NYC bans trans fats from eateries

[Donkey1499]

Our lives need not be overly shortened if we indulge in some vices in moderation. Although I admit that there really isn't much moderation in your chute not opening. The thing you have to decide for yourself is which activities are the equivalent of your chute not opening?

Does Hillary wining in '08 count? But that's not moderation, necessarily, just a really bad thing, indeed. Hillary Rodham-Rodham would be the ruin of this great nation......


HILLARY/OBAMA '08!!!! Bah humbug!

 

[Calm2Chaos]

You are not capable of making that decision on your own. So the government needs to step in and make those basic life choices for you.... Hopefully they will come out with an approved menu and get rid of everything else, choices are starting to hurt me a little adle minded.

 

[Southern Belle]

About the smoking thing, my dad smokes every day but when we go to a restaurant, he doesn't smoke and we sit in the No Smoking section. Why can't other people not smoke in restaurants too?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

About the smoking thing, my dad smokes every day but when we go to a restaurant, he doesn't smoke and we sit in the No Smoking section. Why can't other people not smoke in restaurants too?

Why can't you go to a restaurant thats completely non-smoking, it's not like they are hard to find??????

 

[Southern Belle]

Why can't you go to a restaurant thats completely non-smoking, it's not like they are hard to find??????

Are you a smoker?

Smoking is the exception not the norm, the air is natually smoke-free, and it's the smokers who put smoke in the air. Therefore it's more logical that the smokers take responsibility, not for all the other people to have to avoid the smokers and be inconvinienced.

I didn't mean to offend you, I'm sorry if I did. it was really just a thought, suggestion. I see my dad put his up and I wonder why other people feel the need to smoke in the restaurant.

When people go out to eat at a nice restaraunt, they usually have a certain type of food in mind. They don't usually decide their destination on whether people who smoke are eating there. And unless you live in New York or somewhere there aren't that many options anyway. My dad is curtious enough not to smoke inside and we go in the No Smoking section away from it. So smoke doesn't bother me in retaurants, it was a simple question...

 

[jfuh]

First of all, let me say that I'm all in favor of folks being allowed to poison themselves as they see fit. Folks want to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, more power to em.

But there just aren't folks out there who want to eat transfats.​

​

It's a good and perfectly valid point. That being said however, why not simply do the same that the USDA now does with organic foods? Mark the establishments that do or do not use trans fats. Let the consumer make the choice of what they want.
Hell even though I know it's horrible for me, sometimes you just get the craving for a double double from in and out or chilli cheese fries from Carl's Jr. aka Hardee's.

 

[jfuh]

About the smoking thing, my dad smokes every day but when we go to a restaurant, he doesn't smoke and we sit in the No Smoking section. Why can't other people not smoke in restaurants too?

Ever work in a resteruant? Some customers are complete *******s. They may put out the cig when asked to, but then the harm has been done to the establishment. The only way forward then is to put a ban on smoking - the downside then is that it drives away smoking customers business and in some areas of the country, that's simply not an option for the owner.
So unless there's the city ordinance that ban's smoking at all establishments allowing for all owners to be on the same playing field it's simply unlikely for many establishments.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Are you a smoker?

Smoking is the exception not the norm, the air is natually smoke-free, and it's the smokers who put smoke in the air. Therefore it's more logical that the smokers take responsibility, not for all the other people to have to avoid the smokers and be inconvinienced.

I didn't mean to offend you, I'm sorry if I did. it was really just a thought, suggestion. I see my dad put his up and I wonder why other people feel the need to smoke in the restaurant.

When people go out to eat at a nice restaraunt, they usually have a certain type of food in mind. They don't usually decide their destination on whether people who smoke are eating there. And unless you live in New York or somewhere there aren't that many options anyway. My dad is curtious enough not to smoke inside and we go in the No Smoking section away from it. So smoke doesn't bother me in retaurants, it was a simple question...

