Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Big Brother commands you to eat better!
- Thread starter QCassidy352
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Big Macs are good for the soul. 
With that said, This is a prime example where the market could solve this issue far better than any city council could.
Ah yes, the slippery slope. I guess New York will suffer a Krispey Kreme drought this summer.
I think this ban insults the intelligence of many New Yorkers whom are very capable of deciding what to eat, and what not to eat. No need for Big-B to step in.
With that said, This is a prime example where the market could solve this issue far better than any city council could.
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.
Ah yes, the slippery slope. I guess New York will suffer a Krispey Kreme drought this summer.
I think this ban insults the intelligence of many New Yorkers whom are very capable of deciding what to eat, and what not to eat. No need for Big-B to step in.
Ah, but primary consumers of fast food are the poor. So the nickel that they save is going to be spent by me to keep them from dying faster.
I think the issue here is that the law is designed to help those who are otherwise in a position nto to help themselves. Look at the labor laws of the early 20th century. People lost their freedom to contract as they wished because they were in a position where they were incapable of protecting themselves - the poor were exploited by management in a way that would make you grateful for Wal-Mart. Governmental intervention didn't lead to a Soviet style control of all future employment decision making - it led to healthier work environments.
Here, the government has an interest in protecting those who are too poor to help themselves - the trans-fatty food provides such quantity for cheap that it is attractive to the poor to consume food bereft of nutrition rather than seek quality. From an autonomy standpoint - we are protecting the weak from those who would abuse them. We could require that purveyors fo trans-fat educate customers before purchase, but the cost would outweigh the benefit. From a health care perspective, those poor will typically be sicker and need more assistance from the government. I suppose the government could require that you demonstrate that you do not receive government assistance before buying trans-fatty foods, but that would cause an uproar.
That's what you think. You know that the costs will get inflated and passed along to the consumer. But, I'm not complaining.
what's not to understand? it's obvious you can get the same food using different quality of ingredients, and it's equally obvious that deleterious one should be avoided, especially when the only reason for using them is increasing profit.
so do you support a reintroduction of asbestos in buldings? eliminating the requirement of drinking water to be limited in the amount benzene, atrazene and other poisons?
No it doesn't. There is no way for the smartest of consumer to know if transfat is being used in the food they are served in restaurants.
Perfect example:
There is a family-owned restaurant here in Brooklyn that is very popular with the locals and known for their healthy food.
I'm friends with one of the waiters and he told me today that the owners were talking about how much it's going to cost to change from using trans fats. We both shocked to find out that they used them.
The problem is, you don't know whose using them and even the staff assumes they don't because it's usually associated with fast food.
You know when you're smoking a cigarette or drinking alcohol.
-leekohler
Yes, but not nearly as much - Courts, incarceration, etc.
Trans fats real cost isn't in the direct Obesity issue, it's health management later like Hypertension, Heart attacks, etc.
Again, I'm fine with the banning of an item that's downsides outweigh the upside, like DDT, etc.
(sorry about the delay - MR had decided not to inform me of updates)
It is not just fast food places that use trans fats - many high-end restaurants use them. As a matter of fact, many of you probably had trans-fat over the Thanksgiving holiday.
Did you eat Apple Pie? Pumkin Pie? Have you eaten any packaged crackers or cookies? If yes, then you've had trans fat. Even cheesecake can have trans fat if it has a graham crust. Also - some packages will say 0 grams of trans fat but if it contains partially hydrogenated oil it may have up to .5 grams trans fat. Not much, but it adds up.
The very best pie crusts are made with Crisco and Butter. The butter for flavor, the Crisco for flakiness. (if you used lard instead of crisco, then great, there were no trans fat in your pie) There is a trans fat free Crisco but it is more expensive and not available everywhere.
The fryer oil that is used in many, many high end restaurants have trans fats in them. Unless you are specifically trying not to use these fats, the chefs at these resaurants probably never even look at the ingredients in the fryer oil. I looked when I was working at a really great, well known restaurant and the ingredients were partially hydrogenated oil, soy oil, and some stabilizers.
