NYC tries to ban trans fat

[swansont]

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

 

No, I'm acknowledging that ignorance exists. Rampant, even. I don't think that you can reasonably ask people to make informed decisions about nutrition and medicine because they are not educated in those areas. Even people with advanced degrees in other subjects.

 

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

 

Strawman. I never advocated keeping people stupid, or ignorant for that matter. I don't know how one would draw that conclusion from what I wrote.

 

I disagree that freedoms are being trampled. If he government is empowered to regulate and stop some action, then the right to take that action doesn't actually exist.

 

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.

 

Sorry, but I think you have your facts messed up here. Did you really mean to imply that you think you've never, ever ingested even an atom of Arsenic? That people don't eat rotten food because it has an interesting taste? That our bodies don't need certain amounts of substances that are lethal in high doses?

 

 

I think you prove my point about ignorance of medical and nutritional knowledge.

 

 

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?

 

 

The trans-fat issue is precisely this, though. The cause and effect are so far removed from each other that you don't make the connection, or don't care. Tobacco is another example of long-term effects that people put up with for some reason, even though it's clear that it's bad for you, and cigarette companies don't seem to have gone out of business after the news broke.

[ParanoiA]

No, I'm acknowledging that ignorance exists. Rampant, even. I don't think that you can reasonably ask people to make informed decisions about nutrition and medicine because they are not educated in those areas. Even people with advanced degrees in other subjects.

 

And they'll never get educated as long as you do all of the thinking for them. That's my point. You're basically saying that they're stupid, so let's not bother with education, just pass a few laws to protect the american sheep. That's how we get thousands of pages of laws and bureaucracy to wade through. The more you perpetuate that mentality, the stupider and more ignorant people become. I would argue that's why they're so stupid now. I can't believe you don't see the sense in that.

 

Strawman. I never advocated keeping people stupid, or ignorant for that matter. I don't know how one would draw that conclusion from what I wrote.

 

When you make the argument that we're ignorant to nutrition, in support of establishing dietary laws to protect us, then you're perpetuating keeping us stupid and ignorant. This is the same reason why marijuana is still illegal. Nobody bothers to learn the truth because the great "government" that cradles our little lives said that it's bad. Never mind the same great government has no problem with letting people kill themselves with alcohol in about 20 different ways - including killing people that never took a drink.

 

I disagree that freedoms are being trampled. If he government is empowered to regulate and stop some action, then the right to take that action doesn't actually exist.

 

Well, if you can do it today but then you can't do it tomorrow - then that is a right that has been taken away. I'm not really sure what you're point is here.

 

Sorry, but I think you have your facts messed up here. Did you really mean to imply that you think you've never, ever ingested even an atom of Arsenic? That people don't eat rotten food because it has an interesting taste? That our bodies don't need certain amounts of substances that are lethal in high doses?

 

I think you prove my point about ignorance of medical and nutritional knowledge.

 

With all due respect, you're the one who said it would kill me. And so now you're saying there IS arsenic in my food so what exactly is your point? Apparently we have all kinds of poisons and toxins in our food, yet you're all hung up on trans-fats?

 

It's been awhile since I've read this thread, so maybe I'm forgetting all of the dynamics we're discussing here.

 

The trans-fat issue is precisely this, though. The cause and effect are so far removed from each other that you don't make the connection, or don't care. Tobacco is another example of long-term effects that people put up with for some reason, even though it's clear that it's bad for you, and cigarette companies don't seem to have gone out of business after the news broke.

 

They put up with it because of the temporary euphoria of a nicotine serving. If your magical slow poison can do the same thing, you might be onto something.

 

What about my other questions? How would a law prevent that anyway? If it doesn't exist yet until you invent it, then how would anyone stop it regardless?

[swansont]

And they'll never get educated as long as you do all of the thinking for them. That's my point. You're basically saying that they're stupid, so let's not bother with education, just pass a few laws to protect the american sheep. That's how we get thousands of pages of laws and bureaucracy to wade through. The more you perpetuate that mentality, the stupider and more ignorant people become. I would argue that's why they're so stupid now. I can't believe you don't see the sense in that.

