New York City bans trans fats

[Taso]

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)

[natedogg]

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

[vulturesrow]

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

[iron81]

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.

[mjkidd]

[ 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.

[Woolygimp]

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?

[Scary_Tiger]

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.

[mosdef]

[ 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?

[BCPVP]

[ 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.

[vhawk01]

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."