New York City bans trans fats
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/


I was really shocked when I saw this on cnn last night. Seems very out of line for the city government to legislate what people can eat. This seems like a good opportunity to let the people work unhealthy food out of the system on their own - IE, people stop ordering trans fatty foods, restaurants stop putting them on the menu. The government has no business saying what we can or cannot eat.

If challenged, will this hold up in court? (This may be answered in article, I've pulled an all nighter here so I may have missed it)

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

Just wait til you read all the responders who defend the ban. Some of them will deploy some very sophisticated sophistries, as if they have been trained. You will be shocked and dismayed at how much contempt your fellow Americans really have for personal liberty and personal responsibility.

natedogg

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

I'm thinking of writing a politics books for kids, I'm thinking of calling it, "My Mommy the Government". What do you think?

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

At first I thought this law had been thrown out in court. However, it was a different NYC law that was thrown out requiring restaurants to post calorie counts. Link

As for the trans-fat law, meh. I don't have a strong opinion.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking of writing a politics books for kids, I'm thinking of calling it, "My Mommy the Government". What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to as The Government about what I think. I'll get back to you.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

Should it be legal for restaurants to put arsenic in food?

There's no consumer benefits from trans fats especially since they taste almost identical to healthier oils. The reason I support the ban is because it's too much of a pain in the ass to go around to different restaurants and ask the ignorant waiter if foods served there are cooked with trans fats.

This isn't a case of personal freedom, it's really just a case of the FDA approving a product that had large term damaging effects.

So like I said, arsenic in food? Legal?

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

There are very few circumstances in which you really should be eating the artificial trans fats that the ban applies to. It's slightly cheaper than regular cooking processes, and eventually the price difference will get passed on to the consumer. But if you have a vested interest in living a long healthy life, stay away.

The problem as I see it is how easy it is to get government to do something. It should be easier to talk to people and convince them you're right, which would obviously cause the manufacturer to change its practices than to go to City Hall and have them write law after law. The worst part is now, City Hall thinks it has the right to write laws against things that are unhealthy, cotton candy better watch out.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should it be legal for restaurants to put arsenic in food?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know that you were getting arsenic, and you still ate it, you would be beyond the help of any government.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no consumer benefits from trans fats

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't get to decide what benefits other people assign to transfats. They're marginally cheaper, for starters, which would result in lower cost to the consumer.

[ QUOTE ]
especially since they taste almost identical to healthier oils.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost? If there's any difference at all, who are you to say that other people shouldn't recognize the difference at all in making their choice?

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I support the ban is because it's too much of a pain in the ass to go around to different restaurants and ask the ignorant waiter if foods served there are cooked with trans fats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your laziness is a good reason for you to demand that restaurants advertise in big red letters that they have no transfats before you eat there. It is a terrible reason to ban anything but what you want but are too lazy to identify.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a case of personal freedom

[/ QUOTE ]

Freedom to make subjectively bad choices is still freedom. It's still worth something. You know why? Because someday someone will try to decide that things you want to do are subjectively bad by their standards and that you should be forced not to do them. And you will kick and scream. You should have the foresight to see that this "slippery slope" is a real threat.

[ QUOTE ]
it's really just a case of the FDA approving a product that had large term damaging effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are free to inform me to their hearts delight that I ought not to buy it. Why do they need to go further?

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why do they need to go further?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I support the ban is because it's too much of a pain in the ass to go around to different restaurants and ask the ignorant waiter if foods served there are cooked with trans fats.

[/ QUOTE ]
We must pay higher prices because he's lazy.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

Honestly, as long as we have a social welfare system, I don't see how anyone can really object to these types of laws. Or the absurd extensions of these type of laws that all of us can easily imagine. This isn't an endorsement of these types of laws, obviously, but a condemnation of the welfare state, but when you have one you practically must have the other, imo.

Luckily I've been informed that only things which are "really bad" and have "practically no benefits" like smoking and trans-fats are at risk of being banned. This is good news for everyone who doesn't have any habits or preferences for things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skydiving.

Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats)

Church.

Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same).

Motorcycles.

Poker.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skydiving.

Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats)

Church.

Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same).

Motorcycles.

Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, if you don't like any of those things you have nothing to worry about.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skydiving.

Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats)

Church.

Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same).

Motorcycles.

Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]


Smoking
Drinking
Sex
hand shaking
swimming in public pools
air travel
automobiles
hangliding
rock climbing
basicly all sports
Paint
internet porn

etc etc

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, as long as we have a social welfare system, I don't see how anyone can really object to these types of laws. Or the absurd extensions of these type of laws that all of us can easily imagine. This isn't an endorsement of these types of laws, obviously, but a condemnation of the welfare state, but when you have one you practically must have the other, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which on a slight tangent, makes socialized medicine the biggest threat to personal liberty ever.
You can't [insert dangerous activity here]! If you get hurt, we all have to pay for it.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, as long as we have a social welfare system, I don't see how anyone can really object to these types of laws. Or the absurd extensions of these type of laws that all of us can easily imagine. This isn't an endorsement of these types of laws, obviously, but a condemnation of the welfare state, but when you have one you practically must have the other, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which on a slight tangent, makes socialized medicine the biggest threat to personal liberty ever.
You can't [insert dangerous activity here]! If you get hurt, we all have to pay for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

Should unsanitary restaurants be closed down for producing food in filthy conditions? Shouldn't you have the personal freedom to eat there?

Answer this real quick, and we'll go from there.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you know that you were getting arsenic, and you still ate it, you would be beyond the help of any government.

[/ QUOTE ]

transfats are in almost every packaged processed food.
restaruants use processed food.

if arsenic were as ubiquitious as trans fats, how would you feel?

also, since it is in everything prettyf much, where is the choice now? it seems to me either you have someone making the choice for you to put it in, or someone making a choice for you to leave it out. I mean, we're talking 95%+ of people, not vegans and stuff.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

You don't have to eat processed food. You don't have to eat at restaurants. You could eat only 100% all natural whatever if you want but many people don't want to do this because it is more costly and less convenient. So you have a choice and are demonstrating your preferences with your actions of buying or not buying such food.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

Normal oils and trans fats taste the same except that trans fats are marginally cheaper, and this is why processed foods and large chains use them. I don't see any argument as to why trans fats should be allowed to begin with, and the point I made earlier in the thread is that it's painstakingly difficult to ensure that you aren't ingesting this stuff because products with it don't advertise it.

So if you want to go through the ingredients list for every single thing you order, then great. I just don't see the need for this stuff to begin with.
<font color="red">
I open a large restaurant chain tomorrow and I put arsenic in the lasagna, yet don't advertise it. I'll list it in the ingredients if a consumer were to ask otherwise it's rather subtle. You come in with your family, and your daughter orders the lasagna and then gets sick and dies.

Who's responsible?

Obviously your dead daughter is at fault by being an irresponsible consumer by not asking the waiter if there was indeed arsenic present in the lasagna. </font>

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skydiving.

Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats)

Church.

Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same).

Motorcycles.

Poker.

[/ QUOTE ] There is a difference between outlawing trans fats and outlawing these things. I understand that you don't like outlawing either, and neither do I, but there is a difference. The government think it's helping society to arrive much faster to a place where the market would lead us eventually anyway (no trans fats). The market is slow, outlawing is quick. And people won't protest. If you took away church or ice cream, people would be outraged because they feel like they get something good from these things. If you take away trans fats, nobody (really, nobody) will care except for people who care just because of principle and slippery slope ideas, like yourself and to some degree I.

I think it would be better if the law was that companies had to write on the product (or in the menu) that it contained trans fats. That would probably speed up the market without telling people what they are allowed eat. If this was the law, I would be all for it. At least as long as the mechanisms for enforcing laws are already in place. Laws that force companies to tell people what it is they are selling, seem to be one of the least harmfull and most usefull kind of laws. I'm not opposed to anarchy, but I think laws that make information mandatory are ok.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should unsanitary restaurants be closed down for producing food in filthy conditions?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I owned a restaurant, I would probably close it down if it were filthy, at least until I could clean it up.

I don't care if you close your restaurant down or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't you have the personal freedom to eat there?

Answer this real quick, and we'll go from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to eat in filthy restaurants, go right ahead, it won't bother me at all. Of course, I don't really understand WHY you would do that; it seems that rewarding such establishments with your business would simply encourage more restaurants to operate in filthy conditions.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skydiving.

Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats)

Church.

Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same).

Motorcycles.

Poker.

[/ QUOTE ] There is a difference between outlawing trans fats and outlawing these things. I understand that you don't like outlawing either, and neither do I, but there is a difference. The government think it's helping society to arrive much faster to a place where the market would lead us eventually anyway (no trans fats).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure we can find people who would think banning ice cream would be helping society. Clearly, lots of people think getting rid of poker would help society.

[ QUOTE ]
The market is slow, outlawing is quick. And people won't protest. If you took away church or ice cream, people would be outraged because they feel like they get something good from these things. If you take away trans fats, nobody (really, nobody) will care except for people who care just because of principle and slippery slope ideas, like yourself and to some degree I.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the "difference" is that lots of people like one, but lots of people don't like the other?

How many people is it OK to oppress before oppression becomes bad? As long as it's just a few people, and as long as we can portray them as some sort of wackos, it's no problem, right?

