New York Bans Most Trans Fats in Restaurants


D-NICE said:
stagga, that's why I like you bruh. We think along the same lines. These bans are getting ridiculous, and more outrageous. You, and Prof K. are right, these are only baby steps to something bigger.

No smoking in public, no drinking in public, no dark tint on your car windows, your pants can't hang off your arse, no gambling unless it's state regulated, no pornography, no prayer in schools, rapist, and molesters have to be registered, but murderers, drug dealers, and thieves don't.......man, the land of the free, you gotta love it.

It's only a matter of time before the draft returns, and you'll have to go fight a war that YOU don't agree with.

NICE
Click to expand...

Yep....................And one day soon, it's not going to be food or smoking.
It's going to be entertainment, business, etc.
People are still missing this point.....................It ain't about salt, types of food, or ingredients. :no:

BTW: Just one other note since all this kind of stuff seems to originate from Bloomburgs New York.

Did ya'll know that earlier this year Bloomburg tried to get a law passed on the number of fast food/restaurant's in a given # of blocks because he thought it would cut down on people eating fast food?
 
Bartram said:
Very interesting info there Native. I just get sick of more and more regulations. It never ends, and that's when people with social/political agendas get involved trying to shape the world in their image. I say (within reason, and this may be within reason, dunno) let ME/people decide. We have a free enough economy that someone will use NOT using transfats in their food at all as a business model and that will give people choice. As more and more information comes out like you have here, people can read for themselves and then choose. I'd rather it work itself out like that than having yet another governmental regulation. Now of coarse mugz can bring up all kinds of things were governmental regulation is a good thing. I just think something like this can be left to people to decide as individuals, just like drinking alcohol/smoking(in the past) etc.
Click to expand...

Wendy's, Ttaco Bell and KFC have banned or reduced trans fats in their restaurants:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6155386.stm
 



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070102/ap_on_bi_ge/starbucks_trans_fats

Starbucks cutting trans fats from food - more to follow... I am sure.

By CURT WOODWARD

SEATTLE - Starbucks Corp. is cutting trans fats from the doughnuts, muffins and other treats in half of its U.S. stores, and plans to eventually drop the artery-clogging fats from company-operated coffeehouses across the country.

The world's largest specialty coffee retailer has been working to eliminate trans fats from its food menu for about two years, spokesman Brandon Borrman said Tuesday.

"This is just something we have been working on, and our focus has always been on providing our customers with healthy and nutritious food options," Borrman said.

Trans fats, listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, are believed to be harmful because they wreak havoc on cholesterol levels.
 
Bartram said:
Very interesting info there Native. I just get sick of more and more regulations. It never ends, and that's when people with social/political agendas get involved trying to shape the world in their image. I say (within reason, and this may be within reason, dunno) let ME/people decide. We have a free enough economy that someone will use NOT using transfats in their food at all as a business model and that will give people choice. As more and more information comes out like you have here, people can read for themselves and then choose. I'd rather it work itself out like that than having yet another governmental regulation. Now of coarse mugz can bring up all kinds of things were governmental regulation is a good thing. I just think something like this can be left to people to decide as individuals, just like drinking alcohol/smoking(in the past) etc.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a capitalist's utopia. I understand not wanting the government to impose more and more rules but to be honest this rule is not imposed on YOU. Its imposed on businesses that don't care if they kill you as long as they make money.

Be real about it. If people were given a clear choice to eat trans fats vs other solutions and told that the trans fats are extremely harmful and that the only difference is in the savings for the company I am sure they wouldn't CHOOSE eat the trans fats. You aren't really losing any real choice here.

I swear some folk would let businesses practice slavery in the name of freedom.
 
BLAQUE PRINCE said:
This sounds like a capitalist's utopia. I understand not wanting the government to impose more and more rules but to be honest this rule is not imposed on YOU. Its imposed on businesses that don't care if they kill you as long as they make money.

Be real about it. If people were given a clear choice to eat trans fats vs other solutions and told that the trans fats are extremely harmful and that the only difference is in the savings for the company I am sure they wouldn't CHOOSE eat the trans fats. You aren't really losing any real choice here.

I swear some folk would let businesses practice slavery in the name of freedom.
Click to expand...

People ARE given a clear choice on packaged foods. All you have to do is READ THE LABEL and avoid "hydrogenated" substances.

