San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ALawPoker]

[ 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."

[PLOlover]

[ 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".

[ALawPoker]

[ 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"?

[PLOlover]

[ 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.

[PLOlover]

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.

[Kerth]

But I like fat transsexuals.

[ALawPoker]

[ 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.

[PLOlover]

[ 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.

[PLOlover]

[ 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.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I correct in inferring that you believe the SF solution doesn't go far enough, and that you support an outright ban, not only in restaurants but in all food of any kind?

natedogg