Because you have the ability as a functioning human being to make a decision. But it seems like instead of doing that you would rather have the government tell business owners how they can run there establishments. It is a private business and should be allowed to have legal activities there. I have made decisions on restaurants on a lot more then food. And if there is something within the restaurant that I don't like.... I don't go. Yes I smoke.. I did quite for some 4-5 years. And during that time, if I wanted to go to a non smoking restaurant thats were I went. It wasn't hard to find one, there are a ton of them around. The point is the government shouldn't be banning legal activities to satisfy specific groups. Make the decisions for yourself

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Dont you think that educated consumers, rather than government intervention, would be a preferable solution?

It would be preferable. However, I don't think it's very functional.
Consider the health inspections- Do you think that educated consumers, rather than government intervention is the preferable to the govt intervention of health inspections?
Sure we could not eat at places where folks get sick. But in order to find out which places these are someone's got to end up on the bathroom floor moaning and voiding their guts out both ends.

I don't know if you've ever had food poisoning, but take my word for it- the govt intervention of having health inspectors is a much easier thing to tolerate than having food poisoning.

Also, ask yourself, which items in your favorite restaurant contain transfats? Do you know? Most folks don't. Some folks think that a double cheeseburger with fries has transfats in it when it most likely doesn't (though it may).

In the end, it should be the market, rather than the government, which dictates what restaurants put in their food.

If the folks in a city decide that they don't want fireworks sold in that city, I'm in favor of their right to make such a decision.
If the folks in a city decide that they don't want to have strip clubs next to high schools in their city, I'm in favor of their right to make that decision.

The folks in a city have decided that they don't want something that makes people sick to be sold in food. I don't see any reason to tell these folks how they should run their city when I don't even live there.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It's a good and perfectly valid point. That being said however, why not simply do the same that the USDA now does with organic foods? Mark the establishments that do or do not use trans fats. Let the consumer make the choice of what they want.

Why not? I see no reason why not.
Currently, this info is not readily available. Only some of the major fast food chains have revealed this info.

Hell even though I know it's horrible for me, sometimes you just get the craving for a double double from in and out or chilli cheese fries from Carl's Jr. aka Hardee's.

I do too. There's no reason that a "double double from in and out or chilli cheese fries from Carl's Jr" should have trans fats. Totally unnecessary.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Do you really deny that low quality partially hydrogenated oils are cheaper and more convenient?

I'm not denying it. I was unaware of it. The only info along these lines I've seen are your assertions.

Since trans fats must be made from naturally occuring cis fats it is possible that they're not as convenient nor as cheap as cis fats.

Do you have any info that led you to believe that they're cheaper and more convenient?

Are you really going to make me dig up resources to show this? Nabisco obviously felt that it was in their best business interests to steer clear of trans fats, and so they did. Now customers can see that big "NO TRANS FATS USED" label on all their boxes and think they're eating healthy, and of course Nabisco scores big time, all without the need for any laws.

Actually, there was a regulation requiring the labeling of products with trans fats.

So, it was govt action that prompted the labelling. It was indeed the govt initiated regulation that got Nabisco etc to remove the trans fats and prominently label their packages.

 

[Gibberish]

So is driving without wearing a seat belt and crash helmet.

Trans fat is always bad and is scientifically proven to be unhealthy. Driving without a helmet is circumstantial. You cannot compare the two.

 

[Southern Belle]

Because you have the ability as a functioning human being to make a decision. But it seems like instead of doing that you would rather have the government tell business owners how they can run there establishments. It is a private business and should be allowed to have legal activities there. I have made decisions on restaurants on a lot more then food. And if there is something within the restaurant that I don't like.... I don't go. Yes I smoke.. I did quite for some 4-5 years. And during that time, if I wanted to go to a non smoking restaurant thats were I went. It wasn't hard to find one, there are a ton of them around. The point is the government shouldn't be banning legal activities to satisfy specific groups. Make the decisions for yourself

Where do you live? How big is it?

Don't you know what second hand smoke does to people? Because of that, they have a valid reason for wanting to ban it. But do you like spazz or something if you don't smoke when you eat? That's the part I don't get, why do people NEED to smoke in the restaraunt?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Where do you live? How big is it?

Don't you know what second hand smoke does to people? Because of that, they have a valid reason for wanting to ban it. But do you like spazz or something if you don't smoke when you eat? That's the part I don't get, why do people NEED to smoke in the restaraunt?

