NYC tries to ban trans fat

[ecoli]

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-lifat0927,0,1399300.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

 

 

The department of health is hoping to ban trans fats from New York city resturants by 2008. Obviously this has a lot of ethical and political effects.

 

Should we be allowed to tell resturants what they can put their foods. Obviously we do this already to a certain extent, but do we have a right to now?

 

Also, how will effect prices at resturants such as McDonalds (of which New York hosts hundreds of) and should people have to pay more money because of what the government tells them

is healthy?

[swansont]

I guess the question becomes how many people does something have to kill, and over what time scale, before the government regulates its use? Certainly adding e.g. arsenic is regulated, and I think there would not be much argument that it's justified.

 

I wonder if the counter-argument that seems to justify more and more government involvement (or lack thereof) — that doing this would cost industry too much — will be the reason it gets struck down.

[ParanoiA]

So the blatant trampling of personal freedom doesn't have any weight in this argument?

 

If we're going to disregard personal freedom to this extent, then I see no reason NOT to outlaw trans fat, sugar, grease, all cooking oils and etc. All meat should be regulated to 100% lean and over-cooking should be outlawed as this creates carcinogens. Frying apparatus can go straight to the museum since it's absolutely horrible for you. The only thing to be sold at grocery stores should be healthy food only. Fruits, vegetables, sugar-free and fat-free only products. White processed flour should also be outlawed. Only whole-wheat flour allowed for all products containing flour.

 

And I haven't even started on sodium yet.

 

How can you justify outlawing trans fat in restaraunts and not justify going all the way with it like this?

 

This is America. Once upon a time we chose freedom. Once upon a time we understood that part of the price of freedom was allowing people to do stupid things with their freedom. That kept them from infringing on your freedom claiming you were doing stupid things with it.

 

The march of the elitist pigs continues....

[Phi for All]

How can you justify outlawing trans fat in restaraunts and not justify going all the way with it like this?

Because partially hydrogenated fats are an artificial additive to normal food to increase it's shelf life. When other artificial means of enhancing food have been found to be unhealthy we've had no problem justifying their removal.

 

I don't see this as trampling our freedoms. I see this as identifying the deleterious effects of an experiment and taking steps to correct it. Freshness will have to be addressed in a way that doesn't cause so many problems. It's not right that manufacturers get to save money on distribution at the cost of our health. If the trans fats can't be made healthier then they should be removed.

[ParanoiA]

It's not right that manufacturers get to save money on distribution at the cost of our health.

 

So don't buy it. It's not right that you get to force manufacturers not to save money on distribution at the cost of my money. I don't care about trans fat. I like trans fats. I didn't buy a bag of Oreo Cookies concerned about my health. I don't want them to turn into oil and flour slop in my cabinet.

 

Why do you get to eliminate something from the market just because you don't like it? What about the rest of us?

[ecoli]

So don't buy it. It's not right that you get to force manufacturers not to save money on distribution at the cost of my money. I don't care about trans fat. I like trans fats. I didn't buy a bag of Oreo Cookies concerned about my health. I don't want them to turn into oil and flour slop in my cabinet.

 

Why do you get to eliminate something from the market just because you don't like it? What about the rest of us?

 

 

Keep in mind that the ban doesn't apply to supermarket goods, but to resturants. You can still eat trans fats in the home, but don't expect to find them in resturants (if this goes through).

[ParanoiA]

Keep in mind that the ban doesn't apply to supermarket goods, but to resturants. You can still eat trans fats in the home, but don't expect to find them in resturants (if this goes through).

 

I realize that. But, my point was, how could you possibly justify doing this to restaraunts and NOT extending it to all food outlets of any kind?

 

I mean, if we're going to toss personal freedom out of the window because something "isn't good for you", then why stop at restaraunts? Why not just be honest about how far we really want to regulate everyone's lifestyle?

