Big Brother commands you to eat better!

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by QCassidy352, Dec 5, 2006.

  1. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #1
  2. spicyapple macrumors 68000

    spicyapple

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    #2
    I don't see how this can be a bad thing. We all want responsible government, and if that means making sure the general population eats better, I'm all for it. You want to eat whatever you want? Fine. But if you get sick from eating unhealthy foods, don't expect tax payers to shoulder your medical costs.
     
  3. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #3
    Not exactly the end of the world. Food tasted as good or better before trans fats arrived in the first place.

    Think of it like this: the city banned a gasoline additive that didn't do a whole lot of good, but was terrible for your engine, and weighed on the city's air quality.

    Same deal, the city banned a food additive that didn't taste particularly better than other cooking oils, which was terrible for your body and weighed on the city's public health system.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    I warned of this happening when all the anti-smoking lawsuits started. That has set the precedent for this type of action. Trust me, soon there will be a fast food tax. :rolleyes: If it's so bad, don't ban it, make it illegal.
     
  5. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #5
    -QCassidy352

    On this point, I agree with spicyapple. Normally I'm not all that keen on outlawing something - especially a consumable. But in the case of Trans-Fat e.g. "Partially Hydrogenated (something) oil", there is absolutely no upside to consuming the substance, it adds no taste, and certainly adds no nutrition to the meal - it's filler.

    But we know the downsides...

    I'm not sorry to see it go.

    EDIT:

    -leekohler

    The issue I have with going all the way to making it illegal is the expense of policing it. Just look at the drug war (yes, still going on - not as much press as in the 80's). I feel that if the government wants to really control a thing, ban it, make it unpopular in PR circles, but stop short of having to spend money on supression.
     
  6. Foxglove9 macrumors 65816

    Foxglove9

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Location:
    New York City
    #6
    I was so happy to hear this pass! Not as happy as when smoking got banned but it's nice to know when I go out to eat there won't be trans fats in my foods.
     
  7. xJulianx macrumors 6502a

    xJulianx

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Location:
    Brighton, UK
    #7
    About time something like with was ruled out of our food.
     
  8. Foxglove9 macrumors 65816

    Foxglove9

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Location:
    New York City
    #8
    One funny thing to note: Mayor Bloomberg has been pushing a healthier NY ever since he took over in 2002, with the banning of smoking, trans fats, soda in schools, and other related issues.

    However, this is a guy who's known for a love of Hot Dogs from the street vendors. Hmmm...
     
  9. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #9
    I hope the UK gets this treatment. I want to eat food knowing it doesn't contain ****** additives. I want the freedom to eat what's good for me, not being poisoned with the bad. Right now only a handful of food outlets here have no trans-fats. Can't wait for it to be 100%, oh and a total public smoking ban too.

    If people want to destroy themselves let them do it in their own houses.
     
  10. m-dogg macrumors 65816

    m-dogg

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #10
    I think this is good news. It's unfortunate that many establishments have to be forced to change by law, but if that's what it takes...
     
  11. m-dogg macrumors 65816

    m-dogg

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #11

    Mmmmmm, dirty water dogs! Yum!
     
  12. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #12
    I'm glad to see this. Hopefully it includes college cafeterias :).

    e
     
  13. JLatte macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego
    #13

    I think it's a good thing... Americans are pretty unhealthy as it is, and it shows. Not a generalization but simply an observation. I hate going to a store to buy clothes and everything is L, XL, XXL, XXL -2, etc. Go to eastern Europe and check out the people in comparison to here. So yes, maybe it's infringing on your 'freedom', but since a lot of people can't seem to control themselves with what they were freely allowed to eat, maybe it's about time.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    If you ban something, you still have to spend money enforcing it. NYC can make any law it wants, but if they don't enforce it, what's the point?

    So when do we start taxing obesity, or maybe we should ban it? I don't see banning trans fats helping lower obesity at all. That has more to do with how much people eat and how little they exercise.
     
  15. njmac macrumors 68000

    njmac

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #15
    I'm usually skeptical when it comes to what the government thinks is in our best interest. For instance, raw milk. I think it is in the factory farms interest to ban raw milk and those big factory farms have polititians in their pocket. If I want to take the risk and drink raw milk or eat raw cheese, I should be allowed to.

    In this case though, I can't imagine another motive other than what it appears to be. Here is a fat that has no nutritional benefits and a host of detriments to our health. Keeping the fat isn't really lining the fat cats pockets or putting competitors out of business, its forcing everyone from the small restaurant to the giant corportations to be innovative and find another way to keep our crackers and cookies crisp.

    Trans fats are man made fats that may not be the cause of obesity, but they aren't contributing anything of any value.

    It would be nice though, if instead of our government banning the fats, that the general public would speak with their wallets and avoid places/products that are so unhealthy for us. If we're not buying, things WILL change. That's the best way.
     