 

You're requiring that everybody know everything. I can't believe you don't see the impossiblity of that. While I'm not going to disagree that there are supposed safety laws that are silly, I don't want to be in a position where I have to check that the electrician wired a house properly, or that the builder mixed his concrete properly, all because there are no building codes to follow, or that the medicine my doctor prescribed (well, he claims to be educated in that field, but there's no telling, since there's no certification process for medical schools, or a requirement to have a degree to practice medicine) will actually do what he promises, because the drug didn't have to undergo double-blind testing for efficacy and safety.

 

And yet, these safety laws do exist, and people still try and get educated. Some do, anyway. There's just a finite amount that a person can learn.

 

I am not saying "let's not bother with education." This is the second time, in the span of a few hours, I've corrected you on this. Please don't misrepresent me a third time.

 

 

 

With all due respect, you're the one who said it would kill me. And so now you're saying there IS arsenic in my food so what exactly is your point? Apparently we have all kinds of poisons and toxins in our food, yet you're all hung up on trans-fats?

 

I'm not hung op on trans-fats. I'm asking what the fundamental difference is between something that in sufficient dose kills you in a day or kills you in 20 years. Why are you not all bent out of shape over your right to ingest arsenic, if you so desire, that the government has taken away? But you are over an artificial ingredient that doesn't have to be there in the first place?

[ParanoiA]

And yet, these safety laws do exist, and people still try and get educated. Some do, anyway. There's just a finite amount that a person can learn.

 

I agree with that, but fats and oils? I think we can learn that. And I think we have, actually.

 

I am not saying "let's not bother with education." This is the second time, in the span of a few hours, I've corrected you on this. Please don't misrepresent me a third time.

 

But you're not advocating anything to suggest "let's bother with education". What you're advocating doesn't require any education and implies disinterest.

 

I'm not hung op on trans-fats. I'm asking what the fundamental difference is between something that in sufficient dose kills you in a day or kills you in 20 years.

 

The fundamental difference is that there is no practical way to chase everything down that has the capability to kill me in twenty years. Therefore it introduces bias and tramples on others rights to ingest such things anyway. You get laws that want to ban trans-fats, but could care less about Alcohol.

 

I would say that if any poison or ingredient serves no nutrional or flavor value would be a fair partition. Trans-fats keep my Oreo's from turning to sludge in the cabinet. I like that. I don't eat a ton of trans-fats so why should I do without just because half the country is obese and can't control their gorging and killing themselves with food?

 

At the same time, I can't agree with your secret poison that doesn't add any nutrion or flavor / texture. However, if it makes my ice cream taste better, then I'm all for it.

 

Why are you not all bent out of shape over your right to ingest arsenic, if you so desire, that the government has taken away? But you are over an artificial ingredient that doesn't have to be there in the first place?

 

Actually I am. I believe in the right to commit suicide. And I'm pissed about it because I could be completely incapacitated and bedridden, condemned to a life akin to a carrot and I'm not allowed to kill myself. I should also be able to ingest any drug I want. To me, it would make more sense to divert all of these resources being blown on legislating victimless behavior (like the DEA) and direct them to real law enforcement. Like fighting violent crime.

 

But that's a whole other debate...

[Technocrat]

Bout time they banned it. Good job. Right decision. It's bad for you, costly for o reason, could be replaced with minimal loss, and represents a minor sacrifice for objective gain.

 

Anyone who weighs temporary subjective benefit over objective loss is a blooming idiot and get's what he deserves. A good example is: "I know it could turn my insides to sludge, but if it taste good, pile it on!" They probably deserve to die. It's the same moron logic used by chain smokers--another type of worthless scumbag addict who values his subjective pleasure from his disgusting habit over the harms it causes to himself and others.

[ParanoiA]

Bout time they banned it. Good job. Right decision. It's bad for you, costly for o reason, could be replaced with minimal loss, and represents a minor sacrifice for objective gain.

 

Interesting how that contradicts the very next statement...

 

Anyone who weighs temporary subjective benefit over objective loss is a blooming idiot and get's what he deserves. A good example is: "I know it could turn my insides to sludge, but if it taste good, pile it on!" They probably deserve to die.

 

And I couldn't agree more. Too bad we can't figure out which statement trumps the other.

 

Trans-fats are clearly the line in the sand huh? Because we need all the fat in the 70% ground beef don't we? And we need the fat drenched bacon served by IHOP don't we? And we need the fatty cream and sugar and whole milk dumped in our coffee don't we?

 

I'm sure glad we have our priorities straight. And thanks for choosing what sacrifices I am to make. I would have never realized that I should be lumped in the same category as the rest of the gluttonous idiots that kill themselves with too much food...