Did you eat Apple Pie? Pumkin Pie? Have you eaten any packaged crackers or cookies? If yes, then you've had trans fat. Even cheesecake can have trans fat if it has a graham crust. Also - some packages will say 0 grams of trans fat but if it contains partially hydrogenated oil it may have up to .5 grams trans fat. Not much, but it adds up.
The very best pie crusts are made with Crisco and Butter. The butter for flavor, the Crisco for flakiness. (if you used lard instead of crisco, then great, there were no trans fat in your pie
) There is a trans fat free Crisco but it is more expensive and not available everywhere. The fryer oil that is used in many, many high end restaurants have trans fats in them. Unless you are specifically trying not to use these fats, the chefs at these resaurants probably never even look at the ingredients in the fryer oil. I looked when I was working at a really great, well known restaurant and the ingredients were partially hydrogenated oil, soy oil, and some stabilizers.
A smart consumer would simply ask... much like how I was taught to ask "Does this contain MSG?"
This is Big-Brother doing the thinking for you and thus, insults the intelligence of New Yorkers. Apparently they aren't capable of making decisions regarding trans fatty acids so says the city council.
And you know what you'll get? Lots of blank stares from the clerks or whomever is waiting on you. Chances are you won't get even get an answer or even an honest answer. What you'll probably get is:
"Listen pal, do ya want a burger or not". Remember this is NYC we're talkin' about
For everyone mentioning that it will cost extra money to police this:
remember that food service establishments are regularly inspected by the health department. Incorporating checks for partially hydrogenated oils into the health inspection would not be a major draw on the system.
remember that food service establishments are regularly inspected by the health department. Incorporating checks for partially hydrogenated oils into the health inspection would not be a major draw on the system.
As I said in the other part of my post, the staff doesn't always know and often assume they don't use it because of the association of trans fat with fast food.
And really, what's to stop them from saying they don't when they do?
Look, I've already made the decision that I don't want to eat trans fat, if the city helps by eliminating the process of trying to get a straight answer out of a restaurant employee regarding trans fat, thats fine with me.
And the possibilty of being able to eat a Dunkin Donut again is kind of exciting.
And you know what you'll get? Lots of blank stares from the clerks or whomever is waiting on you. Chances are you won't get even get an answer or even an honest answer. What you'll probably get is:
"Listen pal, do ya want a burger or not". Remember this is NYC we're talkin' about
Or
"Transit? Yea, the subway is right on the corner."
Hey, everyone freaking out about this:
I bought some Lays at work tonight. They are now cooked in Sunflower Oil. No trans fats. Guess what? They taste the same and cost the same.
I don't see what the big deal is. There are plenty of other healthier oils available that cost around the same.
I bought some Lays at work tonight. They are now cooked in Sunflower Oil. No trans fats. Guess what? They taste the same and cost the same.
I don't see what the big deal is. There are plenty of other healthier oils available that cost around the same.
Thought I'd add this. It echoes my sentiments pretty well.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...818.story?coll=chi-newsopinionperspective-hed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...818.story?coll=chi-newsopinionperspective-hed
I buy the ones cooked with Olean (Olestra). Practically no fat at all! And they are really tasty. I go through a few bags a week, but they are really expensive.
I agree with the OP. I guess I'm just a rebel, but the government can't tell me what I can and can't eat. This partially hydrigenatied vegatble oil is mainly used by fast food business'. Don't want it in your food? Don't eat there!
First off I'd like to say that this comes from an English perspective and not an American one. I feel we (as in British people) are slightly more understanding of the whole government regulation thing than you Americans are.
The government taxes people for smoking and drinking because of the adverse risk those pass times have on the persons health and thus the increased cost that that person will inflict up the health system.
