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].



[/ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

you realize this statement by the district is a legalese type statement that really can probably mean just about anythign.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

I'd really like to hear from all the ardent nannies like Copernicus, LowKey and DVault and others who were cheering the NYC trasnfat ban. I'd love to hear an explanation as to why the approach taken by SF is one that doesn't go far enough.

natedogg

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

It's a shame that you had to start this thread.

edit: To clarify, there's no need to treat the people you want to debate/discuss something with like immoral, idiotic, unimaginative twits. No sport in that.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to hear from all the ardent nannies like Copernicus, LowKey and DVault and others who were cheering the NYC trasnfat ban. I'd love to hear an explanation as to why the approach taken by SF is one that doesn't go far enough.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, *no one* is willing to defend the transfat ban anymore? Honestly, if there's anyone left who will defend a transfat ban I'd love to hear the reasoning.

Am I to assume that they have seen the light? All the overly zealous nannies who are too quick to jump to a coercion solution for any problem now realize that a ban on things like transfats is inappropriate?

In the future, please try to keep in mind that this kind of approach used by SF is relevant and effective in nearly every case of something you would like to see banned, not just this one issue of transfats.


natedogg

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

I support this over a ban of trans fats as well, but

[ QUOTE ]
If being trans-fat free was important enough to consumers then restaurants would publish that fact on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is about legislating the desires of consumers, it's probably more about protecting (nannying as you say) people ignorant of the health risks of trans fats as well as possibly some externality considerations regarding health care.

But the certificate legislation is much better considering it has a demand-pull aspect with a thought-provoking sign over an invisible ban, as well as a supply-push incentive for restaurants to comply.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I think there's only a very small number of people who want power over other people just for the hell of it. I think most people are inherently compassionate and are concerned about others' well being. I couldn't be a libertarian if I didn't believe that.

The difference between the libertarian and the do-gooder nanny statist is in how they think the well-being of others can be best achieved.

The libertarian believes that each individual knows what's best for themselves. The do-gooder believes that other people are either not smart enough, or just ignorant of the facts about trans fat/smoking/whatever. I think the thought process of the do-gooder goes something like this: "these people smoking and eating trans fat don't know how bad it is. I went to college, and I read books, so I know how unhealthy this stuff is. It's up to me to SAVE them from their bad habits. One day they'll thank me..." It's a bit of a hero complex.

Where the do-gooder logic fails is in their assumption that everyone else has the exact same values they do. You may think that eating cookies with partially hydrogenated oil is dumb and not at all worth the pleasure of eating, but maybe other people don't. Maybe some people actually *gasp* like to smoke, and don't care if it gives them a slightly higher chance of getting cancer.

The do-gooders don't wish to gain power, they wish to impose VALUES onto others in a deranged effort to help them.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I think there's only a very small number of people who want power over other people just for the hell of it. I think most people are inherently compassionate and are concerned about others' well being. I couldn't be a libertarian if I didn't believe that.

The difference between the libertarian and the do-gooder nanny statist is in how they think the well-being of others can be best achieved.

The libertarian believes that each individual knows what's best for themselves. The do-gooder believes that other people are either not smart enough, or just ignorant of the facts about trans fat/smoking/whatever. I think the thought process of the do-gooder goes something like this: "these people smoking and eating trans fat don't know how bad it is. I went to college, and I read books, so I know how unhealthy this stuff is. It's up to me to SAVE them from their bad habits. One day they'll thank me..." It's a bit of a hero complex.

Where the do-gooder logic fails is in their assumption that everyone else has the exact same values they do. You may think that eating cookies with partially hydrogenated oil is dumb and not at all worth the pleasure of eating, but maybe other people don't. Maybe some people actually *gasp* like to smoke, and don't care if it gives them a slightly higher chance of getting cancer.

The do-gooders don't wish to gain power, they wish to impose VALUES onto others in a deranged effort to help them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, honestly, I can't say I know the mind of a nanny, whether they're a well-intentioned do-gooder or a sneering contemptuous paternalist or a simple power-tripper. I don't know what motivates someone to ban donuts. I really don't.

natedogg

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5...atedoggqw2.jpg

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I prefer the term "Nancy" or "Nancies".

