NYC Proposes Ban On Artificial Trans Fats!!!!

[rdowns]

I agree with iGary. Eff them. This is so far out of the realm of what local gov't. should be doing.

How about filling the damn whole in lower Manhattan already. (Would happen if the gov't. would get out of the damn way)


Edit: added the word local

 

[zap2]

Very Stupid...if people want to eat alot and get fat, fine..or 2 other options, eat the bad food and work out/go out for a fun/play a sport/something to get up and get the blood pumping or let people choose not to eat that "bad" food.

We not cows, needing to be led to make every small choices..I can think for my self

 

[Blue Velvet]

There are all sorts of prohibited substances not allowed in foodstuffs. If it can be conclusively proved that these fats are a risk to public health, then I don't see the problem with eliminating them from foods at all.

People have this weird idea that the market should decide. Show me a 'developed' economy that doesn't have strict laws regulating the production, storing and sale of food in order to protect the public health.

 

[rdowns]

There are all sorts of prohibited substances not allowed in foodstuffs. If it can be conclusively proved that these fats are a risk to public health, then I don't see the problem with eliminating them from foods at all.

People have this weird idea that the market should decide. Show me a 'developed' economy that doesn't have strict laws regulating the production, storing and sale of food in order to protect the public health.

I agree. In the US, that's the job of the Food and Drug Administration, not a local government (I edited my comment above). (Even thoughth NYCs gov't. is bigger than many countries)

 

[iGary]

There are all sorts of prohibited substances not allowed in foodstuffs. If it can be conclusively proved that these fats are a risk to public health, then I don't see the problem with eliminating them from foods at all.

People have this weird idea that the market should decide. Show me a 'developed' economy that doesn't have strict laws regulating the production, storing and sale of food in order to protect the public health.

I would think that monnitrates, food dyes and preservatives would be much more harmful.

I guess my point is, at least here, in the States, there are far more pressing issues, and the less government sticks its nose into things the better. Trans fats are bad, but there are worse things.

Just my opinion. You can slap me if you want.

 

[CorvusCamenarum]

There are all sorts of prohibited substances not allowed in foodstuffs. If it can be conclusively proved that these fats are a risk to public health, then I don't see the problem with eliminating them from foods at all.

I'm not up to date -- has it been conclusively proven yet? I'm reminded about the tiff a few years ago over eggs; first they were bad for you, then they weren't bad, then only too many were bad, etc etc. It seems like every time you turn around someone has a study on something being bad, good, or not so bad for you.

People have this weird idea that the market should decide. Show me a 'developed' economy that doesn't have strict laws regulating the production, storing and sale of food in order to protect the public health.

It's not a matter of the market deciding, it's a matter of *me* deciding. The government making sure via regulation that my flour doesn't have weevils in it is one thing. Standing over me to make sure I eat all my vegetables is another.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Since when is it the government's fecking job to tell me what I can eat?

Eff them.

It pays to keep taxpayers alive and healthy?

Bit of a stretch there, but it's all I have.

 

[GFLPraxis]

Do you guys complaining have any clue what trans fats are?

They should be considered a poison. There is no nutritional value whatsoever, and it does a lot of damage. Nothing but harm. And further, the only reason it is used is that it is CHEAPER than the healthier alternatives. Banning trans fats does NOT mean you can't buy the same foods, just that those same foods won't do as much damage to your body (and might cost a couple of cents more to produce).

 

[GFLPraxis]

I'm not up to date -- has it been conclusively proven yet? I'm reminded about the tiff a few years ago over eggs; first they were bad for you, then they weren't bad, then only too many were bad, etc etc. It seems like every time you turn around someone has a study on something being bad, good, or not so bad for you.

Pretty much...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fats

Unlike other fats, trans fats are neither required nor beneficial for health.[1] Eating trans fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease.[2] For these reasons, health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils are generally considered to be worse than those occurring naturally.[3]
...
The exact biochemical methods by which trans fats produce specific health problems are a topic of continuing research. For example, the mechanisms through which trans fats contribute to coronary heart disease are fairly well understood, while the mechanism for trans fat's effect on diabetes is under investigation.

http://www.bantransfats.com/abouttransfat.html

One of the reasons that partially hydrogenated oils are used is to increase the product's shelf life, but they decrease your shelf life.

