Banning trans-fats?

  1. http://www.nysun.com/article/40430

    The comparison isn't made in this particular article, but I keep hearing the smoking analogy, which is pointless. Smoking in restaurants isn't banned due to ill health effects on the smokers (if that was the goal, smoking would have to outlawed all together) but because of the effects of second hand smoke. Banning trans-fats seems more like Big Brother monitoring what John and Jane Doe choose to eat. Personally, I have avoided trans-fats for years. Very rarely, I'll have a Krispy Kreme donut when they show up at work, but even then, I cut it in half. I don't use them in my home cooking and rarely, if ever, indulge when I'm out, but I don't want the choice taken away from me, either.
    •  
  2. 29 Comments

  3. by   Katnip
    Is their next step to ban butter and cream from menus? What will chefs do then?

    I think it would be okay if they legislate that restaurants post that whether or not they use trans fats so consumers can make an informed choice. Not everyone knows what their food is being cooked with. But to ban totally? I don't think that's the best step to take.

    I'll bet if consumers become more aware of what they're eating more will choose the healthier options anyway and more restaurants will follow suit just to stay in business.
  4. by   mercyteapot
    I think it is especially interesting that they're attempting to ban trans-fat, which so many people already know are bad for you, when something like this is going on... I had no idea!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060928...NlYwNtZW5ld3M-
  5. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from mercyteapot
    Banning trans-fats seems more like Big Brother monitoring what John and Jane Doe choose to eat.
    This is exactly what banning smoking is too - monitoring what John and Jane Doe choose to smoke/put into their bodies.

    If the people who run the restraunt and all the people who visit said restraunt don't mind the smoke or smoking - why should it be banned in that establishment? Do you let your guests chose the rules they like when they come over to your house?

    All too often these days, people resort to using the coercive power of government rather than use the harder - though moral - choice of persuasion.
  6. by   mercyteapot
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    This is exactly what banning smoking is too - monitoring what John and Jane Doe choose to smoke/put into their bodies.

    If the people who run the restraunt and all the people who visit said restraunt don't mind the smoke or smoking - why should it be banned in that establishment?

    All too often these days, people resort to using the coercive power of government rather than use the harder - though moral - choice of persuasion.
    As a non-smoker, I object to cigarette smoke and don't think that people have the right to expose to me to the toxins in which they choose to partake. As a person who tries to avoid trans-fat, I am not being exposed to the palm oil or lard or whatever other restaurant patrons may choose to enjoy. It isn't the same thing at all.
  7. by   NurseLatteDNP
    I think it is good that some states are banning trans fat. It goes along banning the soda machines from schools. Some people are just not aware how bad the stuff can be for you. We have come a long way when it comes to educating everybody about better food choices.
  8. by   SmilingBluEyes
    I have issues with big gov't control of what people choose to do WITH THEIR OWN BODIES.
  9. by   Marie_LPN, RN
    Said it before i'll say it agaiin: the government is not our momma. We live in a democracy, we have choice on what to eat.
  10. by   subee
    Huh? The government regulates our existences in the OR. Do you think Joe Blow hospital would pay a nickle for a safety procedure that would protect the staff unless they were forced to? We see the results of bad nutrition run wild every day in the OR. I'm really tired of moving these potatos on toothpicks all day ...and paying for all the total joint replacements those knees and hips require. People who eat at McDonalds don't care what's in the food - they just want food NOW! Just look at the check-out line at the grocery store - all those huge dimpled rear ends buying quart bottles of Coke.
    Since so many people do not have the intellectual equipment to make good choices, the govt. makes choices for them...seat belts, helmets, etc.
  11. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from mercyteapot
    As a non-smoker, I object to cigarette smoke and don't think that people have the right to expose to me to the toxins in which they choose to partake. As a person who tries to avoid trans-fat, I am not being exposed to the palm oil or lard or whatever other restaurant patrons may choose to enjoy. It isn't the same thing at all.
    I beg to differ - it is the same thing.

    I don't come to your house and demand that you follow my rules just as you can't come to my house and tell me how I should do things. Property rights mean just that - rights. If I decide smoking is ok in my house - who are you or anybody else for that matter to complain? Am I forcing you to enter and stay on my premises? Just because any private establishment is open for business to the general public doesn't make it a public space.

    You don't have to go to restraunts that patronise smoking on their premises - you can patronise those restraunts which don't allow smoking on their premises.


    I'm sorry if I sound like a stickler on this issue - but people don't realise the value and importance of property rights. Property is more than just things made of brick and mortar. ALL of our individual rights arise from property rights. Any government that doesn't recognise the vital importance of property rights, doesn't care about any other right.

    Mercy, I agree that we disagree
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on Sep 29, '06
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    The gov't needs to stay out of my life.

    In any case, HOW hypocritical is it of the gov't to complain about how we eat and THEN issue food stamps that can be redeemed for coca cola and frito lay?

    It's as hypocritical as the CORPORATE welfare that is our AFDC program.

    If the gov't was REALLY serious about healthy eating, they'd make the food stamp program like WIC - only redeemable for healthy foods. But that would cut the pigs off from the trough - and the pigs I'm referring to is corporate America.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  13. by   GooeyRN
    Quote from SmilingBluEyes
    I have issues with big gov't control of what people choose to do WITH THEIR OWN BODIES.
    :yeahthat:
  14. by   mercyteapot
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    I beg to differ - it is the same thing.

    I don't come to your house and demand that you follow my rules just as you can't come to my house and tell me how I should do things. Property rights mean just that - rights. If I decide smoking is ok in my house - who are you or anybody else for that matter to complain? Am I forcing you to enter and stay on my premises? Just because any private establishment is open for business to the general public doesn't make it a public space.

    You don't have to go to restraunts that patronise smoking on their premises - you can patronise those restraunts which don't allow smoking on their premises.


    I'm sorry if I sound like a stickler on this issue - but people don't realise the value and importance of property rights. Property is more than just things made of brick and mortar. ALL of our individual rights arise from property rights. Any government that doesn't recognise the vital importance of property rights, doesn't care about any other right.

    Mercy, I agree that we disagree
    We certainly do. The intention of one regulation is to protect people from other people, nonsmokers from smokers, and there are multiple precedents for the government to do such a thing. The proposed regulation wants to protect people from themselves. I wouldn't even have a problem with that if trans-fats weren't a legal substance. After all, we don't have the right to buy heroin at McDonald's, either. That being said, deciding okay we're not going to ban these fats completely but we're going to attempt to tell people when and where they can partake is the epitome of Big Brotherism. Oh, and by the way, I'm not sure what dictionary you're using to define a public space, but, um, yes, if it is open to the public, then the owners are in fact bound by the laws that govern public establishments. I can't imagine what makes you think otherwise...

close