Big Brother commands you to eat better!

[QCassidy352]

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

oh please. That trans fats are unhealthy is well beyond the point. The point is that the government has no business, and no right, to tell me what I can or cannot eat.

Would anyone dispute that it would be in the interests of public health to ban tequilla, or to mandate sleeping 8 hours per night, or to insist that people not exceed the medical definition of obese?

There are thousands of things the government could do to promote the public health. And many of them would infringe on our freedom as Americans, adults, and human beings to decide for ourselves how we live our lives. It's time the american people stopped taking this Big Brother **** from our elected representitives.

 

[leekohler]

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.

That's what I thought. Your assumption is that other people are stupid and incapable of making their own decisions. So the government must babysit them. Should the government make them go to the gym too?

 

[leekohler]

oh please. That trans fats are unhealthy is well beyond the point. The point is that the government has no business, and no right, to tell me what I can or cannot eat.

Would anyone dispute that it would be in the interests of public health to ban tequilla, or to mandate sleeping 8 hours per night, or to insist that people not exceed the medical definition of obese?

There are thousands of things the government could do to promote the public health. And many of them would infringe on our freedom as Americans, adults, and human beings to decide for ourselves how we live our lives. It's time the american people stopped taking this Big Brother **** from our elected representitives.

I fear we are a dying breed, my friend. Education isn't working according to some here. The days of making your own decisions are quickly coming to a close.

 

[scem0]

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.

trans fats have no benefits though. Any educated person would choose not to put them in their body. So this ban effectively bypasses the need to educate people. It would be completely different to ban sugars. There is a benefit to them - they taste great! Hydrogenated vegetable oils - trans fats - don't taste as good as regular vegetable oils and they are more unhealthy.

The government isn't telling you what you can or cannot eat. Any food made with trans fats can be made with other ingredients. The government is simply telling businesses what ingredients they can use to make those ingredients and where the line is drawn when it comes to benefit of the business and benefit of the consumers/people.

e

 

[scem0]

oh please. That trans fats are unhealthy is well beyond the point. The point is that the government has no business, and no right, to tell me what I can or cannot eat.

what food can you not eat if they ban trans fat? I'm curious.

e

 

[it5five]

That's what I thought. Your assumption is that other people are stupid and incapable of making their own decisions. So the government must babysit them. Should the government make them go to the gym too?

Here we go again with the slippery slope thing.

[offtopic]I bet you really like those when you're debating the topic of gay marriage with people and they bring up incest or animal marriage.[offtopic]

The government isn't babysitting anyone. It is holding business accountable for their actions. You want to eat trans fats? Be my guest. Eat 5 Twinkies with your Big Mac and fries. You'll get all the trans fat you want then. Nobody is stopping you from that.

 

[Swarmlord]

It amuses me that in a country supposedly formed to be an example of freedom to people everywhere that there are so many Americans that want laws making personal choice issues illegal.

I could understand requiring that a restaurant post the fact that they use transfats and what that could potentially mean. Then restaurants that don't use them could post that fact and the consumer could choose whether they wanted it or not.

What's with the compulsion to protect people from themselves? Not like the transfats are going to rub off on me if I sit by someone that ate them. Another example of nanny state legislation.

 

[Swarmlord]

trans fats have no benefits though. Any educated person would choose not to put them in their body. <snip>
e

There ain't any health benefits to booze and cigarettes either, but that's no reason to make them illegal.

 

[scem0]

I fear we are a dying breed, my friend. Education isn't working according to some here. The days of making your own decisions are quickly coming to a close.

Education isn't necessary in this case. Education is NOT an effective way to help the people in this scenario. It would take a lot of money to educate people on the detrimental effects of trans fats. And once educated any educated person would NOT consume them. it's much more effective to force businesses to use non-hydrogenated oils, and instead educate the people on things like exercise and other dietary decisions.

e

 

[leekohler]

Here we go again with the slippery slope thing.

