeating. This is a bull**** law... period. It's like banning brown sugar for not being as healthy as natural fructose, but still letting people eat white sugar. (oh, it's not an equal analogy, but it's relatively the same)

Honestly though, if they didn't allow this stipulation could you imagine Waffle House without the bacon or Arby's customers actually saying "Where's the beef?"


As an aside: Once I tried natural sugar I never used brown sugar again, except in cookies. I can't figure out why someone decided to mix molasses with refined white sugar to create a taste that we essentially already had. It is so much nicer to be able to put it in my oatmeal without having to spoon into the sticky brown sugar bag.

 

[FoolKiller]

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.

<snip>

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.

Being serious, how else am I supposed to look at it? In my opinion the health benefits are very real and not to be ignored just because there is a slim chance that it may be used in the future. It also doesn't seem logical to me to complain about something based on simple principle.

Maybe they will ban certain foods and maybe I won't be able to enjoy the same foods as before.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/27/prince.charles.mcdonalds.ap/
Prince Charles makes the suggestion of banning McDonald's.

I am not attacking Prince Charles directly, because I'll give him credit that it may have been off-the-cuff, or even referring just to the diabetic children in question, and I know he can't actually force any kind of policy change, but the idea is out there now and it is only a matter of time before some official somewhere thinks it is a good idea, and it wouldn't stop with Big Macs. Why would we ban McDonald's? Because it might save lives, the same reasoning used in a trans-fat ban, cigarette ban, and to force mandatory vaccines for non airborne viruses. Every time something small like this comes along I, along with a few other regulars, ramble on and on about setting precedents and slippery slopes and we get the, "this is so small and it saves lives," argument.

Well, what say ye to the idea of banning a specific food from a specific restaraunt chain in the name of saving lives? I am, of course, saying all of this as I eat a Sausage McMuffin with Cheese.

And if you prepare to talk about how it would save lives, think about how many minimum wage (or slightly above) jobs would be lost. What would teenagers, students, immigrants, people trying to recover from circumstance, and lazy people do for money? And realize that McDonald's is just the spokesperson for fast food as a whole. Millions and millions of employees would be jobless.

 

[ledhed]

Philadelphia has jumped on the band wagon....well some did but the rest needed to use a stool because they were to fat to jump .

 

[niky]

I saw that Prince Charles article the other day. Man, Big Brother is coming... about twenty years too late, but he is coming... ugh!

 

[a6m5]

I don't remember exactly what I blabbered in this thread before (), but I think that I did make clear that I was not supporting, and I would not support banning "fried chicken" or other specific types of food.

I would suspect that only supporters for such ban would be the same people who blame McDonalds for obesity.

 

[Swift]

I don't remember exactly what I blabbered in this thread before (), but I think that I did make clear that I was not supporting, and I would not support banning "fried chicken" or other specific types of food.

I would suspect that only supporters for such ban would be the same people who blame McDonalds for obesity.

Well here's the thing. There are people that are genetically predisposed to have heart problems NO MATTER what they eat. And there's others that can eat bacon, McDonalds's and pizza everyday and never skip a beat(literally). Who is the government to say we can't take that risk?

 

[a6m5]

Well here's the thing. There are people that are genetically predisposed to have heart problems NO MATTER what they eat. And there's others that can eat bacon, McDonalds's and pizza everyday and never skip a beat(literally). Who is the government to say we can't take that risk?

Are we going back to trans fat? Because I've already stated my argument to you guys. And if we are not, then as I've stated in my post above, I'm not the one who is hoping that government ban bacon, McDonalds and pizza.