What is Digg?61 Comments
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27The best enforcement would have been millions of NYC consumers making informed choices for themselves. We're creeping towards a nanny state where bureaucrats and "enforcers" take choice and responsibility away from people and put it in the hands of politicians. Many snack food companies have already bowed to consumer pressure and have taken trans fat out of their snacks. Is it so hard to imagine that restaurants might have done the same? What is next? The war on butter?
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13bigdavediode makes a very good point. You can't be an informed consumer unless you're actually informed. The fact is that the use of trans fats can be replaced by a more healthy alternative without affecting the flavor of the food. Banning them will have no affect other than making people more healthy. They'll still be able to order and eat fatty foods, its not like they're banning fried food after all.
- signal15, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16***** that. They are banning substances that are not fit for human consumption. If it was legal to put cyanide in food and companies did it, everyone would be up in arms for a law to ban the practice.
I don't see how this is any different. I HOPE they snoop through shelves and fine the ***** out of any place that has products with trans fats.
FYI, I have a friend that works at Cargill, a manufacturer of trans fats. The people there that have read their internal studies on the effects of trans-fats on the human body will NOT eat anything that contains them. This ***** is poison, and the companies making it know it, just like big tobacco knows their ***** is poison too.
You food will taste better with a non-hydrogenated oil in it anyway. I don't see why everyone is so pissed. I wish they would put a blanket ban on the stuff, not just for restaurants. My whole family has high cholesterol. Mine is 80. 60 good cholesterol, 20 bad. I stopped eating transfats about 5 years ago. I still eat a lot of fat, but none of it is transfats. Lots of olive oil, macadamia nut oil, canola, and coconut. Monosaturated fats actually lower bad cholesterol. - Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Exactly, I see potato chip bags with 'no-trans far' and I buy them. I will vote will my wallet before I vote with a diebold.
- VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9It's not about fatty foods, trans fat doesn't kill simply by getting you fat.
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10You can still eat fatty foods. Its a particular kind of fat that's being banned. A kind of fat that you won't miss in food when its gone, believe me. Its not like trans fats are what makes the food tasty.
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9We need something like Underwriters Laboratories for food and drugs. Feds _never_ do a good job and are too susceptible to bribery. Plus, there's no competition, so they have no impetus to do a good job.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Couldn't have said it better myself signal. Trans fats are not natural fats at all, and the human body has no effective way of ridding itself of them once they are in our system. They've been linked to heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and some forms of cancer. Trans fats are basically poisons that have become cheap and convenient for food processors and restaurants to serve to an unsuspecting public, and just because the FDA hasn't yet gotten around to banning their usage (gotta love lobbyists) isn't an argument against New York City wanting to take steps towards protecting their citizens. Good for them.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+22Radiant:
>The best enforcement would have been millions of NYC consumers making informed choices for themselves.
For people to make informed choices, every restaurant would need to label it's food ingredients for each customer, and the associated government agency to enforce the food labelling of every meal -- otherwise how could we make informed choices? Bring our own testing lab with us?
Why don't we just ban transfat and be done with it -- much simpler, and there's really no good arguments to keep using it. - crweaks23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Most of you are misinformed on this topic it seems... Trans Fat is (for the most part) _manufactured_. This isn't a ban on eating any kind of food, it's a ban on restaurants using industrial oils that are used because they are cheaper and last on the shelf longer. Very few people who live in NYC are against this ban. The only people against it are restaurant owners.
When you say "let me eat fat if I want to," you're completely missing the point. In fact, if you feel that way, then you should be saying "give me the REAL fat, not this fake *****!" - hipdad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If the FDA was doing its job trans fat wouldn't even be a local government issue. It would already be banned from production in the food processing industry. On another note they would ban ritalin from production also. The FDA has greasy palms of trans fat and enjoy money from the companies that produce it.
- signal15, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Why not? Because I'm paying $480 a month for medical insurance because of the stupid people that eat deep fried transfat balls filled with transfat filling. Heart stents are $60k, and insurance usually foots that bill. Guess who it gets passed on to.
When my fiance gets added to my health insurance, it's gonna cost me $700 a month. That's for only 2 people, non-smokers, late 20's. Some people don't even pay that amount of money for rent. That's $8400 a year for health insurance. And I HAVE to have it. If I get in a car accident or something happens without it, I get to live under a bridge in a cardboard box. - crweaks23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Lackadaisy
This is not an issue of banning food... please do a LITTLE research before posting sensational thoughts about the government taking over our lives. New York is as liberal as they come... trust me, if we thought our rights were being trampled, we'd say something. Consumers don't want trans fat in their food, but have no way of knowing whether it's being used in the kitchen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat - signal15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3KFC no longer has trans-fats. They removed them from everything (except their biscuits) about 2 months ago.
- blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Exactly, I see potato chip bags with 'no-trans far' and I buy them. I will vote will my wallet before I vote with a diebold."
The potato chip bags that advertise "0g trans fat" in fact do have trans fat in them. The government allows corporations to label a food as having no trans fat if a serving has 0.5g or less. So they just divide the portion into serving sizes containing just under 0.5g trans fat each and label it as being trans fat free.
So much for making that informed decision there, Jagdhund.
... Maybe New York knows what it's doing after all. - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You're obviously oblivious to the existence of the FDA.
- acrodev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I believe deeply in personal freedom. No one should be able to tell me what to eat, drink, or inhale. That's fine in private, but publicly, it isn't that simple. Public good is necessary to protect the ignorant. But I'm more informed than most Americans, and I'm in a much better position to evaluate the nutritional quality of my food. Less informed people don't deserve inferior food. But for regulation of consumable goods, how far is too far? Several years ago, out went no indoor smoking. Now, no trans fat. Soon, it may be a peanut ban because of the growing peanut-allergic population.
Is the trans fat situation much different than adding something like antifreeze to wine? Would you recommend that be allowed, just with proper warnings on the label?
"Let the free market decide, one coffin at a time."
Just to clear up some misconceptions...
Fatty foods != fatty people.
Hormones + calories == fat
Trans fat == heart disease - freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, KFC has already taken steps towards eliminating the partially hydrogenated cooking oil that they use. But I can see Tony Soprano beginning a very lucrative Krispy Cream black-market trade with the NYC boys in blue.
[edit] damn you signal! - signal15, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Are you retarded? They are banning ***** that is a poison. It doesn't kill you by making you fat, it raises your bad cholesterol, hardens your arteries, and does all sorts of other bad *****.
As I mentioned before, if companies put cyanide in their food, everyone would be up in arms to get a law to ban the practice. This is no different. The fats the replace trans-fats are more tasty anyway, your food will taste better. The only reason they use them is because of cost and shelf life. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Anyone else getting images of an obese Mafia smuggling KFC to fat people?
no, just me? ok then. - hoowahman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2great spelling about the summEry in the commentary
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I agree that the government shouldn't always control personal choices, but fat people have gotten out of hand. They are literally costing everyone else money (through increased insurance costs and more frequent use of medicare/medicaid) because they can't control their appetite.
http://whsc.emory.edu/press_releases2.cfm?announcement_id_seq=4159
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144628?cookieSet=1&journalCode=publhealth - TB65, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Trans fats are not natural fats at all, and the human body has no effective way of ridding itself of them once they are in our system."
Trans fats exist naturally in beef and dairy products.
Here's a pdf article on TFAs without the FUD.
http://www.acsh.org/docLib/20061030_transfat_web2.pdf - siszam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's alarming how many sheeple want to government running their lives.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A *small amount* of trans fat is found naturally. The trans fats that are used in food processing and cooking oil are NOT natural fats, as you well know. They are created by adding hydrogen to natural oils at high temperatures, which changes the chemical composition of the oil and creates these trans fats (or partially hydrogenated oils).
These trans fats, which are then added to countless baked and processed foods have become convenient to use, but they are not in the least bit healthy for the general public. The problem is, while shelf foods are required to label their trans fat content for the customers benefit, (and pretty loosely label it at that) it's much harder to find the same information for a restaurant. Most people don't realize that a large serving of McDonald's' fried contains 8 grams of trans fat, or that the french toast at Burger King has 5 grams. Or that Micky D's Deluxe breakfast has a whopping 11 grams of trans fat?
This is not nowhere near a natural level of trans fats. This is simply a food industry that is much more concerned with it's own bottom line than the long term health of it's costumers.
Here's a link from the American Heart Association with facts.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3030522 - freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As for your link to the acsh, long known as a paid apologist group for the health and environmental hazard produced by modern industries, while Googling them to see where they drew their funding, I found this interesting and somewhat topical article:
==============================
Integrity Ain't Cheap
Topics: corporations | groups
Corporate funders for the American Council on Science and Health have included American Cyanamid, American Meat Institute, Amoco, Anheuser-Busch, Archer Daniels Midland, Ashland Oil Foundation, Boise Cascade, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Burger King, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, Coca-Cola, Consolidated Edison, Coors, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exxon, Ford Motor Co., Frito-Lay, General Electric, General Mills, General Motors, Hershey Foods, Johnson & Johnson, Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Kraft Foundation, Kraft General Foods, Merck Pharmaceuticals, Mobil, Monsanto, National Agricultural Chemicals Association, National Dairy Council, National Soft Drink Association, National Starch and Chemical Foundation, Nestlé, NutraSweet Co. (owned by Monsanto), Oscar Mayer Foods, Pepsi-Cola, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Shell Oil, Sugar Association, Union Carbide Corp., Uniroyal Chemical Co., USX Corp., and Wine Growers of California.
