California 1st state to ban trans fats

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Jul 26, 2008.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-california-transfats-jul26,0,4168330.story

    More nanny state foolishness. :rolleyes: How about people get to decide what they eat? Oh wait- we can't have that. :mad: And I bet they never try this with high fructose corn syrup, which is in damn near everything and almost as bad.
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #2
    Now now...you overlook the fact that there's a provision in the bill that allows people who eat trans fats to get married. :)
     
  3. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #3
    Good, I'm glad. Now, let's see which sensible people follow suit.
     
  4. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #4
    Why do they even care?? They don't have Health Care.

    We do, yet our Gov't supports all kinds of ****** products. [​IMG]

    (You know where this is headed, so I'll stop now.)
     
  5. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #5
    Banning man made toxins is always a good thing, IMO. Now what's needed is a ban on high fructose corn syrup.
     
  6. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    If you want to stop people doing something don't ban it, tax it.
     
  7. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    So-you're all for banning alcohol?
     
  8. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #8
    Alcohol is a bi-product of yeast consuming sugar. :p

    Not man-made at all. Man-discovered, oh yeah. :D
     
  9. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #9
    Agreed. Personal responsibility is apparently no longer needed. The government will look out for you.

    In addition....

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fastfood23-2008jul23,0,6631786.story
     
  10. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #10
    Who needs free choice when we have big brother to look out for us?
     
  11. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #11
    Are you implying that communities don't have the right to regulate businesses within their jurisdiction?

    Should porn shops be allowed to operate next to schools? Personally, I don't think that's right. I also believe that banning the biggest contributor to obesity in areas that are overwhelmingly obese is a positive thing.

    Condoning addiction is not something the government should be doing.
     
  12. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #12

    What's to be responsible about when you go out to eat and order something that happens to be packed full of artery clogging trans fat.

    Ban the **** and replace it with something better, then the consumer doesn't know the difference but is eating something healthier.

    It's called looking after your people.
     
  13. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #13
    Is it a choice when the only source of food in your areas is fast food?
     
  14. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #14
    where is it that all you can get is fast food and you can't even find a grocery store?
     
  15. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #15
    Considering restaurants are not required by law to post nutritional information, it makes sense that they would be prohibited from serving synthetic products directly linked to heart disease. Otherwise, what's stopping them from serving mercury-laced cupcakes or arsenic-chunk cookies?

    Of course, packaged foods are exempt from this ruling, but they contain nutritional information, so it's possible for customers to make an informed decision.
     
  16. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #16
    In Los Angeles.

     
  17. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #17
    Communities have the right, but the source of the problem isn't fast food chains it's people choosing to over indulge at fast food chains. I think that's where the 'seriously?' reaction is coming from. The intent is good but the logic and approach is flawed. For one thing, it's a one year ban on new buildings so all the fast foot places that 'made the community fat' will still be around and will still be making the community fat. They are addressing a symptom not a cause. Maybe instead of a one year ban on any new fast food chains they should offer incentives to attract businesses they want/need in their community?


    Lethal
     
  18. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #18
    Nanny state? The government is responsible for promoting and protecting public health. Removing authority to regulate issues around food would be--problematic to say the least.

    Lee, are you upset that 7-up is no longer made with lithium citrate, or coca-cola cocaine?
     
  19. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #19
    You didn't read the article, did you?

    It's a two-pronged approach. Do you have a problem with that?

     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" was not a work of fiction. I wonder how many people in Chicago and in the US died from the rotting meat coming out of those packing houses?

    While researching my family history, I can't tell you how many times I've come across death records where the cause of death was "food poisoning" or "mislabeled medicine" or other cases where corporate profits took precedence over human life and health.

    Trans fats and high fructose corn syrup are the snake oil of the latter third of the 20th century.
     
  21. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #21
    Even if there is a higher concentration of fast food joints that doesn't mean it's your only choice.
     
  22. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22
    Skimmed it and obviously missed those lines.

    That's a rather pointless question considering I just said something they need to do is offering incentives for other businesses. There have been a lot of articles about South/South Central LA recently talking about how the 'hood has almost turned into a black hole as far as commercial development is concerned (fast food places being an obvious exception).


    Lethal
     
  23. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #23
    I'm not surprised people object to this (since people like to object to anything government does), but I'm very happy California has taken the first step and does this. Other states need to follow, and high fructose corn syrup needs to be banned next. That is in about damn near everything, and is awful for your body. These corporations need to be held accountable for the poison they put in our food, and somebody needs to put a stop to it.

    While on the subject, I'd recommend reading Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser.
     
  24. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #24
    You know damn well what I'm talking about. If you want to eat it, you should be able to eat it, for god's sake. This is utter silliness, just like the foie gras ban was here in Chicago. Will I eat foie gras? No. I disagree with how it's made. But I'm not out to take it away from others. If somebody wants to eat food with trans fats in it once in while because they like the taste, let them. I never said anything about doing away with regulating food preparation either. This is just ridiculous though.

    Read your labels. I manage to avoid corn syrup. It's not that difficult.
     
  25. Feverish Flux macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    #25
    Try finding bread or crackers without hydrogenated oils. Not easy.
     

Share This Page