# In The News - NYC Bans Trans Fats



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The board of health for NYC has introduced a ban on all trans fats at restaurants within the city. All eateries will be banned from using trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008. This is the first in the nation to make such a move and the food service community are not too happy. 

The FDA estimated that the average person consumes 4.7 pounds of trans fats each year. Trans fats are thought to raise bad cholesterol while at the same time lower the good cholesterol in our bodies. The board also passed a law that will require all restaurants to inform customers about calorie content and will have to list such information on the menu.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg was quoted as saying:



> Nobody wants to take away your french fries and hamburgers - I love those things too. But if you can make them with something that is less damaging to your health, we should do that.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Pretty obvious that freedom will not exist in the future!


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"In the future?"*



ne1roc said:


> Pretty obvious that freedom will not exist in the future!


Hey, why don't you try to find a place for a smoke where no one will hassle you?

Or send your kid to school with a peanut butter sandwich?

Or say out loud that there are aspects of some cultures that you do not respect or agree with?

Some folks define freedom as only the freedom to agree...


----------



## bickertfan (Feb 23, 2006)

Pretty interesting that they would implement a ban like that. I imagine they must have some compelling evidence that this stuff is harmful to your health. There does seem to be a need for more awareness about this stuff. You've left it too late if your arteries are already clogged.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...we brainwash the entire population into believing that eating poison will make them happy. simultaneously, we create a trillion dollar diet industry that causes them to gain even more weight. we make healthy eating non-mainstream - an act of anarchy, a form of anti-social behavior. we make healthy food expensive and difficult to find. then we say: "hey, how did you people get so fat?"

yes, i believe in personal responsibilty and accountability. except where people have been brainwashed.

-dh


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Hey, why don't you try to find a place for a smoke where no one will hassle you?
> 
> Or send your kid to school with a peanut butter sandwich?
> 
> ...


Yeah.............I guess the future is here.


----------



## mick7 (Mar 20, 2006)

On the topic of freedom. If we were all free to do want we want, what would become of this world? Not everyone is capable of being completely free. There isnt enough responsibilty in the world, or even in Canada, for us to be completely free. People would be getting shot, robbed, beat, drugs would be everywhere and so on and so forth. Would you really want to raise your kid up in such a place? I wouldnt.

To me Canada is the most freedom anyone can have in this world. Not only are we multicultural, but we are also peacemakers, unlike are more agressive neighbour the USA. There is fairness between males and females. Blacks, whites, yellows, and browns are all treaty equally (except for some racist people). We can do whatever we want, believe in whatever we want, eat whatever we want, aslong as it doesnt break one of our laws.

Now on topic, As I said before in alot of people dont have alot of responsibilty or disiple in their lives, and end up killing themselves cause of it. The banned 'foods' are killing people but yet they still eat them. The banned 'foods' are making people fat, making it harder for them to move breathe and even live with themselves because of their weight, and yet they buy more. These banned 'foods' are making millions of dollars for the owners, yet all they think about is putting more money in their pockets. Also with the help of good ol' technology, people are getting lazier and increasing the chances of a heart attack drastically. Therefor killing our society, community and everyone else that eats too much of that shit. 

Im not all for completely banning them, because I sometimes have a burger myself once in a while, but seeing peoples reactions it doesnt seem alot of them have grown up. People are trying to save them and they get mad. If people are hungry theres fruits and vegetables they can get just bying going to their fridge and washing it with water, and it is alot more quicker, healthier and less costly than going out and buying a BigMac everytime you got the munchies .


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

mick7 said:


> People would be getting shot, robbed, beat, drugs would be everywhere and so on and so forth. Would you really want to raise your kid up in such a place? I wouldnt.


This is already happening? 

Law and order is a no brainer. We need laws! I just don't need people telling me what to eat, drink or smoke. I can figure that out myself.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"Well, that's the OFFICIAL line..."*



ne1roc said:


> This is already happening?
> 
> Law and order is a no brainer. We need laws! I just don't need people telling me what to eat, drink or smoke. I can figure that out myself.


Agreed. Sometimes I wonder if it means anything to be an adult and make your own adult decisions anymore.

Where the argument about laws breaks down is that you can't make the assumption that all laws make sense or have a positive benefit. We naively assume that all laws are sensibly well thought out before they are implemented. In all too many cases nothing could be further from the truth. We also assume that they were enacted because the majority of citizens wanted them. This is a crock as well. Today many laws are put in place because some lobby group pressured a politician. If things are done in a lowkey manner the law is put in place and the general public is totally unaware, until someone runs afoul of it.