You have choices at fast food restaurants, too. For those who pay the slightest attention, restaurants which have reduced or eliminated transfats from their menus such as Wendy's, have been well publicized. People have already been given a clear choice to eat transfats versus other solutions and they consistenly choose transfats. If french fies made without transfats taste so good, why do people choose McDonald's over Wendy's? Food chains spend a lot of money to do taste tests with consumers - this is the reason McD's has been so slow to remove transfats - because people choose to eat their frecnh fries made with transfats over those without the transfats.

Rules imposed on businesses are ultimately imposed on consumers... that means you, Blaque Prince, plus me and everyone who patronizes the business. "Reduced" or "increased" costs to business will ALWAYS be ultimately passed on to consumers, otherwise the business cannot stay open.
 
Native,

What label do you know that says (before the Fed requirements) "We have ____ grams of Trans Fats"?
 
jag4life said:
Native,

What label do you know that says (before the Fed requirements) "We have ____ grams of Trans Fats"?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean about "before the Fed requirements," Jag4Life, but ingredient labels have been on packaged food for years. Ingredients are listed, I believe, in order of bulk proportion. Here is random sampling from my cupboard:
1. Fiber One Honey Clusters: "Whole grain wheat" is the first ingredient listed. No "hydrogenated" ingredients are listed.
2. Keebler Wheat and Cheddar Sandwich Crackers: The second ingredient listed is "partially hydrogenated soy and/or cottonseed oil."
3. Chips Ahoy: Listed ingredients include "partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil."
4. Dare crackers: No hydrogenated ingredients listed. Product is advertised as "0 grams of transfat."
5. Fritos: Ingredients listed are "Whole corn, corn oil and salt." Surprise! No hydrogenated ingredients. Also advertised as "0 grams of transfat."
6. Ritz crackers: Unfortunately, the listed ingredients include "partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil." Dang it!

I know it's hard to keep up with everything, and health fads come and go, but the word is clear and consistent on transfats. What is it about the word "hydrogenated" that is difficult to understand? What is your point?
 
Native this is about transfat. No products had anything about trans fats before the federal government started requiring them to put it on there. Oreo cookies was one of the most familiar to catch flack about it when it was first discovered that they had a lot of that type of fat in them.
 
jag4life said:
Native this is about transfat. No products had anything about trans fats before the federal government started requiring them to put it on there. Oreo cookies was one of the most familiar to catch flack about it when it was first discovered that they had a lot of that type of fat in them.
Click to expand...

Jag4Life, if you are saying that federally mandated food labels are a good thing, then we are certainly in agreement. :nod:

News flash: hydrogenated = transfat :read:

:wavey:
 
native said:
Rules imposed on businesses are ultimately imposed on consumers... that means you, Blaque Prince, plus me and everyone who patronizes the business. "Reduced" or "increased" costs to business will ALWAYS be ultimately passed on to consumers, otherwise the business cannot stay open.
Click to expand...

Either you missed my point or America is even more airheaded then I have come to believe.

Do you believe that Americans with full knowledge of what trans-fats can do to you and that there would be no noticeable difference in food quality would actually CHOOSE to eat the trans-fats for the sake of reducing operating costs for a business??? No need to answer....I see how the American people vote. :shame:

And we all know increases in cost may get passed down to the consumer but reductions in cost get passed to shareholder pocket books. But hey...if you all want ground up human arms in your packaged meat for the sake of price and "freedom" have at it.
 
BLAQUE PRINCE said:
Either you missed my point or America is even more airheaded then I have come to believe.

Do you believe that Americans with full knowledge of what trans-fats can do to you and that there would be no noticeable difference in food quality would actually CHOOSE to eat the trans-fats for the sake of reducing operating costs for a business??? No need to answer....I see how the American people vote. :shame:

And we all know increases in cost may get passed down to the consumer but reductions in cost get passed to shareholder pocket books. But hey...if you all want ground up human arms in your packaged meat for the sake of price and "freedom" have at it.
Click to expand...

Blaque Prince, if your point is that some regulation is necessary and good, and that consmers should possess adequate information to make sound decisions, then I definitely agree with you! :nod:

If your point is that all regulation is necessary and good, and that the government should make decisions for consumers, then we are in sharp disagreement.

There are obviously Americans who choose to eat trans fats with knowledge of the danger, and there are obviously Americans who choose not to inform themselves about trans fats despite the abundant availability of information.

