Big Brother commands you to eat better!

[Dont Hurt Me]

Consumer is King, rather then a few people deciding all this let the buying public do it. Mcdonalds just changed the Oil they were using for its fry's did they not? They didnt need a law. If this is such a issue then consumer groups should push for it by voluntary means.

 

[leekohler]

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.

Well, the foie gras ban hasn't worked here in Chicago. A lot of places still serve it. The city says it relies on the public to report a violation. Guess what? The public ain't reportin'. If they want foie gras banned, they'll have to find a better way to enforce it.

 

[leekohler]

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.

Thank you very much!

 

[livingfortoday]

Well, the foie gras ban hasn't worked here in Chicago. A lot of places still serve it. The city says it relies on the public to report a violation. Guess what? The public ain't reportin'. If they want foie gras banned, they'll have to find a better way to enforce it.

Yeah, I'm not saying they should ban anything, I'm saying that if they want to affect behavior a tax or something similar would be most effective. The foie gras thing is a bit different, though, since it wasn't banned because it has negative effects on people, but because of the horrible treatment of the geese who are raised to provide it. That makes it (the ban) worse in my eyes, though, since it's DEFINITELY not the job of the government to legislate morality. Hell, I'm vegan and I oppose the ban!

 

[spicyapple]

Had to wiki fois gras. Doesn't seem to pose a health risk, unlike trans-fat. You are not making a fair comparison, in this case. People want it banned on the basis of animal rights.

Would you make the same arguments when the government banned DDT and asbestos?

 

[leekohler]

Had to wiki fois gras. Doesn't seem to pose a health risk, unlike trans-fat. You are not making a fair comparison, in this case. People want it banned on the basis of animal rights.

The point is it's still a ban. I'm not arguing whether or not it's a good thing, just that bans don't work without a measure of enforcement. It is indeed a fair comparison in that light.

 

[livingfortoday]

Had to wiki fois gras. Doesn't seem to pose a health risk, unlike trans-fat. You are not making a fair comparison, in this case. People want it banned on the basis of animal rights.

Actually, you'd think MORE people would report violations of it, then. With trans fats, no one can really tell if the food they're eating is high in 'em, so there'll be no individual reporting. With foie gras, at least you know it's on the menu, and can call the appropriate authorities.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Had to wiki fois gras. Doesn't seem to pose a health risk, unlike trans-fat. You are not making a fair comparison, in this case. People want it banned on the basis of animal rights.

Problem is though there are so many health risks so where does it stop? Where do we draw the health line? We just had some folks trying to blame BurgerKing or Mcdonalds because they were fat? Its the individuals responsibilty for what they eat, not the govts or business. This is why im opposed to big brothers next law.

 

[it5five]

Oh NYC. My dream city.

I think this is great. Finally, big business is held accountable for all of the damage they do to society. I could only hope that something similar would be passed here in Phoenix.

EDIT: Everyone: stop with the slippery slope crap. Especially coming from those of you that argue against slippery slope arguments on other issues (like gay marriage). It's pretty clear where the line is being drawn: artificial trans fats or other substances that have absolutely no nutritional value and are only used to cut costs.

 

[scem0]

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.

I mostly agree with this, and I think a tax on trans-fats would be another great solution - better than a ban, in fact.

But I don't think banning it was a bad move.

e

 

[vniow]

Hm, may be a good idea to merge these two...

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/238017/

 

[leekohler]

Problem is though there are so many health risks so where does it stop? Where do we draw the health line? We just had some folks trying to blame BurgerKing or Mcdonalds because they were fat? Its the individuals responsibilty for what they eat, not the govts or business. This is why im opposed to big brothers next law.

Oh- silly DHM. Don't you know that there is no personal responsibility anymore? The government will tell you what to do. You don't have to think about anything. I thought you lived in the US?

 

[it5five]

Oh- silly DHM. Don't you know that there is no personal responsibility anymore? The government will tell you what to do. You don't have to think about anything. I thought you lived in the US?

Better the government than some multinational corporation.

McDonald's has your best interests at mind. No, really.

 

[spicyapple]

Better the government than some multinational corporation.

LOL. Good one.

Let me see... people elect the government. The government serves the people. What a novel idea! Where does such a place exist? ps. Bush will be gone in '08, yay!

 

[leekohler]

Better the government than some multinational corporation.

McDonald's has your best interests at mind. No, really.

Wow- so when's the last time you were forced to go to McDonald's? So now you can't make your own decisions?

 

[it5five]

When was the last time you were forced to live and eat in NYC?

There is absolutely no benefit to having artifical trans fat in foods. None. The only reason it is used is so corporations can maximize their profit at the expense of the consumer's health. I don't know about you, but I believe in a government that looks out for the well being of ALL of it's citizens rather than the well being of big business.

EDIT: And I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions. Just because I don't believe in lassez-faire capitalism doesn't mean that I can't make my own decisions.

 

[spicyapple]

There is absolutely no benefit to having artifical trans fat in foods. None. The only reason it is used is so corporations can maximize their profit at the expense of the consumer's health. I don't know about you, but I believe in a government that looks out for the well being of ALL of it's citizens rather than the well being of big business.

I'm trying to understand Lee's point. I think he's more concerned about the eroding rights of consumers and government interference. I realize the debate points are wildly out of sync on this topic.

Although I don't necessarily think this ban will propagate other bans, considering this is a public health issue. Who wants to defend the right to consume trans-fats? Not me!