Even our Constitution and Charter of Rights were never directly put to a public vote. The government of the time was in power, dreamed the whole thing up and put it in place. If you didn't agree with a part of it or thought it wasn't written properly and could cause a problem that was just too bad! Even if the majority of citizens agreed with you no power on earth could have stopped it.

I was there! I lived through those times and vividly remember how it became a sort of "rush job", due to time pressures with elections coming up in various provinces and deadlines with various processes. The word was "just get it signed and if there's a problem we can always amend it later". Perhaps not surprisingly, after it was all signed we found that the amending formula is such that it is almost impossible to ever amend anything!

The American Constitution, while not perfect of course, was at least nominally generated by the citizens and has had a number of amendments added over the years to cover new situations and needs or correct original points that were not clear. Our Constitution and Charter were delivered frrom on high by the ruling party of the time and are cast in stone! I guess we just have to assume that they are absolutely perfect and will never need amendment.

We have tons and tons of laws! We are starting to drown in them! I'll give you a "f'er instance":

Here in Ontario we had a lobby group formed around some mothers that were concerned about babies being scalded by caregivers forgetting to check the tap setting in the bath. I never did find out if any of these mothers had ever had this happen to their child or if they simply had heard about a few cases and took the issue on as a cause. Anyhow, they successfully got some politicians somewhere to put in a law that said that all taps had to be those new ones that automatically control the temperature to keep it in a safe range. These taps cost about $300 each by the way which drives up the cost of that new home you might want to buy. 

Someone then mentioned "What about all those existing homes built before our new law?" It was decided that if the plumber came in and was asked to do work in an older home the homeowner then would be legally bound to pony up the money for a retrofit! 

Now this could have caused steam for all politicians everywhere. There would be a LOT of citizens upset about a BIG plumbing bill being sprung on them out of the blue! So the "work around" was to instead lower the temperature control on the water heater so that the hot water could never be "too hot".

If this was ever done in your home RUN don't WALK to your water heater and turn that control back up! At that lower setting the water is not hot enough to kill any viruses or nasties that might have decided to grow in your tank!

Legionaires Disease, anyone? All this because some bonehead didn't check the baby's bathwater. Trying to idiot proof everything against idiots is always expensive and futile. Idiots always find a way...

The folks that lobbied for this law and the politician(s) who passed it for them apparently never realised that some folks live in apartment buildings. What about all those existing older buildings? It would cost a fortune to put new automatic controlled taps in every unit!

The answer is that they don't know what to do so they are simply ignoring it for now!

My point is that laws are dreamed up and enacted not by rocket scientists but by people who often might be DUMBER than average! Is a citizen supposed to meekly obey such laws?

I have an old tree in my yard that is causing problems. A few years ago my burg passed some "Save The Trees!" laws. Even though I have a lot of trees in my yard, some of which I planted myself I'm not allowed to touch this tree, let alone remove it since it lies just on the city side of the lot line but overhangs my driveway.

Now this old tree is quite overhung and often drops branches on our cars, banging them up. Or the wind scrapes branches across the paint. So I asked what I was supposed to do. I was told "No problem! We have a tree trimming department!"

Yes, they do. It took bitching at them from early May to the end of November to get them to come out and do it. I suspect that many people have been waiting longer but they finally did my tree to shut me up.

In effect, the city has banned us from touching trees but doesn't see much obligation to look after them themselves. Not because there was a clear need and will from the majority of city citizens but because of a few "tree huggers" who wrote laws that were not well thought out. By trying to save those few grand old trees that should be saved they wrote broad brush laws that piss a lot of folks off for no good reason. Meanwhile they chopped down nearly a dozen grand old Maples in a nearby park for no apparent reason. I'm a country boy with a good eye for trees and they looked perfectly sound to me.

Now this is a trivial matter compared to what happens with health care. If you are afraid or maybe don't dare wait for a medical procedure it's illegal for you to pay for it privately, if you have the money. If the system is too slow and you might die the law effectively says "Too bad! Be a good citizen!" A year or two ago someone in Quebec finally got a Supreme Court decision that said that governments could NOT do this, that if they assumed total control then they had total responsibility to deliver in a timely fashion. The politicians of course panicked and are making some motions to improve. Not too quickly, it would seem. I took my wife to emergency a couple of months ago and finished two paperbacks during the waiting.