[swansont]

Trans-fats are clearly the line in the sand huh? Because we need all the fat in the 70% ground beef don't we? And we need the fat drenched bacon served by IHOP don't we? And we need the fatty cream and sugar and whole milk dumped in our coffee don't we?

 

But those aren't examples of trans-fat.

[ecoli]

You pose an interesting point, paranoiA. Trans fats aren't good for you, obviously, but in small amounts they probably don't have much of an effect. Why should people with no sense of control over their diets trump somebody else, who can make more intellegent desions about food? Are we dealing with 'mob rule' here?

 

But on the other side of the coin... what about people who can't afford to eat at resturants other than fast food places. Should they be forced into an early death simply because they don't have the resources to make alternate food choices (assuming that they can't make alternate choices).

[ParanoiA]

But those aren't examples of trans-fat.

 

I know but his argument was:

 

It's bad for you, costly for o reason, could be replaced with minimal loss, and represents a minor sacrifice for objective gain.

 

Those things I mentioned are bad for you, costly for 0 reason, can be replaced with minimal loss and their banning would represent a minor sacrifice for objective gain.

 

Just imagine how narrow your choices would be if I could go through every restaraunt and use that mentality to "clean up" their menus.

 

And why restaraunts anyway? Why is the labeling of ingredients good enough for the grocery store but not good enough for restaraunts? Typically restaraunt food is worse for you than home cooked meals. We know that. That's why it tastes so good. Most people don't go out to eat to adhere to their diet, but rather to splurge a little.

 

Just like anything else in life, if you abuse it you get bad results. Drinking, eating, drugs...but you're not supposed to punish those of us who are responsible about it.

[Royston]

But on the other side of the coin... what about people who can't afford to eat at resturants other than fast food places. Should they be forced into an early death simply because they don't have the resources to make alternate food choices (assuming that they can't make alternate choices).

 

Well I'm not sure about the US, but in the UK I find it cheaper to eat healthy food, than unhealthy food if I'm cooking for myself. Buying produce in a supermarket is a hell of a lot cheaper than eating at McDonalds everyday. For the price of a steak, I could get a large bag of pasta, a few cans of tomatoes, basil, prepared salad, and some low fat cheese...I think if people are going to use the price argument, then they should get off their butts and learn to cook, I really don't see it as a good excuse.

[ParanoiA]

But on the other side of the coin... what about people who can't afford to eat at resturants other than fast food places. Should they be forced into an early death simply because they don't have the resources to make alternate food choices (assuming that they can't make alternate choices).

 

You mean they have to eat out? I don't understand the point in that. There's no one forcing them to go to McDonalds. I can feed my family on half of what you would spend at a fast food joint by going to the grocery store and it would have 10% of the crap Micky is selling you.

 

Don't think I don't have sympathy. Even poor folk deserve some greasy food ever now and then, but that's a personal choice and there is no lack of alternative by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, eating out can present more of a lack of variety and price structure than the grocery store.

[insane_alien]

so paranoia is saying that trans fats shouldn't be banned and people who are ignorant of the effects(and/or presence) will carry on eating them and consequently have poorer health. does this seem fair?

 

I do however agree that people should have the right to mess themselves up if they REALLY want to but let them add transfats to their own food instead of shoving it in everyones food.

[swansont]

IAnd why restaraunts anyway? Why is the labeling of ingredients good enough for the grocery store but not good enough for restaraunts? Typically restaraunt food is worse for you than home cooked meals. We know that. That's why it tastes so good. Most people don't go out to eat to adhere to their diet, but rather to splurge a little.

 

It's very likely a matter of jurisdiction. Restaurants are local, grocery store items would fall under interstate trade, which is federal.

[ParanoiA]

It's very likely a matter of jurisdiction. Restaurants are local, grocery store items would fall under interstate trade, which is federal.

 

Fair enough, but I just meant in terms of academia, why not impose a full disclosure of ingredients with calories, fat - even trans-fats specifically?

 

I was on Minsky's pizza's website the other day (which, by the way, is the most amazing pizza in the world) and noticed they had a nutrition link. Out of curiosity, I checked it out and sure enough they have the same information available as you would see on any product in the grocery store. Fat, calories, etc. And there's no law making them do that.