[gcol]

I am no food technologist, or even a passable cook, so I may have this wrong but:

 

If trans-fatty wotsits are added to food to prolong shelflife, and a restaurant makes its own food from scratch, why would it need it?

 

Perhaps only food outlets that buy in bulk and just reheat to order will be affected. I think I am making a distinction between real restaurnts and fst junk food purveyors

[Sisyphus]

It's also important to remember that restaurants, unlike food you might buy at the market, have no listed ingredients or nutritional information. So the "just don't buy it then" argument is not really valid.

 

I mean, let's face it. If they were using mercury to preserve food and then selling it to people, we'd make them stop, wouldn't we? But we would never outlaw naturally sugary food. This falls in between somewhere, and the debate should be about exactly where, instead of just either kneejerk "freedom freedom freedom aaaarrrh" arguments or kneejerk "it's bad for you so we won't let you have it" arguments. They're both very, very unproductive.

[ParanoiA]

It's also important to remember that restaurants, unlike food you might buy at the market, have no listed ingredients or nutritional information. So the "just don't buy it then" argument is not really valid.

 

I actually meant to make that argument. I would expect that to be the "law" being pushed. Not banning trans fats from restaraunts, but rather forcing restaraunts, and any other kind of food vendor, to display their ingredients either upon demand or posted in some way.

 

That would not infringe on anyone's rights. Then John Q public can pursuade restaraunts to serve what we like using our superior consumer power that none of us seem to be aware that we possess.

 

And I'm sorry Sisyphus, you know me by now, there is no argument "it's bad for you so we won't let you have it" that I would ever accept. It doesn't matter how bad something is for anybody, you don't have any right to stop someone from doing it - unless of course it harms the person or property of another - in my humble opinion.

 

Your idea of "bad for you" and my idea of "bad for you" are never going to line up, so how about we quit regulating everyone else and just worry about ourselves?

[Sisyphus]

That's why I said that argument was unproductive. And I do happen to agree that forcing restaurants to have nutritional information would probably be a better solution, although it might be impractical and would definitely mean more bureaucracy.

 

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that we shouldn't think in absolutes. Sometimes taking things to extremes helps put them in perspective. It would be difficult to justify allowing cyanide cookies on supermarket shelves, wouldn't it? And it would similarly be difficult to justify banning certain colors of fruit on feng shui criteria. So draw the line where you want, but let it be a line, since absolutes tend to destroy themselves in absurdity.

[swansont]

Keep in mind that the ban doesn't apply to supermarket goods, but to resturants. You can still eat trans fats in the home, but don't expect to find them in resturants (if this goes through).

 

And would guess that that would be (in part, at least) because NYC doesn't have the power/right to limit interstate and intrastate commerce.

 

As far as rights go, Phi has a point in that these are artificial, and while I support ParanoiA's right to do stupid things, one has to actually know that an action is stupid and choose to do it anyway. Ignorance is another matter. The food industry shouldn't get a free pass just because the consumers are ill-informed as to the long-term danger of the products.

[Phi for All]

It doesn't matter how bad something is for anybody, you don't have any right to stop someone from doing it - unless of course it harms the person or property of another - in my humble opinion.

Why am *I* paying higher medical insurance premiums because *you* want to ingest an artificial substance that has been proven to ruin your health? Until I start getting the "non-trans fat users discount" I think you are harming me with your selfish ignorance and insistence on your right to be stupid (absolutely no ad hom intended ).

 

I agree with Sisyphus though. Requiring restaurants to list nutritional information is a better solution. I can see both sides of this argument and this seems to be the most logical next step.

[ParanoiA]

Why am *I* paying higher medical insurance premiums because *you* want to ingest an artificial substance that has been proven to ruin your health?

 

You are paying higher medical insurance because the insurance company chooses to charge you that way. There is no law that says they have to do business by dividing the total costs up evenly amongst the subscribers. That's their business plan. There also is no law that says you have to have medical insurance.