All this still begs the issue of whether being an adult citizen should mean that you can decide for yourself if you want that smoke or greasy burger or should have to accept someone ELSE making your decision for you. When do we get our chance to tell THEM what to do?

Oh well, what else is new?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> This is already happening?
> Law and order is a no brainer. We need laws! I just don't need people telling me what to eat, drink or smoke. I can figure that out myself.


...good for you!

if everyone was like you, we wouldn't have these problems (obesity, alcoholism, cancer/heart disease from smoking etc), and there would be no need to "regulate"...

if...

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Now this is a trivial matter compared to what happens with health care. If you are afraid or maybe don't dare wait for a medical procedure it's illegal for you to pay for it privately, if you have the money. If the system is too slow and you might die the law effectively says "Too bad! Be a good citizen!" A year or two ago someone in Quebec finally got a Supreme Court decision that said that governments could NOT do this, that if they assumed total control then they had total responsibility to deliver in a timely fashion. The politicians of course panicked and are making some motions to improve. Not too quickly, it would seem. I took my wife to emergency a couple of months ago and finished two paperbacks during the waiting.


...all that will soon be a thing of the past. the conservatives want to reduce our taxes. i take this to mean that we suddenly have enough money to fix healthcare. either that, or they'll privatize it, so that those of us who can afford it can get better and faster access to healthcare than those who can't afford it. i take this to mean that those of us who can afford it are _better_ than those who can't and therefore _deserve_ better and faster access to healthcare....

isn't that great?

-dh


----------



## nine (Apr 23, 2006)

I really don't understand why people are turning this particular thing into a "freedom" issue. I mean, come on- have any of you ever heard anyone in your lives say anything to the effect of "Oh man, I love those transfats. They're so delicious and make everything taste great.". But now that they've been banned in places, the rebels without a cause are yelling about losing their freedoms. 

For god's sake, choose your battles. Transfats are nothing but bad for you. There's no need to be using them except because it saves companies money (at the expense of the public's health). 

It's funny, because I don't hear any of these freedom lovers complaining about not being able to sprinkle arsenic or DDT on their foods.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...good for you!
> 
> if everyone was like you, we wouldn't have these problems (obesity, alcoholism, cancer/heart disease from smoking etc), and there would be no need to "regulate"...
> 
> ...


 Uhh........ whats next, I have to turn my amp down because people are going deaf?

The government should butt out of our private lives. The only argument you can make is that our health care system is paying to take care of these unhealthy habits. Ironic that our government has control of the our biggest unhealthy habit, alcohol, and makes a killing off smokers willing to pay the huge taxes on cigarettes.

We need a hippy smiley here!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Uhh........ whats next, I have to turn my amp down because people are going deaf?


...of course not! its far better that people go deaf than YOUR rights be curtailed.

(insert hippy smiley here)

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

nine said:


> I really don't understand why people are turning this particular thing into a "freedom" issue. I mean, come on- have any of you ever heard anyone in your lives say anything to the effect of "Oh man, I love those transfats. They're so delicious and make everything taste great.". But now that they've been banned in places, the rebels without a cause are yelling about losing their freedoms.
> For god's sake, choose your battles. Transfats are nothing but bad for you. There's no need to be using them except because it saves companies money (at the expense of the public's health).
> It's funny, because I don't hear any of these freedom lovers complaining about not being able to sprinkle arsenic or DDT on their foods.


...not to get too political here, but i do see a lot of "freedom lovers" getting their panties in a bunch at the terrible thought that they might have to share their freedoms with those homosexual types, although admittedly that is more likely to happen south of the border.

-dh


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

nine said:


> I really don't understand why people are turning this particular thing into a "freedom" issue. I mean, come on- have any of you ever heard anyone in your lives say anything to the effect of "Oh man, I love those transfats. They're so delicious and make everything taste great.". But now that they've been banned in places, the rebels without a cause are yelling about losing their freedoms.
> 
> For god's sake, choose your battles. Transfats are nothing but bad for you. There's no need to be using them except because it saves companies money (at the expense of the public's health).
> 
> It's funny, because I don't hear any of these freedom lovers complaining about not being able to sprinkle arsenic or DDT on their foods.


 Well, more or less making light of the fact but truth be told, freedom of choice good or bad for you, is probably the biggest factor to freedom.