The Declaration of Independence seeks opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the US Constitution provides the legal framework for citizens to pursue those dreams - even for the lazy, the ignorant and the self delusional. It does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of their own bad decisions, as you seem to think it should.

Why do you have such disdain for capitalism? If you hate it so much, why not live in a country where it doesn't exist for a while? ... No, bruh, I did not say, "love it or leave it," I am just suggesting that you get a grip, man! Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Honor it. Feed it. Keep it clean and healthy. Everyone suffers when we fail to do so.

Over the long term, both cost reductions and cost increases get passed to consumers, except in the case of monopolies. This is not rocket science.

If you have a better idea, start a business and give all your "excess profits" to the charity of your choice.
 
^^^ LMAO

If you love capitalism and don't own a business or at least have a decent stake in one your crazy. I try to stay as far away from making money for someone else as possible and sometimes doubt my ability to be successful in my own being that I'm not a fan of "let the buyer beware" and other tactics. Your last sentence may have been sarcastic but its something I'd probably do. I am not that hungry for riches.

If no good can come of something besides money in pocketbooks (example trans-fats) then I have no problem with the government banning it. I doubt you and I would draw the same line as far as government control but I do not believe the pursuit of truth/fairness and money go hand in hand.

I do understand and completely agree that we have to watch the precedents that are set or risk reaching 1984 but we can't be so fearful that we don't do things in our own best interests. If you believe banning dangerous substances is a step in the direction of 1984 then why have prescription and illegal drugs?
 
I do find the anti government acting argument interesting. This is a slippery slope and I cautiously support local efforts to ban trans fat.

For example - Should the government back off of banning lead in paints?

I treaded down the libertarian path many years ago, because I believe in small government, but I do think that government has a role in some areas. This is a constant internal battle with me, but after seeing the science on trans-fat, I am not opposed to this action.
 
BLAQUE PRINCE said:
^^^ LMAO

If you love capitalism and don't own a business or at least have a decent stake in one your crazy. I try to stay as far away from making money for someone else as possible and sometimes doubt my ability to be successful in my own being that I'm not a fan of "let the buyer beware" and other tactics. Your last sentence may have been sarcastic but its something I'd probably do. I am not that hungry for riches.

If no good can come of something besides money in pocketbooks (example trans-fats) then I have no problem with the government banning it. I doubt you and I would draw the same line as far as government control but I do not believe the pursuit of truth/fairness and money go hand in hand.

I do understand and completely agree that we have to watch the precedents that are set or risk reaching 1984 but we can't be so fearful that we don't do things in our own best interests. If you believe banning dangerous substances is a step in the direction of 1984 then why have prescription and illegal drugs?
Click to expand...

Blaque Prince, I don't "love" capitalism, but it works better than any other system to provide food, clothing, shelter, and a million other goods and services to anyone who is not lazy or disabled. Capitalism makes the pie bigger for everyone, even though many people are blinded by their jealousy of those who earn "excessive" pieces of the pie. Alternatives to capitalism simply make the pie smaller, to the greatest detriment of those who have the least to begin with.

You claim to avoid business because you are afraid that someone else might share in the benefit from you labors? Seriously? Do you hate team sports, too, because someone else might benefit from a block you might throw or a pass you could make? You are truly blind, brother, if you would fail to bend over and pick up a dime because it might earn someone else an additional twenty cents. (This is the estimated cost of labor in many small business scenarios - about a third.)

There is an element in this discussion that we have omitted: Who has perfect knowledge, perfect truth? You? Me? the government? NO! No one on this earth has perfect knowledge. For example, a generation ago we celebrated trans fats because they increased the shelf life of packaged food products, reduced the tendency of natural fats towards rancidity over time, and provided us a miracle alternative to the deadly saturated fats found in butter. Lots of smart people told us the evils of saturated fats. The government recommended margarine as a replacement for butter. Yes, Blaque Prince, a key ingredient in margarine at that time was hdrogenated oil; i.e., trans fat!

There is a big difference between "buyer beware" and "truth in advertising." Buyer beware impies the pre-progressive era disonesty of a century ago, when unscrupulous snake oil salesmen and meatpackers, for example, lied about the content of their products. "Truth in advertising" requires a disinterested third party (i.e., the government regulators, consumer advocacy groups) to referee labeling to make sure it is accurate. Even more importantly, the internet and other tools of this capitalist-driven information age allow any discerning consumer to get the best information that has ever been available in the history of humankind. The information age also allows unscrupulus snake oil salesmen to continue to thrive. Discerning is the key word.