[YT2095]

if I go to a resteraunt, I may order a dish and enquire if it contains nuts or seeds or maybe even shellfish, they would not take offence to this questioning as it`s a proven Alergen to some people (sometimes fatal).

I can (and DO) go to MacDonalds and ask for a bigmak Without sesame seed, they will make one for me

 

now Surely having an ingredients list per item (maybe on the wall as a poster or on the back of the menu), is only a simple step

 

this way you MAY take it or leave it with Knowledge

[Sisyphus]

Sure, it would be quite easy for restaurants to provide an ingredients list. General nutritional information, however, would probably be quite hard, since, with the exception of chain restaurants, dishes aren't standardized, and constantly changing. This would also be extremely difficult to enforce.

 

That said, it's probably the best solution.

[ParanoiA]

I like the idea of requiring a list of ingredients. I've always wondered why they don't require that. I agree with Phi for All, in that "ignorance" is not a fair choice.

[Phi for All]

You are paying higher medical insurance because the insurance company chooses to charge you that way. There is no law that says they have to do business by dividing the total costs up evenly amongst the subscribers. That's their business plan. There also is no law that says you have to have medical insurance.

I was responding to your caveat - "... unless of course it harms the person or property of another" - and in this case you are harming me. Saying it's the insurance company's fault is like arguing that it's OK for you to play loud music at 2AM because I don't *have* to sleep at that time, or that it's my boss's fault for insisting that I come to work on time instead of sleeping in because my you kept me up. Noise ordinances are there to make sure your rights don't infringe upon mine and that's the way I see this "no trans fat" ban.

 

You are arguing for the right to keep a harmful, unnecessary chemical in our foods just because we used to be allowed to eat it. And not having insurance brings up the point that non-insured trans fat lovers raise my taxes - which is not an option. I don't get to tell the IRS I'm not paying for you if you're going to risk your health.

[ParanoiA]

I was responding to your caveat - "... unless of course it harms the person or property of another" - and in this case you are harming me. Saying it's the insurance company's fault is like arguing that it's OK for you to play loud music at 2AM because I don't *have* to sleep at that time, or that it's my boss's fault for insisting that I come to work on time instead of sleeping in because my you kept me up. Noise ordinances are there to make sure your rights don't infringe upon mine and that's the way I see this "no trans fat" ban.

 

I know you were trying to respond to my cavaet "... unless of course it harms the person or property of another" and I was trying to respond to it by stating how it's not really a good one, because there's a distinction between direct and indirect harm. I know you want to tie this together by saying my unhealthy lifestyle drives your insurance premiums up, so you can refute my logic but it's the fact that I don't control how the insurance company chooses to charge you that breaks that down - it's not an automatic cause and effect.

 

It's an attitude difference. I don't think noise ordinances are fair either. I do agree that you don't have to sleep at that time. You can sleep after work, from 5 to midnight, then stay up til 7 and go to work if you want. It's none of my business. Why should the majority dictate the behavior of the minority - as in sleep time, play time and etc? That's getting a bit bold don't you think?

 

I don't believe you have a right to quiet. You have a right to pursue quietness. You can spend 500 bucks a window for soundproofing if it means that much to you. But no, I don't see why anyone should have to alter their behavior for the conveniences of the majority. Just because you work during the day and choose to sleep late night doesn't give you the right to tell me I can't mow my lawn at 3:00 AM. Or jam on my music after a long night's work, since not all of us have a cushy day job.

 

 

You are arguing for the right to keep a harmful, unnecessary chemical in our foods just because we used to be allowed to eat it. And not having insurance brings up the point that non-insured trans fat lovers raise my taxes - which is not an option. I don't get to tell the IRS I'm not paying for you if you're going to risk your health.

 

Whether you realize it or not, I'm arguing for your right to personal freedoms. Legislating behavior to this extent is very dangerous. What is logical and simple today, turns bureaucratic and complex tomorrow. Personal responsibility is a key ingredient for freedom and it's being left out. If you let this kind of legislation cloud your better judgement, you will be throwing your hands up in disgust inside of 20 years, I promise you. You don't want people legislating what is good and bad for us. It's a conceited mindset that society has fallen into and it's disgusting. The fact I have to convince anybody of it scares the hell out of me.