Second, that idea never occurred to us. Our bad. Please forward this thread to the City of New York. Thanks in advance.

Love,

The Nancies

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
The do-gooders don't wish to gain power, they wish to impose VALUES onto others in a deranged effort to help them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad someone brought this up, as I had a thought in Target earlier that reminded me of the New York trans fat ban thread.

I was walking past the freezer section of the food area (I know, the one in automotive is better), and looking at all the filth they had for sale that I would never buy. I stopped for a second and thought what it must look like to a casual passer-by, some foolish 20 year old oogling the unhealthy food. If only his parents had taught him better! (For the record, my parents did teach me better, and I taught myself even better than that. Also, I look way younger than I really am.)

It was at this point that I thought about how, when we're young, our parents control what we eat, because we don't know any better, we're too immature to be able to make decisions regarding our own health. (I know you can tell where this is going at this point)

I guess everyone here thinks that, the minute you turn 18, you are suddenly imbued with an innate sense of who you are, who you should be, and what the best way to live life for you is? (As long as we're putting words in the opposing side's mouth, as the quote above so eloquently, but not at all subtly, does)

Of course not. I bet everyone here knows people who are overly mature for their age, and others still who can barely take care of themselves late into their 20s.

I'm not siding with the do-gooders, but, as with the 'war on terror', every now and then, it's good to think about why the opposing side opposes what you stand for, instead of just heaping about rubbish like the quote above, and everyone nodding in agreement over the fact that they're all superior human specimens.

So while I may not agree with the methods of those who wish to help others, I can at least understand why they feel there's a legitimate need to help others.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5...atedoggqw2.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know who that is or what the pic is supposed to imply. Could you clarify?

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

You are probably leveling (but im too stupid to know anyways), the guy in the pic is Nate Dogg. And you are natedogg. Good stuff and so on.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess everyone here thinks that, the minute you turn 18, you are suddenly imbued with an innate sense of who you are, who you should be, and what the best way to live life for you is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no. But as you already pointed out, it's more fun to just stuff words into people's mouths.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are probably leveling (but im too stupid to know anyways), the guy in the pic is Nate Dogg. And you are natedogg. Good stuff and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, thanks. I had no idea, shows what I know. And actually, I dont even know what "levelling" means either ... I'm getting too old I think.

natedogg

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]


Second, that idea never occurred to us. Our bad. Please forward this thread to the City of New York. Thanks in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sad thing is I can't tell if this is sincere or not. Since this alternative approach was actually discussed *at length* in the original transfat ban thread, I think it may be a joke. In which case, I'd still love to hear why banning is preferable to informing. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if people are that unwilling to entertain a solution unless government approves of it first. Suddenly it's a viable government solution, because govt chose that solution.

natedogg

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

In my experince, its not just the low level places that use transfats.

I believe there should be a symbol next to each menu item that contains transfat. That way people will understand more about how their food is being cooked.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The do-gooders don't wish to gain power, they wish to impose VALUES onto others in a deranged effort to help them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad someone brought this up, as I had a thought in Target earlier that reminded me of the New York trans fat ban thread.

I was walking past the freezer section of the food area (I know, the one in automotive is better), and looking at all the filth they had for sale that I would never buy. I stopped for a second and thought what it must look like to a casual passer-by, some foolish 20 year old oogling the unhealthy food. If only his parents had taught him better! (For the record, my parents did teach me better, and I taught myself even better than that. Also, I look way younger than I really am.)

It was at this point that I thought about how, when we're young, our parents control what we eat, because we don't know any better, we're too immature to be able to make decisions regarding our own health. (I know you can tell where this is going at this point)

I guess everyone here thinks that, the minute you turn 18, you are suddenly imbued with an innate sense of who you are, who you should be, and what the best way to live life for you is? (As long as we're putting words in the opposing side's mouth, as the quote above so eloquently, but not at all subtly, does)

Of course not. I bet everyone here knows people who are overly mature for their age, and others still who can barely take care of themselves late into their 20s.

