| natedogg |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 11/21/07 12:15 PM |
|
San Francisco goes after trans fats too
|
However, in this case they take the right approach.
article
Restaurants which are certified by the city to be "trans fat free" will get a nice pretty certificate to post in their window.
So, my question for the nannies is, how hard was that? Why do you nannies always immediately jump to the full-fledged coercion solution?
I can't help but wonder if those who usually favor of heavy-handed coercion do so out of a desire to coerce regardless of the issue. In other words, power-trippers. Or maybe just a lack of imagination? Hard to say, but they must be stopped. And of all places, San Francisco has taken a reasonable approach.
natedogg
PS: Obviously, I don't support the city spending my money on this silly certificate program but that is a lighter shade of coercion than an outright ban so I'm pleased. If being trans-fat free was important enough to consumers then restaurants would publish that fact on their own. oh wait, they do: (from the article)
Quote:
Palio D' Asti restaurant in San Francisco has been trans-fat free for years -- no margarine or vegetable shortening are ever used.
...
While there are no hard numbers, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association says most restaurants have already given up on trans fat.
"My guess is that 80 percent of them don't use any trans fats, but the ones that do, tend to be on the lower end of the spectrum," says Kevin Westlye, Golden Gate Restaurant Associaeion[sic].
And this last one is just funny, cause it highlights the typical case of government solving a problem that doesnt' exist:
Quote:
The proposed legislation wants to see trans-fats out of San Francisco schools as well. However, the district says, as of 2005-2006, no trans-fats are ever added to meals.