New York City bans trans fats

[IsaacW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cliffs notes: government regulation is a joke, we need more government regulation AMIRITE?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's all about who the lobbys are. on the federal level the corps have it locked up currently and they push their agenda through. In NY, it looks like the consumers are gaining a toehold and are getting some pro consumer stuff through. like everything it's a fight. if you want consumers to give up it just gives total control to the corps and big business.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the old standby, "government regulation is bad so long as it restricts anything I like and government regulation is good to the extent it restricts the things I don't like." As a consumer, you have total control over what you purchase. If "corps and big business" refuse to tell you how much trans fat is in their products, you are free to not purchase those products! You are free to purchase your own healthy ingredients and make your own food or you can seek out local companies that provide you with healthy food.

In the "fight" you describe between consumers and corporations, the only person who ends up winning is the arms dealer (government) that sells weapons to both sides.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the old standby, "government regulation is bad so long as it restricts anything I like and government regulation is good to the extent it restricts the things I don't like." As a consumer, you have total control over what you purchase. If "corps and big business" refuse to tell you how much trans fat is in their products, you are free to not purchase those products! You are free to purchase your own healthy ingredients and make your own food or you can seek out local companies that provide you with healthy food.

In the "fight" you describe between consumers and corporations, the only person who ends up winning is the arms dealer (government) that sells weapons to both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, go out and try to eat non-gmo food. unless you have amish relatives or something it will be *impossible*.

why was red dye #cancer banned then? couldn't consumer just refuse to buy any red food?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
why was red dye #cancer banned then? couldn't consumer just refuse to buy any red food?

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably could have if they were given the option of buying it or not buying it, but they weren't.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the old standby, "government regulation is bad so long as it restricts anything I like and government regulation is good to the extent it restricts the things I don't like." As a consumer, you have total control over what you purchase. If "corps and big business" refuse to tell you how much trans fat is in their products, you are free to not purchase those products! You are free to purchase your own healthy ingredients and make your own food or you can seek out local companies that provide you with healthy food.

In the "fight" you describe between consumers and corporations, the only person who ends up winning is the arms dealer (government) that sells weapons to both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, go out and try to eat non-gmo food. unless you have amish relatives or something it will be *impossible*.

why was red dye #cancer banned then? couldn't consumer just refuse to buy any red food?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Do you have GMO foods?"
"I don't know."
"Good day."

Or is your point that ALL foods have GMOs in them? Meaning of course that you have a right to non-GMO foods provided to you by some company. Can you buy non-GMO seeds at the greenhouse? And plant your own?

[IsaacW]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, go out and try to eat non-gmo food. unless you have amish relatives or something it will be *impossible*.

[/ QUOTE ]
First, you have no right to purchase non-GMO food from anyone. If absolutely no one will sell you non-GMO food when you ask for it, you are free to grow your own. Second, I'm quite sure I could find some local farms near me that would provide me with non-GMO food.
[ QUOTE ]
why was red dye #cancer banned then?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because someone got the idea that they should use force to prevent people from using a particular product.
[ QUOTE ]
couldn't consumer just refuse to buy any red food?

[/ QUOTE ]
They could have, but instead they decided that coercion was a better solution. That said, as soon as word got around that red dye #X (btw, would you care to provide a link to some information about this?) caused cancer, companies would be removing it from their products voluntarily. Why? Because no one but an idiot would buy food with a known carcinogen in it and companies that continued to use it would see sales plummet.

Relevant to the original discussion, companies are voluntarily removing trans fats from their menus and advertising this fact heavily. This is because consumers want foods with no trans fat. If consumers want something, producers will produce it!

[xorbie]

I only read about two pages in this thread, because I honestly can't stand reading too much of any argument that simply degenerates into AC/anti-AC (read: all arguments). All I can say is that as far as government bans go, I'm all for it. Trans fats most likely cost more money than they save through health care costs, and the loss in quality of life certainly makes up the difference.

With that said, I don't think the government should be in the business of making such bans, and I do think that given some time the "market" would sort this out, especially in a city like NY. Perhaps they should consider passing this down in Alabama or whereever.

All I can say to the AC people is that you should really read up on information assymetry. The arguments posed continue to be, by and large, laughable.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
All I can say is that as far as government bans go, I'm all for it. Trans fats most likely cost more money than they save through health care costs

[/ QUOTE ]

Cost more for whom? Save health care costs for whom? How do the answers to these two questions change with and without government intervention? Which set of answers makes sense to you?

[ QUOTE ]
, and the loss in quality of life certainly makes up the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whose quality of life? As measured by whom? Who should be taking responsibility for changing who's quality of life?

[ QUOTE ]
With that said, I don't think the government should be in the business of making such bans, and I do think that given some time the "market" would sort this out, especially in a city like NY. Perhaps they should consider passing this down in Alabama or whereever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is that people should only have government step in and make decisions for them when they are "too stupid", for example like Alabamans. Sounds like a robust political philosophy to me.

[ QUOTE ]
All I can say to the AC people is that you should really read up on information assymetry. The arguments posed continue to be, by and large, laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Imperfect information is a natural condition of transactions. Furthermore, government intervention is not an improvement unless the government is somehow magically endowed with complete information for all transactions, which we know is not the case.

In any event, I think your post is off base because you've chosen to portray posts rejecting the government intervention as posts that say:

- transfats are good
- free market transactions are free of imperfect information problems

Neither is a valid interpretation.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
First, you have no right to purchase non-poisonousfood from anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

good argument. that will teach those pesky new yorkers who want to cut into corporate profits!

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, you have no right to purchase non-poisonousfood from anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

good argument. that will teach those pesky new yorkers who want to cut into corporate profits!

[/ QUOTE ]

Even as you have written it, it is still true. You are not owed non-poisonous food. If you want to buy some food and you want it to be poison-free, then you need to find someone that is selling poison-free food at prices you are willing to pay. It is not anyone else's responsibility to make the food available, or to identify which foods are poisonous for you, or to insure the cost of such food is tolerable to you.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Even as you have written it, it is still true. You are not owed non-poisonous food. If you want to buy some food and you want it to be poison-free, then you need to find someone that is selling poison-free food at prices you are willing to pay. It is not anyone else's responsibility to make the food available, or to identify which foods are poisonous for you, or to insure the cost of such food is tolerable to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

finally, some honesty. good for you and your defense of poison food.

eat hearty!