I'm not siding with the do-gooders, but, as with the 'war on terror', every now and then, it's good to think about why the opposing side opposes what you stand for, instead of just heaping about rubbish like the quote above, and everyone nodding in agreement over the fact that they're all superior human specimens.

So while I may not agree with the methods of those who wish to help others, I can at least understand why they feel there's a legitimate need to help others.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are trying to justify why people feel a need to help others. Thats fine, but we all get that, we all understand it, and hey, some of us are even human beings and actually FEEL that as well. Now try and justify why none of these nannies (or nancies, if you prefer although I think you might be missing the point?) can think for 5 more seconds, past their initial feelings, and realize that even though they might have an urge to help some immature, stupid people, forcing their OWN choices and preferences on those people is not the best way to go about it? Can you justify THAT to me? These people you are talking about are compassionate but apparently lazy morons, since they either cant take the time or havent got the brainpower to think past Step 1 in the "Helping Others" handbook.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

The Trans-fat argument bugs me because there is no value out of trans-fats. Banning them is perfectly reasonable to me.

Something like marijuana is different to me because it is valuable to some people.

What good comes from trans-fats?

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Trans-fat argument bugs me because there is no value out of trans-fats. Banning them is perfectly reasonable to me.

Something like marijuana is different to me because it is valuable to some people.

What good comes from trans-fats?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh...what? Marijuana doesnt have any value for me. I mean, it makes me feel good, I guess. So do trans-fats, or at least, I claim they do so go [censored] yourself.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Trans-fat argument bugs me because there is no value out of trans-fats. Banning them is perfectly reasonable to me.

Something like marijuana is different to me because it is valuable to some people.

What good comes from trans-fats?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they have no benefit, then why would anyone voluntarily choose them over the alternative? Seems to be there is a benefit, you just couldn't wrap your mind around it.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
If they have no benefit, then why would anyone voluntarily choose them over the alternative? Seems to be there is a benefit, you just couldn't wrap your mind around it.

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly, transfats might be somewhat unique in that they have no benefit to the consumer, but only informed consumers *who have a choice* can alter things. add to that that t.f. benefit the producers greatly, and it's easy to see why it's hard to change. for one thing, most consumers are not informed. they're stupid.

I mean, leaded gasoline is golden compared to transfats. leaded gas is way better for engines than unleaded. the only benefit of transfats if that people are sold older boxed food instead of newer boxed food.

but the bottom line is that probably about 10% of informed and active consumers want transfats out, the other 90% dont know dont care, and the producers of course 100% want transfats in because transfats work way better with their manufactured industrial food paradigm.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
honestly, transfats might be somewhat unique in that they have no benefit to the consumer

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
t.f. benefit the producers greatly ... the producers of course 100% want transfats in because transfats work way better with their manufactured industrial food paradigm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Benefits to the producer do not result in benefits to the consumer?

When Best Buy finds a solution that cuts shrinkage costs, this doesn't have a positive effect on me, as someone who shops at that store?

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
Benefits to the producer do not result in benefits to the consumer?

When Best Buy finds a solution that cuts shrinkage costs, this doesn't have a positive effect on me, as someone who shops at that store?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, when doritos or something goes no transfats, does the price go up? well there you go.

I mean doping bulk milk tanks with penicillin greatly benefits the producer, and was widely done until recently. you like that? it benefits producer, shouldn't it benefit you?

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
but the bottom line is that probably about 10% of informed and active consumers want transfats out, the other 90% dont know dont care, and the producers of course 100% want transfats in because transfats work way better with their manufactured industrial food paradigm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why every day more and more products in stores proclaim the fact that they're trans-fat free without any government action.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Benefits to the producer do not result in benefits to the consumer?

When Best Buy finds a solution that cuts shrinkage costs, this doesn't have a positive effect on me, as someone who shops at that store?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, when doritos or something goes no transfats, does the price go up? well there you go.

I mean doping bulk milk tanks with penicillin greatly benefits the producer, and was widely done until recently. you like that? it benefits producer, shouldn't it benefit you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you read minds? If not, how do you determine what benefits someone other than yourself?

