View Single Post
  #27  
Old 12-01-2007, 06:30 PM
ALawPoker ALawPoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,646
Default 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."
Reply With Quote