----------



## mick7 (Mar 20, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> This is already happening?
> 
> .


Just because you can doesnt mean everyone else can



mick7 said:


> Im not all for completely banning them, because I sometimes have a burger myself once in a while, but seeing peoples reactions it doesnt seem alot of them have grown up. People are trying to save them and they get mad. If people are hungry theres fruits and vegetables they can get just bying going to their fridge and washing it with water, and it is alot more quicker, healthier and less costly than going out and buying a BigMac everytime you got the munchies .


 As I stated there im not completely for banning them. But some people are too stupid or too addicted to that to realize what they are doing in the long run

One thing you go to realize about us 'people' is that most of us are whiny ******y twats that go and bitch to our government because of a small discomfort. Alots of people live on my street and complain to the government because "a house doesnt look good like the rest of ours". After a while the government gets fed up with these bitches and end up banning stuff cause of it. Im not saying thats a good thing for the government to do but what can you do?

As for


> I just don't need people telling me what to eat, drink or smoke. I can figure that out myself


 You dont people telling 'you', cause you seem to be a smart guy, but that doesnt mean everyone is like that. If you could drink where ever you wanted people would get drunk on the streets and most likely hurt other people. There will also be alot more drunk drivers on the road which will result with more fatalities (Im well aware that there are still drunk drivers on the road, but there would be more if they were allowed to).

Smoking is bad for your health and the health of others around you. Just because you smoke doesnt mean everyone else wants smoke going into their lungs and killing them. I agree with banning smoking from resturants (or at least making a special place for the smokers) for the simple fact that people dont want smoke with their food.

People can live without trans fats. As a matter of fact they will live a longer and better live without them.


----------



## shad (May 4, 2006)

Right on "Nine". This is not about freedom issues at all, the restaurants have many other cleanliness and food preparation standards they must adhere to as well, and so they should!! I can't believe that any of you would really want to eat at a place that is overrun with rodents and the cooks don't wash their hands, so why would you want your food cooked in oil that is bad for you? Come on guys, your paranoia is showing.


----------



## Stratocaster (Feb 2, 2006)

FIGHT!! FIGHT!! FIGHT!!






















Sorry, I got caught up in the action.


----------



## nine (Apr 23, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Well, more or less making light of the fact but truth be told, freedom of choice good or bad for you, is probably the biggest factor to freedom.


There are plenty of more important things to channel a love of freedom into. That's what I meant about choosing your battles. Wasting energy on fighting for your right to eat trans fats looks just plain silly when you compare it to things that would actually have a real impact on your or others' lives.

I understand where you're coming from and empathize for the most part, but all of this hubub over something being taken away that most people wouldn't even have known about previously is absurd in my opinion.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Stratocaster said:


> FIGHT!! FIGHT!! FIGHT!!
> Sorry, I got caught up in the action.



...hang in there. the pace is bound to pick up after we've all had our naps.

-dh


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Strange, but I don't consider this my battle. I am just pro choice! 

Maybe we can discuss this further together over some beer and chicken wings!
Oh.......sorry, I guess you guys don't eat wings, how about some cellery and carrots. :food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*.02*

I love animals! They're delicious!


----------



## nine (Apr 23, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Oh.......sorry, I guess you guys don't eat wings, how about some cellery and carrots. :food-smiley-004:


[Shaq_after_a_rejection]Get that weak sh*t out of here![/Shaq_after_a_rejection]

Haha. Denied. Sorry, but not everyone who thinks that bad food is bad for you is some granola tree hugging vegan.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

My God, is there no sense of humour here? Lighten up man. Personally, I like carrots and celery..............with blue cheese dip!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Strange, but I don't consider this my battle. I am just pro choice! QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...only as it relates to _your_ choice, evidently:
> ...


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

david henman said:


> ne1roc said:
> 
> 
> > Strange, but I don't consider this my battle. I am just pro choice! QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The thought police are watching, listening. Today trans fats. Tomoorow.... who knows.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> The thought police are watching, listening. Today trans fats. Tomoorow.... who knows.


Well I wish I said that....................instead of that nasty F word!

Freedom


----------



## nine (Apr 23, 2006)

I hardly doubt that trans fats is on the slippery slope to an Orwellian world, guys. 

What is, however, is Maher Arar getting coughed up and hung out to dry by the RCMP. THAT's the kind of stuff I choose to rail against. Not trans fats.


----------



## mick7 (Mar 20, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> The thought police are watching, listening. Today trans fats. Tomoorow.... who knows.


Probably beer, and the reason will be "because you can get drunk from it."


----------