BTW, have you seen the price of milk lately?

<font color="white">That's actually a cheap shot, since the price increases are not attributable 100% to antibiotics, seeing as organic milk has increased a lot too (though not as much percentage wise in my own tiny sample size survey).</font>

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
I mean doping bulk milk tanks with penicillin greatly benefits the producer, and was widely done until recently. you like that? it benefits producer, shouldn't it benefit you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to know more about this random piece of information before I could tell you whether or not I like it. But it's irrelevant. I never claimed the fact that people use trans fats benefits me. If I'm a health conscious person I would actually be better off if no one made the decision to eat trans fat. I probably would be better off if people chose never to eat anywhere that used trans fats, just like I probably would be better off if everyone chose to work 10 hours today instead of 8. But that doesn't mean I necessarily think I should force people to work longer, if what they prefer to do is work 8 hours.

The question is: considering that if left to their own devices, people choose to sell trans fats and other people choose to buy them, would I be making the situation better or worse by trying to restrict this behavior?

My point in my reply to you is that you said there is "no benefit to the consumer." And then mentioned that there is indeed a benefit to the producer. Care to explain why in the instance of trans fat this benefit to the producer does not result in a benefit to the consumer? Unless you somehow know what exactly other people value, I'm at a loss for how you can declare there is no benefit. So I'm not even trying to make a point here as much as I'm asking you to defend and elaborate on your argument that there is "no benefit."

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
Care to explain why in the instance of trans fat this benefit to the producer does not result in a benefit to the consumer? Unless you somehow know what exactly other people value, I'm at a loss for how you can declare there is no benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

well , why don't you tell me the benefit? it isn't lower cost to the consumer, since trans free chips cost the same as "regular chips".

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why every day more and more products in stores proclaim the fact that they're trans-fat free without any government action.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, the 10% is having an effect. twenty years ago it was 1%.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you read minds? If not, how do you determine what benefits someone other than yourself?

BTW, have you seen the price of milk lately?

That's actually a cheap shot, since the price increases are not attributable 100% to antibiotics, seeing as organic milk has increased a lot too (though not as much percentage wise in my own tiny sample size survey).

[/ QUOTE ]

no, I meant they used to shoot antibiotics directly into the bulk milk tank. they don't do that anymore. (distributors started testing for antibiotics and if the levels were too high they wouldn't buy it.)

ok, name the benefit of transfats. I could be wrong, I mean if people were ragging on leaded gas I could point out a benefit to the consumer. I can't point out a benefit to the consumer of trnas fats.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not even trying to make a point here as much as I'm asking you to defend and elaborate on your argument that there is "no benefit."

[/ QUOTE ]

if I have a roadside taco stand and put sawdust in the tacos as a filler, it benefits me but it doesn't benefit the eaters.

theres no benefit to the consumer, of having sawdust filler in my tacos.

not a direct analogy.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Care to explain why in the instance of trans fat this benefit to the producer does not result in a benefit to the consumer? Unless you somehow know what exactly other people value, I'm at a loss for how you can declare there is no benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

well , why don't you tell me the benefit? it isn't lower cost to the consumer, since trans free chips cost the same as "regular chips".

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, rather than answer my question, ask one of your own.

I don't know anything about the science of trans fat or the price of potato chips at your local gas station. But I'm not the one running my mouth about why it's a good idea to force people not to use them. So I don't feel like this is a problem on my part. You're the one claiming the position, so I'm asking you to elaborate.

I'll address your question anyways though.

Just because two bags of chips are priced equally when they sit on store shelves, that doesn't mean that there wasn't still some cost associated with the use of non-trans fats. If you concede that trans fats are cheaper for producers, I don't see how this could possibly not be the case.

The reason those bags of Lays at your gas station are the same price (if that is indeed the case) could be a result of lower quality ingredients going into the rest of the chip, or simply less weight per bag. Or it could just be a temporary decision made with the benefit of not confusing consumers or whatever marketing strategy they have in mind.