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

My family has been in the restaurant business for years, and the point I'm trying to make is consumer ignorance. It's impossible for a customer to be aware of all the conditions regarding the products they purchase whether it be ingredients in food, materials used in making their shoes, location and wages of the workers the factories hire..

So if it were legal for someone to run a filthy unsanitry restaurant, then wouldn't you be afraid that every restaurant you visit would fit that mold? Would you go to the backroom and check?

I know you know where I'm coming from, and these laws are great because they protect the consumer in areas where the consumer can't always protect themselves.

My post above wasn't saying that anyone would knowingly choose to eat at a filthy restaurant, but that's not to say that people wouldn't unknowingly fall victim if there was no law concerning the sanitation of food faculties.

From your position you have to agree with this:

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">
I open a large restaurant chain tomorrow and I put arsenic in the lasagna, yet don't advertise it. I'll list it in the ingredients if a consumer were to ask otherwise it's rather subtle. You come in with your family, and your daughter orders the lasagna and then gets sick and dies.

Who's responsible?

Obviously your dead daughter is at fault by being an irresponsible consumer by not asking the waiter if there was indeed arsenic present in the lasagna.

After all my reasoning for putting the arsenic in the lasagna to begin with is that I was exercising the right for people to choose whether or not they want a deadly substance in their lasagna.
</font>

[/ QUOTE ] Right?

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to eat processed food. You don't have to eat at restaurants. You could eat only 100% all natural whatever if you want but many people don't want to do this because it is more costly and less convenient. So you have a choice and are demonstrating your preferences with your actions of buying or not buying such food.

[/ QUOTE ]

exact same argument for arsenic. hey it's in 95% of food and all restaruants, but hey, you made the choice. suffer the consequences.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure we can find people who would think banning ice cream would be helping society. Clearly, lots of people think getting rid of poker would help society.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, that's fine. But can you find people that think outlawing trans fat will hurt society? Except for people like me and you, who think so because of slippery slope ideas and philosophical ideas about individual rights.

[ QUOTE ]
So the "difference" is that lots of people like one, but lots of people don't like the other?

How many people is it OK to oppress before oppression becomes bad? As long as it's just a few people, and as long as we can portray them as some sort of wackos, it's no problem, right?

[/ QUOTE ] I did not say it was OK, I said there is a significant difference between outlawing something that nobody really wants (but they might not care one way or the other, so they might buy it if it's allowed and convenient), like trans fats, and something that a few people want a lot, but other people think is bad, like poker or sky diving. I'm not saying any of these two are OK, but one is a lot worse than the other.

edit: The third difference is the one vhawk pointed out. The welfare state has to pay for you if you get sick from all the unhealthy stuff you eat, so as long as you want to have a welfare state you might not get away with allowing people to do whatever they want. I know that you don't want to have a welfare state, but most people want it and think it's important.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

You've seen the smoking bans, right? I don't see how you could be shocked when this is the obvious next step.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]

My family has been in the restaurant business for years, and the point I'm trying to make is consumer ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think is the source of "consumer ignorance"?

[ QUOTE ]
It's impossible for a customer to be aware of all the conditions regarding the products they purchase whether it be ingredients in food, materials used in making their shoes, location and wages of the workers the factories hire..

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct. Insofar as any particular consumer demands that their product not contain something, it is the responsibility of the consumer to be informed, not the responsibility of the rest of the consumers to bear the burden.

[ QUOTE ]
So if it were legal for someone to run a filthy unsanitry restaurant, then wouldn't you be afraid that every restaurant you visit would fit that mold? Would you go to the backroom and check?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good question, because thinking it through actually exposes the entire fallacy with your argument. If there was no "law" demanding "sanitary" (subjective term by the way) conditions, but sanitary conditions would benefit consumers, what do you think would happen? Do you think all of these consumers, who apparently would benefit from "sanitary" conditions, would all throw up their hands and say, "Well, if the government won't forbid unsanitary conditions I'll just have to eat my spagetti off the floor!"?

[ QUOTE ]
I know you know where I'm coming from, and these laws are great because they protect the consumer in areas where the consumer can't always protect themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

False dichotomy. The government is not the only agent that the consumer can delegate responsibility to keep them informed.

[ QUOTE ]
I open a large restaurant chain tomorrow and I put arsenic in the lasagna, yet don't advertise it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop right there. Why on earth would someone do this? Is the law against putting arsenic in food the only thing stopping all restranteurs from doing this? Until you can provide any reasonable explanation for why one needs to worry about this, it's a totally irrelevant comparison.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I support the ban is because it's too much of a pain in the ass to go around to different restaurants and ask the ignorant waiter if foods served there are cooked with trans fats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then require the restaurants to inform people. Banning is entirely unnecessary.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to eat processed food. You don't have to eat at restaurants. You could eat only 100% all natural whatever if you want but many people don't want to do this because it is more costly and less convenient. So you have a choice and are demonstrating your preferences with your actions of buying or not buying such food.