[ecoli]

Why am *I* paying higher medical insurance premiums because *you* want to ingest an artificial substance that has been proven to ruin your health? Until I start getting the "non-trans fat users discount" I think you are harming me with your selfish ignorance and insistence on your right to be stupid (absolutely no ad hom intended ).

 

Along these lines... some lower income person eats at fast food resturants a lot because of the obvious reduced cost. This person is on a government-sponsered health insurance plan, so when she/he gets sick from all those years of eating trans fats, it's my taxes that go to take care of that person. Therefore, my pocketbook suffers because of others people 'choice' to eat trans fat. - not that this person has much of a choice in the matter, if that's the only type of food available to them. Perhaps you could look at this as the governments way of easing the economic burden of it's health care system.

[ParanoiA]

Along these lines... some lower income person eats at fast food resturants a lot because of the obvious reduced cost. This person is on a government-sponsered health insurance plan, so when she/he gets sick from all those years of eating trans fats, it's my taxes that go to take care of that person. Therefore, my pocketbook suffers because of others people 'choice' to eat trans fat. - not that this person has much of a choice in the matter, if that's the only type of food available to them. Perhaps you could look at this as the governments way of easing the economic burden of it's health care system.

 

Then let the government regulate the individual requesting assistance rather than all of us. I have no problem with the government making demands on people that are receiving living assistance of some kind. It's these "well intentioned" ridiculous laws that target the masses "for their own good" that rattles my cage.

[swansont]

Then let the government regulate the individual requesting assistance rather than all of us. I have no problem with the government making demands on people that are receiving living assistance of some kind. It's these "well intentioned" ridiculous laws that target the masses "for their own good" that rattles my cage.

 

Is it ridiculous for the government to ensure that poison is not included in the food you eat? A poison that tastes good, but makes you sick later on. (e.g. CPL Snark putting soap in the sweet potatoes in Catch-22). That's for your own good. Is it ridiculous?

 

What is the distinction between getting sick the next day, and getting sick later?

[ParanoiA]

Is it ridiculous for the government to ensure that poison is not included in the food you eat? A poison that tastes good, but makes you sick later on. (e.g. CPL Snark putting soap in the sweet potatoes in Catch-22). That's for your own good. Is it ridiculous?

 

What is the distinction between getting sick the next day, and getting sick later?

 

That's funny, because that's exactly my point. Almost every kind of food out there is bad for you in some way - minute or drastic. Today it's a "noble" move to rid America's restaraunts of the latest fad in pop culture eating habits - the dreaded "trans fats". Yesterday it was carbs. Good thing we didn't have legislation in place or I might not be able to get any carbs in my diet on the streets.

 

I think there needs to be a list of ingredients available for every meal, including proportionality - in both metric and standard measurements. That's it. That's reasonable.

 

Is it illegal today to put soap in sweet potatoes? There doesn't seem to be a problem with rat excrement in hot dogs. Personally, I'd rather eat trans fat than rat fecies.

 

I agree, the government needs to enforce a limited set of guidelines for business to operate in - such as not allowing poisons in our food (which would be murder obviously). And when I say poisons, I mean actual poisons. Not fats and oils that basically act like poisons, that we gleefully ingest and demand from the free market and then act like we had no idea it was bad for us. Kind of like cigarettes.

[swansont]

That's funny, because that's exactly my point. Almost every kind of food out there is bad for you in some way - minute or drastic. Today it's a "noble" move to rid America's restaraunts of the latest fad in pop culture eating habits - the dreaded "trans fats". Yesterday it was carbs. Good thing we didn't have legislation in place or I might not be able to get any carbs in my diet on the streets.

 

One needs to distinuish between issues with scientific merit and pop-culture fads.