  16. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #16
    Though it sounds good this product has been ok'd by the FDA, whats next because face it the ones in power will be looking for their next political prize to go after. Govt intrusion wont ever stop. The ones running govt are all control freaks thats why they are there in the first place. Are we a nation of Freedom & Liberty or a Police state that regulates everything you say,do or even eat? There comes a time we must say to govt get out of our lives.

    So whats next the transfatty police? another tax to pay for enforcement? Govt continues to grow,who do you think will pay for this? Govt has no limits this is another example of here we come. We are going to tax you so we can police you.
     
  17. njmac macrumors 68000

    njmac

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #17
    I love your sig :)

    Your post makes a lot of sense. People should be requesting that their food not contain trans fats from the restaurants they frequent or the products they buy.
     
  18. ziwi macrumors 65816

    ziwi

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Right back where I started...
    #18
    No big deal - no real addititve value so I am in agreement with it not being necessary. Now if we can just get them to ban the High Fructose Corn Syrup ,rubs hands together> yes that will be marvelous....<leaves to go suggest to the covert govt. comittee>...;)
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Thanks DHM. Sometimes I think the world has gone insane. Just because something is unpopular, doesn't mean it's a good idea for the government to ban it. But this is how they start butting into your life. Set this precedent, and pretty soon it's all fair game.:rolleyes:
     
  20. spicyapple macrumors 68000

    spicyapple

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    #20
    The FDA approved thalidomide, but later banned it because it caused defects in pregnant women. Not saying trans-fat causes birth defects, but just because the FDA approves it, does not make it safer.

    I'm not getting the argument about taking away right's from people. They are banning trans-fat because this is a public health safety issue. Restaurants and manufacturers continue using trans-fat because it is cheap, and in corporate America, profits are more important than customers' health.

    Let's take the rhetoric about the fear of governments eroding citizens' right out of this debate, puh-lease. Every piece of legislation goes through a series of checks and balances.
     
  21. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #21
    As soon as they try to ban something with beneficial value I'll object, but this is not one of those cases. It'd be completely different if they were banning something purely because it was unpopular. They are banning this because it is unpopular, unhealthy, and unnecessary.

    As for enforcement of this policy, I'd object to the policy if they are planning on having expensive enforcement policies, but it seems this is something that could easily be enforced through routine health and safety inspections.

    e
     
  22. livingfortoday macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Location:
    The Msp
    #22
    The problem with smoking and trans fats and things of that nature is that the taxpayers are the ones who end up shouldering the burden for other peoples stupid decisions. In a perfect world, if you got fat off of crappy food I wouldn't have to help pay subsidies to hospitals when you had a heart attack, I wouldn't have to pay higher insurance costs because you're an increased risk for the insurance company, and in general I wouldn't have to put up with all the inefficiencies and negative externalities caused by your problem. But we don't live in a perfect world, and I have to pay for your mistakes in a million little different ways.

    That's not to say that I think it's the job of government to ban trans fats or to regulate behavior in this way. I DO however think that the government should look at the costs and benefits associated with the issue, and if it finds that taxing the hell out of companies that produce foods with high trans fat content or who make cigarettes - go for it. Then people would have the option of still abusing themselves if they wanted (albeit at a higher cost to themselves), and the desired effect of reducing the public bad could still be reached. Banning something directly like that is an over-reach of authority on the part of NY, and I bet we'll see lawsuits soon enough.
     
  23. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #23
    Thanks but in all fairness others have used this one in the past. And I agree with you on the way to go after this .....if it is a problem. Let it fall on to the businesses, not another "law".
     
  24. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #24
    But it's not in the best interest of the people to allow businesses to make that decision. Businesses will go with the cheaper trans-fats. This ban has the people in mind, I believe. Who is benefitting from this? The government isn't. It's us that benefit from it. We'll have food that tastes better and is healthier because of it.

    They aren't banning obesity or unhealthy food. We can have french fries and hamburgers still, just not made with cheap trans-fats.

    If they tried to ban french fries or hamburgers, I would be against it.

    e
     
  25. livingfortoday macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Location:
    The Msp
    #25
    I think most of the complaints here stem not from the fact that the government is banning this substance per se, but that the government finds that it's somehow its business to regulate what you can or cannot eat. That's not the job of government, since that can too easily lead to excess and abuse. Government can regulate these kinds of things, through taxes, quotas, tariffs, you name it. At least that way it can claim that it's protecting the public good by making other options more viable as well as making up for damages caused by the negative externalities provided by trans fats and whatnot. But an outright ban like this seems rather undemocratic to me.

    Edit: And I know that there will be an inevitable comparison to drugs being banned as well, here, and I think that's fair. I, for one, do believe that drugs should be regulated and not illegal, for the same reasons as I stated above. If done right, those who would be willing and able to pay the high costs of their effects could do so, and the government could still recoup the expenses caused by their use of the substances.
     

Share This Page