 

Why are they doing that? Probably because the public wants them to. The public is becoming more health concious ( quite a bit late in my mind but...) and they want to know what's in their food. Minsky's, being in competition with the other pizza joints, are doing what businesses do when they recognize a need that they can provide - anything that will get them a leg up on business. Sooner or later, all of them will likely do this and it will become common place. Then the next fad will sweep the public and they'll cater to our whims yet again.

 

The power of the consumer is drastically under-rated.

[GutZ]

I would have to side with Paranoia on this one. Let nature take it's course on this one. There a difference between Deadly poisons and unhealthy elements. Not saying that the government should leave everything unregulated but I think due dilligence is good enough. Warning the public about the affects of certian fat food is enough.

 

I smoke, I know it's unhealth but I like it, I think it should be my choice whether I should be allowed to or not. I also understand my choices affect others so in that case I think it's reasonable for the government to ban smoking in all public buildings and outside areas near entrances. People shouldn't be subjected to my habit. I also don't think Marijuana should be illegal either, maybe banned from public places and have regulation on it.

 

I do see a problem with that though. Can you decisively draw a line what is acceptable unhealthy elements, and what items are. Most of the limitations are socially made, like alcohol, but then why not LSD, or Magic Mushrooms, or cola, chips, french fries. To many all those things can be good or bad to both extremes, and everything in between.

 

I do think it's possible to keep freedom, but realistically regulate and control. It's just takes some rational people and time, something most governing agency don't have (zing!).

 

I think the main concern is that as we advance we will find more things to ban, and limit, till we sufficate ourselves with it, and the value of being health starts to trumph freedom. When that happens the question becomes, is really worth living a life that so limited just to gain x amount of extra years. It's like buying a expensive product that gives you joy, if you never use it, it's less likely to break, but if you never use it, you never get the joy out of it either.

[Technocrat]

Interesting how that contradicts the very next statement...

 

I am sorry. That was my fault do to being vague, so I understand why you see a contradiction. Let me rephrase.

 

I do think that people who deliberately harm themselves for temporary, subjective gain really is their own fault, in part (not totally, since nutritional infomation is poor and often deceiving).

 

They probably do deserve their problem, as they are the utlimate cause of it. However, I don't think their decisions are moral insofar as the impact they have on others. They ideally ought to choose more wisely to avoid the emotional suffering of their families having to deal with obese members who are more costly in terms of health care and emotionally taxing due to the health issues they often suffer.

 

They also cost society in a variety of ways. THey are irresponsible people. They act like children in that they don't know how to limit themselves. That's why America has such an obesity problem. Trying to let people go it alone and fix their own problem didn't work. Children require nannies because they act irresponsibly, immaturely. Many Americans do as well; like children, they know not better or what they do.

 

Like children, they also need a nanny. The State is that nanny. Those who act like children ought to be treated like them. A ban is fundamentally good because it prevents the morons who don't know what they are doing from causing harm to themselves and those who love them (and society due to extrinsic costs). It also prevents the overall utility drop from such unhealthy populations. It also prevents the objective harm from comming to those who do know what they are doing, which in turn affects society anyway.

 

Even if they deserve it, it's irrelevant to the utility or ethics of the situation. Utility doesn't necessarily support what individual people deserve, but where the utility lies and what people need. Utility should be maximized. Someone might not deserve X treatment, or maybe he might, but if doing X brings about more utility, you do it anyway.

 

 

 

You are sort of right, though. No. It's not really a line in the sand. There are many other unnecessary and bad things that cause tremendous harm and can easily be replaced by something healthier. It's good to tackle the problems that cause the most harm, though. To pick battles. Not everything is equally able to be regulated anyway, and not all can be as pragmatically. I will leave it up to doctors and health professionals to determine what is a safe level of consumption, since I am not qualified to do so. Most have deemed transfats bad alltogether and easily replaceable at little or no "taste" difference or monetary cost.

 

It's about magnitude of harm. Obesity is a serious problem, and even if the morons bring it on themselves, ultimately, the probably still should be fixed. Ideally, people ought to have portion limitations, readily available information about nutrition, and intense dining and cooking training programmes. Incentives and disinentives ought to be used to control unhealthy eating habits.