[/ QUOTE ]

exact same argument for arsenic. hey it's in 95% of food and all restaruants, but hey, you made the choice. suffer the consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol @ the arsenic comparison. No one is dying from eating trans fats. They may die sooner because they live an unhealthy lifestyle, but if that's your rationale for outlawing things, why not have a government-mandated menu and government-mandated exercise programs?

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
You've seen the smoking bans, right? I don't see how you could be shocked when this is the obvious next step.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've read smoking bans are to prevent second hand smoke inhalation and not necessarily to protect the smoker.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, however if someone doesn't want to inhale second hand smoke then they have that right.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]

Luckily I've been informed that only things which are "really bad" and have "practically no benefits" like smoking and trans-fats are at risk of being banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or poker?

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to eat processed food. You don't have to eat at restaurants. You could eat only 100% all natural whatever if you want but many people don't want to do this because it is more costly and less convenient. So you have a choice and are demonstrating your preferences with your actions of buying or not buying such food.

[/ QUOTE ]

exact same argument for arsenic. hey it's in 95% of food and all restaruants, but hey, you made the choice. suffer the consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol @ the arsenic comparison. No one is dying from eating trans fats. They may die sooner because they live an unhealthy lifestyle, but if that's your rationale for outlawing things, why not have a government-mandated menu and government-mandated exercise programs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you draw the line? Arsenic will obviously kill you quickly, and trans fats over many years. What about a product that will kill you when ingested continually for 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? 6 months? 3 weeks?

Where do you the draw the line between a dangerous product and just one that's 'unhealthy'.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any argument as to why trans fats should be allowed to begin with

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you don't believe in freedom. We understand.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stop right there. Why on earth would someone do this? Is the law against putting arsenic in food the only thing stopping all restranteurs from doing this?

[/ QUOTE ]

putting arsenic in food would increase shelf life, retard spoilage, etc.

I mean, you realize apple orchards are sprayed with arsenic, right?

also, as to consumer ignorance, the laws are pretty clearly in favor of manufacturers in teh sense that they do not need to disclose all the ingredients, and in some cases are prohibited by law from stating what is in their products (gmo, bgh).

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skydiving.

Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats)

Church.

Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same).

Motorcycles.

Poker.

[/ QUOTE ] There is a difference between outlawing trans fats and outlawing these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

No there isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Laws that force companies to tell people what it is they are selling, seem to be one of the least harmfull and most usefull kind of laws. I'm not opposed to anarchy, but I think laws that make information mandatory are ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

And few, even among anarchist, would have a huge problem with such a law. Such a law only very slightly restricts the freedom of restaurant owners while the law that was actually passed greatly restricts the freedom of everyone.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]

So if it were legal for someone to run a filthy unsanitry restaurant, then wouldn't you be afraid that every restaurant you visit would fit that mold?

[/ QUOTE ]

No because I wouldn't go to any restaurants that didn't have a respectable third party organization that inspected them and ensured they were clean.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you don't believe in freedom. We understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the "pro freedom" argument.

a) wee're not telling you what's in our food.
b) if it harms you you can't sue.
c) if you don't like it don't eat here.

why do they even need a business license then?

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've seen the smoking bans, right? I don't see how you could be shocked when this is the obvious next step.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've read smoking bans are to prevent second hand smoke inhalation and not necessarily to protect the smoker.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, however if someone doesn't want to inhale second hand smoke then all they have to do is not go to restaurants that allow it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If smokers want to go to a restaurant where only smokers go so they can smoke with their meal, they have the right too. Too bad that's not allowed anymore.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you don't believe in freedom. We understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the "pro freedom" argument.

a) wee're not telling you what's in our food.
b) if it harms you you can't sue.
c) if you don't like it don't eat here.

why do they even need a business license then?

[/ QUOTE ]

The actual pro-freedom argument:

a) Business licenses are dumb and definitely shouldn't be required.
b) If you're not informing me of what's in you food, I don't like it and won't eat there.
c) If for some reason I do eat there and you've put something dangerous in your food without informing me, I will most definitely sue you.

Well, I guess you got it about half right and half completely opposite.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
c) If for some reason I do eat there and you've put something dangerous in your food without informing me, I will most definitely sue you.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) you can't sue for a chemical food additive approved by fda, at least you can't win and today's courts it will be immediately thrown out as frivilous
b) they don't inform you btw.