 

I think there needs to be a list of ingredients available for every meal, including proportionality - in both metric and standard measurements. That's it. That's reasonable.

 

Is it illegal today to put soap in sweet potatoes? There doesn't seem to be a problem with rat excrement in hot dogs. Personally, I'd rather eat trans fat than rat fecies.

 

I agree, the government needs to enforce a limited set of guidelines for business to operate in - such as not allowing poisons in our food (which would be murder obviously). And when I say poisons, I mean actual poisons. Not fats and oils that basically act like poisons, that we gleefully ingest and demand from the free market and then act like we had no idea it was bad for us. Kind of like cigarettes.

 

And what of the ensuing hysteria when people discover that there is dihydrogen monoxide in everything? Remember, Americans are idiots.

 

I don't think it's enough to just list ingredients. Most people aren't well-versed in medicine, nutrition and biology to make an informed choice (which is one reason they fell for the Atkins diet in the first place). I'd wager that the amount of rat fecies allowed in food (since you can't limit it to zero) is less damaging to you that trans fat. You probably make the choice because it sounds bad, but not based on sound nutritional information.

 

But you still haven't answered my question. What is the distinction here? You treat "fats and oils that basically act like poisons, that we gleefully ingest and demand from the free market and then act like we had no idea it was bad for us" different from other chemicals. Why? So far it's just ignorance and denial you are defending. You won't eat a plate of Arsenic because you know it will kill you, but pretend that the peanut butter and artificial-cheese sandwich won't.

 

If I concoct some heretofore unknown poison, that would be OK to put in people's food, as long as it took a little while for the to show the symptoms, and they didn't know for sure it would kill them (the dose would be below LD50)?

[ParanoiA]

And what of the ensuing hysteria when people discover that there is dihydrogen monoxide in everything? Remember, Americans are idiots.

 

So perpetuating the ignorance is the answer? I don't understand the mentality behind this statement.

 

I don't think it's enough to just list ingredients. Most people aren't well-versed in medicine, nutrition and biology to make an informed choice (which is one reason they fell for the Atkins diet in the first place). I'd wager that the amount of rat fecies allowed in food (since you can't limit it to zero) is less damaging to you that trans fat. You probably make the choice because it sounds bad, but not based on sound nutritional information.

 

Again...Americans are stupid, so you advocate keeping them stupid and trample on their freedoms. I will never agree with that.

 

But you still haven't answered my question. What is the distinction here? You treat "fats and oils that basically act like poisons, that we gleefully ingest and demand from the free market and then act like we had no idea it was bad for us" different from other chemicals. Why? So far it's just ignorance and denial you are defending. You won't eat a plate of Arsenic because you know it will kill you, but pretend that the peanut butter and artificial-cheese sandwich won't.

 

Because I can eat SOME trans-fats, artificial cheese sandwiches and etc - but arsenic will kill me the first time. Actual poisons serve no purpose in flavor or nutrition, so I hardly see any need to really point out the distinction to you. Whereas fatty foods taste great. Just because something is bad for you, doesn't mean you should NEVER have it. My parents are health nuts, and there's virtually no sugar, fat or sodium in their diet and they work out religiously and have for decades now. But they still reward themselves ever now and then with a big ole bowl of Dove ice cream or some other fatty, trans-fat infested treat.

 

You appear to be advocating treading on their right to do this because other people are too stupid for their own good.

 

If I concoct some heretofore unknown poison, that would be OK to put in people's food, as long as it took a little while for the to show the symptoms, and they didn't know for sure it would kill them (the dose would be below LD50)?

 

What's to stop that from happening today? Yet it doesn't. Probably because of the check and balance properties inherent in capitalism. Since businesses have to earn our commerce, there's not a lot of reward in just poisoning everyone. Once they found out about it, you'd be out of business.

 

Besides, how would a law prevent that anyway? If it doesn't exist yet until you invent it, then how would anyone stop it regardless?