[ParanoiA]

Like children, they also need a nanny. The State is that nanny. Those who act like children ought to be treated like them. A ban is fundamentally good because it prevents the morons who don't know what they are doing from causing harm to themselves and those who love them (and society due to extrinsic costs). It also prevents the overall utility drop from such unhealthy populations. It also prevents the objective harm from comming to those who do know what they are doing, which in turn affects society anyway.

 

Nice point. It's the same logic I use on my kids too. If you're going to act like a child, then you're going to be treated like one.

 

You bring up some other good points about the affects on society as well. Freedom of personal choice isn't always free from affecting others like it may seem.

[ecoli]

You mean they have to eat out? I don't understand the point in that. There's no one forcing them to go to McDonalds. I can feed my family on half of what you would spend at a fast food joint by going to the grocery store and it would have 10% of the crap Micky is selling you.

 

Don't think I don't have sympathy. Even poor folk deserve some greasy food ever now and then, but that's a personal choice and there is no lack of alternative by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, eating out can present more of a lack of variety and price structure than the grocery store.

 

 

MOst homeless people, by definition, don't have a kitchen to cook themselves food.

[ParanoiA]

MOst homeless people, by definition, don't have a kitchen to cook themselves food.

 

Well in that case you don't have to cook anything to eat. Peanut butter (all natural to avoid transfats) and whole wheat bread pack plenty of calories and protein and that's cheaper than a couple of burgers at mcdonald's and it will feed you many times over.

 

There's plenty of food in the grocery store a homeless person can chow on that's less exensive and healthier than fast food and doesn't require any facilities for preparation.

[ecoli]

 

this political cartoon was in newsday, I found it hilarious.

[ecoli]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6210600.stm

 

Law has been passed. New Yorkers have until 2008 to chow down on trans fats in resturants.

[blackhole123]

Regulating the things you can eat is a slippery slope. The government has absolutely no place in trying to protect people from themselves. If you want to go out and eat foods that are terrible for you, that's your decision, and your decision alone. Pretty soon they will decide that the government knows best on everything and suddenly we are communist. Instead of banning them, how about just educating people about them and letting them make their own choices. You know like that FREEDOM thing we keep hearing about.

[ParanoiA]

Regulating the things you can eat is a slippery slope. The government has absolutely no place in trying to protect people from themselves. If you want to go out and eat foods that are terrible for you, that's your decision, and your decision alone. Pretty soon they will decide that the government knows best on everything and suddenly we are communist. Instead of banning them, how about just educating people about them and letting them make their own choices. You know like that FREEDOM thing we keep hearing about.

 

They're more free in the country we fled from...

[Phi for All]

Regulating the things you can eat is a slippery slope.

This is still about an additive that goes into your food to enhance shelf life. It's not like they're saying you can't eat green fuit anymore and arguing that it will probably lead to banning ALL fruit. I don't see the slippery slope here. It's something we thought would be good but it's not working out.

The government has absolutely no place in trying to protect people from themselves. If you want to go out and eat foods that are terrible for you, that's your decision, and your decision alone. Pretty soon they will decide that the government knows best on everything and suddenly we are communist.

Again, I equate this more to correcting the effects of an experiment gone bad rather than the government regulating our eating habits. If we were talking about cyanide instead of transfats I doubt there would be this same argument. And I mean that as an analogy, not the strawman you might be tempted to think. We are exposed to cyanide in flavoring ingredients but at acceptable levels. You don't want the government to stop regulating *that*, would you?

Instead of banning them, how about just educating people about them and letting them make their own choices. You know like that FREEDOM thing we keep hearing about.

"Folks, cyanide in these quantities is very bad for you in the long run. Because of that FREEDOM thing, we have to allow these restauranteurs to put it in your foods, and you have the inalienable right to eat it but we think you should know it's been hospitalizing and killing a lot of people." Huh-uh, I want the government to have some teeth to prevent someone from poisoning me and I shouldn't have to read the fine print on the menu when dining out.

 

Transfats were a bad idea and I'm glad NYC is taking the first step.

[blackhole123]

I understand your arguement but then at what point does it stop? Im saying if you keep making laws like this then eventually the government will get closer and closer to dictating everything we do because they think its the best. Why doesn't the goverment just start telling us what we are allowed to eat and when we can eat it and make everyone go to the gym 3 times a week or you are fined? Sure it would probably be healthier but if I want to sit on my couch, get fat and take the risk of having a heart attack thats my choice. As long as it isn't infringing on other peoples rights then I think it's an individual choice.