It is long overdue that people start taking responsibilty for what they eat and the amount of exercise they do. It is a fact that obesity is rising in both the UK and the US (and in other parts of the world) and will cost our government millions of pounds to deal with their health care. It is about time that these people realise that it is socially unexceptable to be overweight. Smokers know that what they do is wrong. That is why the taxes on cigarettes is enough to pay for their future health care. The same should (read must) happen with food, especially fast food.
Food which has no real nutrional content (Ice Cream for example) should be taxed. The people who only eat it occasionaly won't really be affected as the price might rise by say 5 - 10p per tube, but the people who eat it regularly should be made to feel the increase in price.
I am sick to death of having to subsidise people who are overweight or obese. They are just the same as smokers and alcoholics when it comes to the damage and the cost that it levies on the health system. Maybe I am on my own here, but it has been proven that people can not make an informed decision about what to eat simply by the rise in the number of people who are clinically obese.
I believe that if you make eating bad foods hurt peoples wallets they will soon learn what is good to eat. The nation was at its healthiest during the war when rationing was in force, that says alot about people and free will does it not?
The government taxes people for smoking and drinking because of the adverse risk those pass times have on the persons health and thus the increased cost that that person will inflict up the health system.
It is long overdue that people start taking responsibilty for what they eat and the amount of exercise they do. It is a fact that obesity is rising in both the UK and the US (and in other parts of the world) and will cost our government millions of pounds to deal with their health care. It is about time that these people realise that it is socially unexceptable to be overweight. Smokers know that what they do is wrong. That is why the taxes on cigarettes is enough to pay for their future health care. The same should (read must) happen with food, especially fast food.
Food which has no real nutrional content (Ice Cream for example) should be taxed. The people who only eat it occasionaly won't really be affected as the price might rise by say 5 - 10p per tube, but the people who eat it regularly should be made to feel the increase in price.
I am sick to death of having to subsidise people who are overweight or obese. They are just the same as smokers and alcoholics when it comes to the damage and the cost that it levies on the health system. Maybe I am on my own here, but it has been proven that people can not make an informed decision about what to eat simply by the rise in the number of people who are clinically obese.
I believe that if you make eating bad foods hurt peoples wallets they will soon learn what is good to eat. The nation was at its healthiest during the war when rationing was in force, that says alot about people and free will does it not?
Short version (because I could go on and on about this): Stuff like this is totally fascist... and hypocritical, too, since they limit how things can be used while taxing the hell out of them. New York makes a heck of a lot more off of each pack of cigarettes sold there than the tobacco companies do... so of course they're not going to BAN them, even though pretty much everyone agrees that smoking is bad for you. If they had even an ounce of integrity, they'd either ban smoking (and other harmful things) COMPLETELY or they'd back the hell away and let people see to themselves.
BTW, from the opening sequence to last weekend's American Dad... the newspaper headline was "NYC bans trans fats; fat trannies still OK".
BTW, from the opening sequence to last weekend's American Dad... the newspaper headline was "NYC bans trans fats; fat trannies still OK".
I've asked this before- what else would you like to add to the list?
Racecar drivers, motorcyclists, and skydivers get hurt a lot and cause a drain on the healthcare system. You're subsidizing them as well and they certainly could do something else for fun, couldn't they? What else can people not choose correctly?
And for all of you who say there's no slippery slope here, if this past post isn't a good illustration, I don't know what is.
They have to pay for insurance which then pays out if they get injured. This money is then used to protect others from being sued and should also go back into the health system to pay for their health care. This is the way it should be.
So your saying that smokers should not be taxed because other things people do cost the health system money and they are not taxed. Therefore nothing should be taxed. That is really really poor logic. I refuse to pay for other peoples laziness, greed and stupidity.
Problem with banning cigarettes is that the SCOTUS won't let it happen. When the FDA tried to take control of tobacco, the Court ruled that if the FDA was to take control there would have to be a ban - which wouldn't be acceptable. They tried to ban alcohol, and we know what happened there. Trans fats don't fall under the same restrictions...