 

[leekohler]

When was the last time you were forced to live and eat in NYC?

There is absolutely no benefit to having artifical trans fat in foods. None. The only reason it is used is so corporations can maximize their profit at the expense of the consumer's health. I don't know about you, but I believe in a government that looks out for the well being of ALL of it's citizens rather than the well being of big business.

EDIT: And I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions. Just because I don't believe in lassez-faire capitalism doesn't mean that I can't make my own decisions.

What? So now you're saying that all restaurants in NYC use trans fats in their food and people in NYC are forced to eat it? And what do mean by "ALL of it's citizens"? Are you insinuating that certain people are not capable of making their own decisions regarding trans fats?

 

[livingfortoday]

When was the last time you were forced to live and eat in NYC?

There is absolutely no benefit to having artifical trans fat in foods. None. The only reason it is used is so corporations can maximize their profit at the expense of the consumer's health. I don't know about you, but I believe in a government that looks out for the well being of ALL of it's citizens rather than the well being of big business.

EDIT: And I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions. Just because I don't believe in lassez-faire capitalism doesn't mean that I can't make my own decisions.

So, you can make your own decisions, but you still want the government to make them for you? That doesn't seem contradictory to you at all?

The government CAN help people. It can educate about the dangers of trans fats, as well as what foods have trans fats. It can regulate and control harmful substances. But what it should NOT be able to do is tell me that I'm unable to make a clear decision about what goes into my body, even after I have all the facts and am perfectly aware of what I'm doing. Banning a substance is just the easy way out, and doesn't help consumers realize the harm they're doing to themselves. If you really want to help people, educate them, or else ban all sweets, sugars, candies, fats, and products which could be potentially harmful if abused.

 

[livingfortoday]

Who wants to defend the right to consume trans-fats? Not me!

Alright, I'll defend the right. You have the right to eat trans fats if you want to, and the government has no reason to stop you from doing it. You're harming yourself, and yes, you are harming others by proxy through the reasons I mentioned a few posts ago. That's why the government should regulate and tax, not ban the substance. It has no business telling me what to do to myself, but it can make it so my bad personal decisions don't negatively impact others.

 

[leekohler]

So, you can make your own decisions, but you still want the government to make them for you? That doesn't seem contradictory to you at all?

The government CAN help people. It can educate about the dangers of trans fats, as well as what foods have trans fats. It can regulate and control harmful substances. But what it should NOT be able to do is tell me that I'm unable to make a clear decision about what goes into my body, even after I have all the facts and am perfectly aware of what I'm doing. Banning a substance is just the easy way out, and doesn't help consumers realize the harm they're doing to themselves. If you really want to help people, educate them, or else ban all sweets, sugars, candies, fats, and products which could be potentially harmful if abused.

Well said. And thank you.

 

[emotion]

Do not be alarmed... your leaders know what is best for you.

Freedom? Who needs freedom? Big Brother will provide for your well being. ****ing fascists.

Dude, they've not banned vegetables. Just stopped food companies feeding people substandard food.

 

[Frisco]

This stinks!

 

[it5five]

I agree that educating the consumer is a far more powerful tool than outright banning substances. Unforunately the majority of the American public is unwilling to educate themselves about anything. This country is faced with a terrible obesity problem, yet people still eat foods that provide no health benefits. They eat foods that only serve to make them fatter. If a certain substance has terrible effects upon the human body, yet people still consume that substance I believe it is time for somebody to step in and say enough. This isn't government making a decision for me; this is government putting an end to something that is HURTING people.

 

[scem0]

Problem is though there are so many health risks so where does it stop? Where do we draw the health line? We just had some folks trying to blame BurgerKing or Mcdonalds because they were fat? Its the individuals responsibilty for what they eat, not the govts or business. This is why im opposed to big brothers next law.

I think these cases are different. Food with trans fat differs from unhealthy food in that foods with trans fat can be made with alternative ingredients which would be healthier and would taste better to boot. There's no benefit, to the people, in the use of trans-fats by businesses.

There's a benefit to the people with food like burgerking and mcdonalds. It's fast, and relatively cheap. I defend their right to make fast, relatively cheap, yet unhealthy food. But I don't defend their right to make it with unnecessarily unhealthy ingredients where there's a healthier alternative that isn't a lot more expensive.

It would also be different if it was easy to tell whether trans fats were used or not. How often do you ask for the nutritional information of the food you order at a restaurant? How often do they have that information available? How many people would know to look for hydrogenated vegetable oils to know whether or not a restaurant is using trans-fat.

What I'm saying is that it's not easy to know whether or not a restaurant uses trans fat. And this ban isn't going to be a big deal, by any means. It's relatively easy to replace hydrogenated vegetable oils with regular vegetable oils. Businesses should be doing it anyways. But they don't - they prey on the public's lack of care for the issue. And even when people do care, like I do, it's not easy to figure out whether a business uses trans-fats, and usually I'm too lazy to figure out.

This ban does that for me and for everyone else. And it has no downfalls for us, the food won't taste worse. It might not even be healthier in any other way, other than that it won't increase everyone's chances for heart disease, heart attack, etc as much as it would otherwise. If the food noticeably tasted worse, I wouldn't support this, actually. The vast majority of people probably won't even realize there is a ban in place, yet their chance for heart disease will go down. That's a good thing!

e