[offtopic]I bet you really like those when you're debating the topic of gay marriage with people and they bring up incest or animal marriage.[offtopic]

The government isn't babysitting anyone. It is holding business accountable for their actions. You want to eat trans fats? Be my guest. Eat 5 Twinkies with your Big Mac and fries. You'll get all the trans fat you want then. Nobody is stopping you from that.

If you can't see the difference between this arguement and gay marriage, then we have nothing left to talk about. One is about expanding freedoms and the other is about limiting them. And I WILL NOT get into that with you.

You have said in no uncertain terms, that you think people are stupid and incapable of making the right decisions, have you not? You have also said that the government should make decisons for people.

 

[Foxglove9]

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.

So true.

I was kinda surprised this ban got passed. Mostly because of all the polls I've seen it doesn't get huge support from fellow NY'ers. But then again it's not the people that make the decisions is it.

I think it will be interesting to see where this ends up. For one, I'll probably be paying a little more for my foods when I eat out. But if it means I get to eat slightly more healthier and in a smoke free environment, I'm much happier.

I see nothing bad coming from this, though I do understand everyone's POV.

 

[jelloshotsrule]

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.

in at least one of the cases about mcdonalds leading to someone getting fat, there was a question raised of whether mcd's adds substances to its food to make it addictive. that is not quite the same as making something that is just unhealthy. in a way it's like the tobacco companies... it's one thing to have a product that will cause illness (and remember, not too long ago people really didn't realize the extent to which smoking affected your health), it's another to make that product addictive and/or cover up the fact that it's so unhealthy.


while i can understand some peoples' problems with this idea, i also, as a consumer, am glad. why? because when i go to a restaurant i can't know whether they are using particularly unhealthy ingredients (and i'm not talking about the fact that something is fried... the inherent unhealthiness of that is known, and still not as high as if it's fried in trans fat). if regulating this means that i can feel confident eating at a new place that i haven't thoroughly researched for its ingredient usage (you could ask, but i'm guessing many wouldn't know, and those that do may even mislead you to get you to stay)...

anyhoo

 

[scem0]

There ain't any health benefits to booze and cigarettes either, but that's no reason to make them illegal.

That's not true. There's no health benefits, but they do give the smoker/drinker a level of satisfaction that they wouldn't have had, otherwise. I'm not defending smoking or over-drinking, and I wouldn't do either, personally. But if there was an alternative to smoking that made smokers feel the satisfaction that they feel from smoking a cigarette, and didn't pose as many health concerns, and was just as convenient for the smoker, I'd support a law that banned conventional cigarettes in favor of these new, healthier ones.

e

 

[iPoster]

Mmmmmm, dirty water dogs! Yum!

/Yoda
Food of the Gods it is, mmm yes?
//Yoda

 

[jelloshotsrule]

You have said in no uncertain terms, that you think people are stupid and incapable of making the right decisions, have you not? You have also said that the government should make decisons for people.

in some cases? absolutely. why do we have representative gov't? many people are dumb.

i don't want to bring up gay marriage in the same way as it5five did, but if you look at the way people are voting to ban it... i would say that is wrong/dumb, and therefore i want the gov't to step in, tell them that is wrong, and overturn the vote. i know it's not a great comparison in terms of its scope, but in the sense that sometimes people don't know what's best for themselves, yes.


emerson- yeah, your paragraphs about the customer not knowing whether it has trans fats/is healthy sums up my previous post pretty much

 

[scem0]

Here's what I think:

This is not an issue of rights being taken away. Any food that could be eaten previous to the ban can still be eaten.

It's about business regulation. They can cook the same foods they did before, they just have to use higher quality ingredients.

We aren't losing ANY rights by this ban. So you can't equate it with things like banning gay marriage where rights are lost. It's not the same.

e

 

[it5five]

If you can't see the difference between this arguement and gay marriage, then we have nothing left to talk about. One is about expanding freedoms and the other is about limiting them. And I WILL NOT get into that with you.

You have said in no uncertain terms, that you think people are stupid and incapable of making the right decisions, have you not? You have also said that the government should make decisons for people.