How do *you* think it works? Do Lays owners say "Hey, let's take that money we save from using trans fats, and rather than use it in ways that will improve our product and help generate *more* money in the future like we choose to do with all our other equitable decisions, we just pretend those savings don't exist, and take them right out of the business model"?

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not even trying to make a point here as much as I'm asking you to defend and elaborate on your argument that there is "no benefit."

[/ QUOTE ]

if I have a roadside taco stand and put sawdust in the tacos as a filler, it benefits me but it doesn't benefit the eaters.

theres no benefit to the consumer, of having sawdust filler in my tacos.

not a direct analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

And people choose to eat sawdust tacos?

They're just munchin' away on those suckers, and it's only good people like you voting for laws against sawdust tacos that is gonna stop them, huh?

You're right that it's not a direct analogy. The critical flaw is that people DO (for whatever reasons) choose to eat trans fat.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're right that it's not a direct analogy. The critical flaw is that people DO (for whatever reasons) choose to eat trans fat.

[/ QUOTE ]

do a poll in an area with foot traffic and quiz people on trans fats.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do *you* think it works? Do Lays owners say "Hey, let's take that money we save from using trans fats, and rather than use it in ways that will improve our product and help generate *more* money in the future like we choose to do with all our other equitable decisions, we just pretend those savings don't exist, and take them right out of the business model"?

[/ QUOTE ]

probably has to do with retooling factories or just changing assemby lines.

cost per bag less than .01$ I would guess.

with just in time delivery today, it probably is just do it the way we always did it that keeps them using transfats, since stocking over time is not such an issue anymore.

anyway, the issue is cost/benefit to consumers. if it's not a big deal, then how can you justify transfats? I mean, if t.f. free chips cost twice as much then ok I see your point, but they're the same price. it can't be such a big deal, although a penny * billion is money.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

also btw, you guys are the ones claiming a benefit of transfats. how can I prove a neg? I mean showing trans and non trans chips cost the same is best I can do really.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

But I like fat transsexuals.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
also btw, you guys are the ones claiming a benefit of transfats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very false. I'm claiming nothing, and even said specifically that I don't know anything about the science of trans fats. If I had to offer a personal opinion, I'd agree that they're a bad choice. But *I* don't need to see a benefit to something in order to think other people have a right to use it.

You're the one claiming the position of forcing people not to sell or buy this type of fat. But I'm not even talking about that. I'm still talking very specifically about your claim that "there is no benefit." Again, how do you know what other people value?

You can argue all day long about why trans fat is a bad decision. But it's all moot. Personally, I can't fathom why anyone would conclude the mild effect of a cigarette is worth the substantial health risks associated with them. Just because I am in favor of their right to make this decision for themselves doesn't mean that I necessarily think there's a "benefit" to this decision.

[ QUOTE ]
how can I prove a neg? I mean showing trans and non trans chips cost the same is best I can do really.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really think BagA and BagB could possibly "cost the same" when the only difference in the bags is that one of the ingredients in one of the bags is more expensive to produce, then you really have a very shortsighted view of economic activity.

The reason why you can't prove your claim that there is no benefit is because your claim was patently bogus. There is no way to determine what other people value.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you really think BagA and BagB could possibly "cost the same" when the only difference in the bags is that one of the ingredients in one of the bags is more expensive to produce, then you really have a very shortsighted view of economic activity.

The reason why you can't prove your claim that there is no benefit is because your claim was patently bogus. There is no way to determine what other people value.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you can't give one example of one person getting a benefit from transfat, yet you claim it's ludicrous to claim no benefit to consumers from transfat, other than perhaps a fraction of a penny saved per bag or whatever.

my point about bags costing same is that there is no price benefit to the consumer. so nobody can claim a single benefit to the consumer, yet I'm absurd for claiming no benefit.

ok. but I think most people would agree with me.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why you can't prove your claim that there is no benefit is because your claim was patently bogus. There is no way to determine what other people value.

[/ QUOTE ]

btw, this is a variant of the old greek sophist counterargument: well , I can't counter your argument today or disprove it today, but that doesn't mean that at some time in the future I wont be able to rebut you, so therefore, you are wrong.