Trans fats cause significant and serious lowering of HDL (good) cholesterol and a significant and serious increase in LDL (bad) cholesterol; make the arteries more rigid; cause major clogging of arteries; cause insulin resistance; cause or contribute to type 2 diabetes; and cause or contribute to other serious health problems.

 

[NJuul]

I would think that monnitrates, food dyes and preservatives would be much more harmful.

I guess my point is, at least here, in the States, there are far more pressing issues, and the less government sticks its nose into things the better. Trans fats are bad, but there are worse things.

Just my opinion. You can slap me if you want.

Actually trans fats can be considered as worse than most of these things, and as said by others, there's no reason why it shouldn't be regulated as it is just an additive easily replaced by less unhealthy fats. To say that there are other more pressing issues is irrelevant, if there is a serious health issue, consumers should be protected. They don't put cocaine in coke anymore either.

They should be considered a poison. There is no nutritional value whatsoever, and it does a lot of damage. Nothing but harm. And further, the only reason it is used is that it is CHEAPER than the healthier alternatives. Banning trans fats does NOT mean you can't buy the same foods, just that those same foods won't do as much damage to your body (and might cost a couple of cents more to produce).

I completely agree with this.

 

[0098386]

Since when is it the government's fecking job to tell me what I can eat?

Eff them.

Since people started getting obese, getting ill and clogging up the health service wasting time and money for actually ill people.

 

[0098386]

Do you guys complaining have any clue what trans fats are?

They should be considered a poison. There is no nutritional value whatsoever, and it does a lot of damage. Nothing but harm. And further, the only reason it is used is that it is CHEAPER than the healthier alternatives. Banning trans fats does NOT mean you can't buy the same foods, just that those same foods won't do as much damage to your body (and might cost a couple of cents more to produce).

so you're not just a pretty face Praxis
I suppose I'd only be echoing whats already been said. but these transfats are ****** things only used to extend the shelf life of a product (according to Granada Reports). I suppose it doesn't matter to me though, all my food comes from local bakeries, butchers etc whose food reassuring goes off in few days.

 

[Abstract]

I'm not up to date -- has it been conclusively proven yet? I'm reminded about the tiff a few years ago over eggs; first they were bad for you, then they weren't bad, then only too many were bad, etc etc. It seems like every time you turn around someone has a study on something being bad, good, or not so bad for you.


It's not a matter of the market deciding, it's a matter of *me* deciding. The government making sure via regulation that my flour doesn't have weevils in it is one thing. Standing over me to make sure I eat all my vegetables is another.

But I do think it's the responsibility of government to take care of it's citizens in some way. Since most people have not the slightest clue about trans fat, saturated fat, unsaturated, etc, it's probably better that they tell you it's so bad that you really shouldn't be eating it. Most people don't even know the difference. I know some of you think it's "your choice", but nobody really chooses "trans fat" or any other kind of fat. If "trans fat" were replaced with another, less damaging type of oil, people would be fine with it. I mean, if the menu at McDonalds doesn't taste much different, then people won't be unhappy. They won't be happy either. They'll just be like, "Ok, whatever. Just give me the goods." Lucky for them, the "goods" are a bit more healthy before without them even realizing it.

Sounds good to me.

 

[MacNut]

Isn't this just an easy way for the city to make money, By outlawing this and knowing that everyone wont get rid of it overnight they can fine the restaurants all they want and make some money. Isn't that what all laws are really a way to make a quick buck.

 

[Frisco]

Well it should at least make for good TV drama

 

[Phobophobia]

Well it should at least make for good TV drama

Indeed.

 

[Edot]

"Progressive??" How about "paternalistic and big brother-ish??" The proper function of government is NOT to tell me whether or not I can eat doughnuts.

I think they are telling you that you cannot make informed decisions for yourself, and are effecting people around you and the entire country because of the side effects of not being healthy. Therefore, they are making the decision for you.