I live in Philadelphia

Ok... So your saying anything that has residual effects that could harm others should be banned. Then when do we reinstate prohibition. Because there are a whole he.ll of lot more confirmed deaths from drunk driving then there is of second hand smoke.... And those people didn't even have a choice.... I do know what second hand smoke supposedly does. And I make a concious decision on these factors.

I still don't understand the desire to have the government banning things you don't like... Exactly when does it stop. Should we allow the government to dictate all facets of our lives so we never have to make a decision again?

 

[Southern Belle]

I live in Philadelphia

Ok... So your saying anything that has residual effects that could harm others should be banned. Then when do we reinstate prohibition. Because there are a whole he.ll of lot more confirmed deaths from drunk driving then there is of second hand smoke.... And those people didn't even have a choice.... I do know what second hand smoke supposedly does. And I make a concious decision on these factors.

I still don't understand the desire to have the government banning things you don't like... Exactly when does it stop. Should we allow the government to dictate all facets of our lives so we never have to make a decision again?

Oh, Philidelphia, now I understand... Let's just say everywhere in the world isn't as big as Philidelphia, some towns only have one restaraunt per type of food. And it doesn't have enough to cover every type either.

Smoking is a bit different, since you are directly polluting people's breathing air, and increasing their chance for lung cancer. I don't believe in drinking, so I don't care about that one way or the other. If some towns who only have one restaraunt per style want to ban smoking in the restaraunts, that's perfectly fine. (I'll never smoke but it affects me and everyone else)

 

[jfuh]

Why not? I see no reason why not.
Currently, this info is not readily available. Only some of the major fast food chains have revealed this info.


I do too. There's no reason that a "double double from in and out or chilli cheese fries from Carl's Jr" should have trans fats. Totally unnecessary.

It's be far more preferable

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Oh, Philidelphia, now I understand... Let's just say everywhere in the world isn't as big as Philidelphia, some towns only have one restaraunt per type of food. And it doesn't have enough to cover every type either.

Smoking is a bit different, since you are directly polluting people's breathing air, and increasing their chance for lung cancer. I don't believe in drinking, so I don't care about that one way or the other. If some towns who only have one restaraunt per style want to ban smoking in the restaraunts, that's perfectly fine. (I'll never smoke but it affects me and everyone else)

And I have NO problem whatsoever if the restraunt owner decides to go non smoking. It is his business, and he should be able to allow or prohibit whatever he likes of a legal nature

By the way.. when you drink and get in a car ... your directly threatening the lives of every person in your vicinity.

By the way how don't you believe in drinking? Do you think it's a myth or a fairy tale? You can't not belive in drinking, it's a pretty proven fact....LOL

 

[Southern Belle]

And I have NO problem whatsoever if the restraunt owner decides to go non smoking. It is his business, and he should be able to allow or prohibit whatever he likes of a legal nature

By the way.. when you drink and get in a car ... your directly threatening the lives of every person in your vicinity.

By the way how don't you believe in drinking? Do you think it's a myth or a fairy tale? You can't not belive in drinking, it's a pretty proven fact....LOL

lol! I meant that I don't believe it's right, I don't do it, and I never hang out at bars or anything like that. ^_^ But actually driving when you are drunk is already illegal, so... Also it takes a bit more effort than just sucking smoke to hurt someone when you're driving drunk...

 

[RightinNYC]

This is why extreme liberals and extreme conservatives are so often two sides of the same coin. The only difference between them is the behavior they seek to control. Both groups of jerks think they know what's best for everybody else.

Shame that Bloomberg is neither, otherwise you might have a point.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'm sorry you were a conservative when exactly? Did conservatism used to mean support for a nanny state and government intervention on all of levels of society? It extends the shelf life of the food you say? Well I wonder why bussinesses who make their money off of the sale of food would want to extend the shelf life of said food. Ya and is there going to be a trans-fat regulatory committee now? Are they going to waste state resources and tax payer money to go shop to shop making sure none of those evil bussinesses aren't trying to turn a profit without governmental regulation. How very conservative of you to support such a policy. :roll:

I was under the impression that conservatives supported the ability of states and cities to make their own decision as to what would and would not be allowed, instead of requiring them to hold to a federal standard.