I was not equating this argument to one of gay marriage. I was telling you to stop with the slippery slope crap. "Should the government force everyone to go to gyms?"

I know this is a completely different argument, and I wasn't saying otherwise.

 

[it5five]

If you can't see the difference between this arguement and gay marriage, then we have nothing left to talk about. One is about expanding freedoms and the other is about limiting them. And I WILL NOT get into that with you.

You have said in no uncertain terms, that you think people are stupid and incapable of making the right decisions, have you not? You have also said that the government should make decisons for people.

Sorry for the double post, but I feel like I need to defend myself.

I did not say that everyone is stupid and incapable of making the right decisions. What I DID say was that most Americans are unwilling to educate themselves about certain topics. I don't see how you got your conclusion from what I said.

EDIT:

I'll pose this scenario to you:

There is a single mother of 2 children. She works two full time jobs in order to barely get by. She barely has time to sleep let alone cook a home meal for her children. Rather than starve them, she buys fastfood when she is dropping her children off somewhere while she works.

Where is her choice? Is isn't as easy for her to avoid fast food like it is most other people.

 

[QCassidy352]

This is not an issue of rights being taken away. Any food that could be eaten previous to the ban can still be eaten.

Could you explain this idea of "cooking the same foods using different ingredients?" Using different ingredients, by definition, means that you are not making the same food as you would be making.

I fear we are a dying breed, my friend.

Sad, but true. But I guess I didn't expect anything less when I posted this. :-/

 

[princealfie]

We Need To Ban Fast Food Period.

 

[Swarmlord]

That's not true. There's no health benefits, but they do give the smoker/drinker a level of satisfaction that they wouldn't have had, otherwise. I'm not defending smoking or over-drinking, and I wouldn't do either, personally. But if there was an alternative to smoking that made smokers feel the satisfaction that they feel from smoking a cigarette, and didn't pose as many health concerns, and was just as convenient for the smoker, I'd support a law that banned conventional cigarettes in favor of these new, healthier ones.

e

Bleh. Not me. There's too many places in the world where the government controls people's lives to that level. Banning cigarettes would just create another underground activity complete with the violence the current war on drugs created.

If trans fats suck so bad, then businesses should have no trouble advertising the fact they don't use them and all the businesses that continue to use trans fats would no longer have customers. People too stupid to realize the difference can save that nickle and die faster for all I care.

 

[leekohler]

Sorry for the double post, but I feel like I need to defend myself.

I did not say that everyone is stupid and incapable of making the right decisions. What I DID say was that most Americans are unwilling to educate themselves about certain topics. I don't see how you got your conclusion from what I said.

EDIT:

I'll pose this scenario to you:

There is a single mother of 2 children. She works two full time jobs in order to barely get by. She barely has time to sleep let alone cook a home meal for her children. Rather than starve them, she buys fastfood when she is dropping her children off somewhere while she works.

Where is her choice? Is isn't as easy for her to avoid fast food like it is most other people.

I understand how you can't see how I arrived at that conclusion. Isn't "unwilling to educate themselves" the same thing as calling someone "stupid"?

And even in your scenario, it's just as easy to stop at a grocery store, go to the frozen food section and microwave it later. Probably cheaper too.

 

[Swarmlord]

We Need To Ban Fast Food Period.

Ahhhh, the dream of a totalitarian state. Hopefully Ming the Merciless will rise to power in time for you to realize your dream.

 

[princealfie]

Ahhhh, the dream of a totalitarian state. Hopefully Ming the Merciless will rise to power in time for you to realize your dream.

May you be stuffed with Big iMacs.

 

[scem0]

Could you explain this idea of "cooking the same foods using different ingredients?" Using different ingredients, by definition, means that you are not making the same food as you would be making.

Sure.

You're frying french fries in hydrogenated oil. Now, the ban comes into play. You instead fry them in regular veggie oil. The french fries would taste better, they would be healthier. The only difference is that the business would earn a few less pennies.

e