This lack of perfect information is one reason I believe in banning deadly substances, but not necessarily dangerous substances. Another reason is my own personal freedom. I do not want the freedom to smoke crack, but once in a while, I might want the freedom the eat a McDonald's french fry or smoke a cigar, even though I know that too many french fries or cigars would be very bad for my health. You lefties want to protect us from ourselves, and you are blind to the egregious mistakes and burdens imposed by government authority. You seek an equality of results instead of true opportunity. You would have the government decide the outcome of a football game before the coin toss.

There's no "truth in advertising" in your method, Blaque Prince! You use extreme examples (e.g., "human arms in packaged meat ... businesses that don't care if they kill you as long as they make money") to condemn all businesses and business people. Do you honestly think that everone who owns a Starbucks or a McDonald's "don't care if they kill you?!??" That's just wrong, man! "Buyer Beware!" for anyone who reads your posts.
 
Olde Hornet said:
I do find the anti government acting argument interesting. This is a slippery slope and I cautiously support local efforts to ban trans fat.

For example - Should the government back off of banning lead in paints?

I treaded down the libertarian path many years ago, because I believe in small government, but I do think that government has a role in some areas.

This is a constant internal battle with me, but after seeing the science on trans-fat, I am not opposed to this action.
Click to expand...

Olde Hornet, good example. Lots to think about. I would point out that lead paint has direct consequences to those who never chose to use it, as opposed to trans fat, which has direct consequences only to those who choose to consume it.

Your agony of conscience is an interesting reflection of the built-in tensions in our republican form of government, intended to protect individual liberty and limit the powers of any one group or institution.

Libertarianism would be ideal if human beings were honest and disciplined enough to enjoy it without harming others in the process. Perhaps it was more practical in Jeffersonian America, where there was enough space to do your own thing without infringing on the rights of others?

I remain more fearful of the slippery slope and government power than of trans fats, because I can control my consumption of tans fats.
 



native said:
Olde Hornet, good example. Lots to think about. I would point out that lead paint has direct consequences to those who never chose to use it, as opposed to trans fat, which has direct consequences only to those who choose to consume it.

Your agony of conscience is an interesting reflection of the built-in tensions in our republican form of government, intended to protect individual liberty and limit the powers of any one group or institution.

Libertarianism would be ideal if human beings were honest and discipined enough to enjoy it without harming others in the process. Perhaps it was more practical in Jeffersonian America, where there was enough space to do your own thing without infringing on the rights of others?

I remain more fearful of the slippery slope and government power than of trans fats, because I can control my consumtion of tans fats.
Click to expand...

native - the other issue with trans fats will come from lawsuits if the food industry does not change. I can see it now - tobacco type lawsuits.
 
Olde Hornet said:
native - the other issue with trans fats will come from lawsuits if the food industry does not change. I can see it now - tobacco type lawsuits.
Click to expand...

These type "lawsuits" are the tail wagging the dog in this country and should be stopped. We constantly in this country look for new "problems" to solve and issues to "concure". Quite frankly i think that comes from the training in our colleges where the bulk of college centers on solving problems and making life better for others. das fine, but the problem comes in who decides what "better" is. College education is good, don't get me wrong, but it is now getting to a point where we have solved so many basic real life problems that we now must reach and manufacture problems/crisis. We need national "tort reform" or some kind of legislation that tells the legal system that anything DOESN'T go, you will be over-ruled by common sense if you continue to bring frivolous lawsuits, and certain things like what people choosing to eat (fine to put the warning labels on and all that) is on them.
 
The end is near! The end is near! :lmao:

Its true ---- I just heard on the news that Crisco, yes I said Crisco is going to remove trans fat from the product.
 
native said:
Jag4Life, if you are saying that federally mandated food labels are a good thing, then we are certainly in agreement. :nod:

News flash: hydrogenated = transfat :read:

:wavey:
Click to expand...



I am not against banning transfats when it is destroying your health. The average Joe or Josephine woudn't know what a transfat is no more than they would a can of orange hand cleaner. Most don't know.

However, I don't think there needs to be a lawsuit on every single thing. When you look at it though. Companies that provide food to you should provide it at its most healthiest state. At the same time, perhaps the research was not there to tell people what a transfat was or was not.

The lawsuit is bogus but the claim is legit. Transfats are not good. The body does not break them down like it does olive oils or canola.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top