 

[RightinNYC]

People are acting like its this huge nanny-state thing happening where us poor people in NYC are having our lives controlled by the evil government that is taking our rights away.

What actually happened is that a law was proposed by the incredibly popular mayor, and passed by the city council. I fail to see how it gets more representative than that.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

People are acting like its this huge nanny-state thing happening where us poor people in NYC are having our lives controlled by the evil government that is taking our rights away.

I think that some folks think that cheeseburgers and pizza have been banned. If that were the case I'd be up in arms too. When in fact they just banned cheeseburgers and pizza if they're made with poison in them.

Think of it as if they banned adding arsenic to breakfast cereal. Chocolate Coated Sugar Bombs may not be the healthiest choice for breakfast, but there's no call to go adding poison to them.

 

[RightinNYC]

I think that some folks think that cheeseburgers and pizza have been banned. If that were the case I'd be up in arms too. When in fact they just banned cheeseburgers and pizza if they're made with poison in them.

Think of it as if they banned adding arsenic to breakfast cereal. Chocolate Coated Sugar Bombs may not be the healthiest choice for breakfast, but there's no call to go adding poison to them.

And while I understand why some businesses are irritated about this, its not because they feel that their free choice is being hampered, or that they wont be able to provide the same quality food for their customers, its because they're irritated about having to deal with the change on a corporate level.

Most normal restaurants are mildly opposed to the law just on general principles, but the only ones who are fighting it hard are chains like McDonalds and Burger King, because for their franchises to get new suppliers, they have to go through huge bureaucratic structures within their own companies to change anything. I could have some sympathy for a chef who felt that his product was being compromised, like with the fois gras thing. But I don't have sympathy for a corporate manager who's irritated because his department has to switch oil suppliers.

Fortunately, its not like this is happening in a market they can just pull out of. Taco Bell isn't going to abandon the city anytime soon, so their corporate office will be forced to offer the franchises here trans-fat free products in order to stay in business. And once those products are available, I think many other branches in different cities will begin to voluntarily request them.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The thing is that trans fat doesn't taste better than cis fat. There's no crew of folks saying "We want our trans fats! Cis fats aren't good enough for us!"

No one chooses to eat trans fat over cis fat.

Trans fat is just poisonous and unhealthy. It's easily replaceable with the traditional cis fats like Grandma used to use.

The only reason to make foods with trans fat is that there is an increase in the shelf life of the food.

Because there's no one who actually wants to be eating trans fats over cis fats, this isn't a personal-choice-issue like smoking.

Right and well said! This is simply about subsituting a healthy alternative that does not cost more for an unhealthy method that makes people sick.

Why would anyone be against this? If our water were making us sick and there was a no additional cost substitution would people be against that too? Are people against putting fluoride in our water?

Government is supposed to represent our best interests and to a certain extent protect us. This law simply protects us without any downside...so why would anyone object?????

 

[26 X World Champs]

I'm sorry you were a conservative when exactly? Did conservatism used to mean support for a nanny state and government intervention on all of levels of society? It extends the shelf life of the food you say? Well I wonder why bussinesses who make their money off of the sale of food would want to extend the shelf life of said food. Ya and is there going to be a trans-fat regulatory committee now? Are they going to waste state resources and tax payer money to go shop to shop making sure none of those evil bussinesses aren't trying to turn a profit without governmental regulation. How very conservative of you to support such a policy. :roll:

How odd that you again fall on the side of business over public safety? At least your consistent in your absolute disregard for anyone except yourself...you're the epitome of a NeoCon....

How much extra money does society have to pay because more people are unhealthy due to transfats? Do you seriously believe that amount is less than whatever method of regulating this law will be?

Let me guess? Are you against government regulating all food health issues? Do you think eateries should not be inspected for cleanileness? Do you chalk up the recent Taco Bell green onions debacle as nothing more than bad for business rather than another example of what could happen if we eased up on health codes?

This law is simply another health code in the same vein as a clean kitchen, clean water etc.