The Kellogg Co. has also contributed, but in 1998 it chose not to renew its $10,000 annual donation. ACSH responded with an angry letter, accusing Kellogg of "trying to manipulate scientific findings" by withholding funding because the ACSH does not support the company's argument that dietary fiber helps prevent colon cancer. (ACSH director) Whelan pleaded for Kellogg to reconsider, noting her organization's lengthy history of combat with the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a group that, unlike ACSH, has regularly criticized the food and restaurant industries.
"We've been there to counter CSPI's claims as [it] has attacked virtually every aspect of modern-day food technology, whether it be caffeine, sugar, dietary fiber, the fat-replacer olestra, dietary fat and cholesterol, moderate consumption of alcohol--or whatever other alleged carcinogen, toxin, or 'killer' ingredient [CSPI] has singled out for indictment," Whelan stated.
"I am appalled and regret the level of reaction from an organization that seems to be of the opinion that they should be funded forever," responded a Kellogg representative.
================================ - Tarnum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"They feel that these people are out to whack these restaurants, and it's a cash cow for that purpose."
Yes. And? - hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2And how did that cucumber become a pickle ?
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Because i'm an adult and I think think I can choose for myself what i want to eat. This has nothing to do with what is being forced out of my list of choices, its the fact that a bunch of beurocrats ARE filtering my choices. There are a lot of things that are far more dangerous than a can of crisco. We don't see Big Tobacco being banned? Why? Because there is a lot of money to be had taxing the hell out of smokers and insurance companies raising premiums on smokers We dont see alcohol banned. Why? Well they tried it once and realized its easy to make, so why not make it legal and tax the hell out of it.
If a substance isn't out right dangerous to the public at large, the government has no right to limit it. Everytime something is taken away, it sets a precidence for something else to be banned.
As sensationalist and stupid as this example is; remeber the Demolition Man? That lifestyle isn't as far fetched as you might think. - crweaks23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Karyyk
Man... I'm liberal, but I look around at some of my company and it helps me keep in perspective that not every conservative is a right wing religious nut job...
Please, think before you post. The government is doing us a favor, here. They are spending money to do this because it is the right thing to do. - acrodev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I just want the convenience of not having to thoroughly research every place I eat.
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The government wants to put live virus on food, include additives, and all kinds of freaky stuff to food. They do that then pretend to be all caring and righteous by banning other things. That's as hypocritical as you can get. The government needs to stop manipulation my diet in ALL WAYS. Label food correctly and people can make their own choices. Some of you think this trans fat ban is a good idea. What happens when government takes it upon themselves to ban something you want? It's a slippery slope.
I don't want a bureaucracy that still puts mercury, a known poison that can cause autism, in infant immunizations to tell me what I can and cannot do. - beatbox32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Man, can you imagine the friction this is gonna create between rival eateries? I can already see the call being placed...
"Hello, NYPD? Joey's pizza seemed to taste extra good yesterday. I think I saw an empty can of TranzFat out behind his shop." - dgaspard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5This isn't the government's decision. Let people eat and smoke whatever they want and let natural selection take it's course.
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3We should be taking them off social healthcare for their self-inflicted conditions, not trying to regulate our way to a government run utopia.
- bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1acro, take that reasoning to the logical conclusion. If you don't want the inconvenience of researching the quality of the goods you purchase, then the production of all goods much eventually come under the total control of government. This is the fascist economic model production, and it has the opposite effect of the one you desire. A little history is in order.
Yes, it is inconvenient to have to think for one's self, certainly. But consider the inconvenience of government forcibly doing all of your thinking for you. Ask anyone just how much more inconvenient life becomes who has lived under totalitarian government.
Government backfires. It makes the problem it is supposed to fix worse, and in doing so, crushes your freedom along the way.
The antidote to totalitarian government is a free-thinking people. For a start, peruse your friendly http://www.mises.org - siszam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wonder how Kevin Rose will feel when the government bans beer. My nephew was killed by a drunk driver. I want people who drink beer and think their cool to be banned. That makes more sense.
- bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Life (self-ownership), Liberty, and Property...
Not in New York!
So-called "progressives" wish to stamp out everyone's human rights to self-ownership, liberty, and property for their totalitarian desires.
Consider how the "progressive" sees you -
He sees you as an ignorant savage incapable of deciding how to spend your own money, protect yourself from unhealthy food, care for your own property and customers, and shake your dick after you piss. Therefore, he concludes, naturally, that it is his right and duty to relieve you of your money, liberty, and property to protect you from yourself. Only safety scissors and construction paper for you!
To him, he is the great noble, and you are the ignorant savage. He is "educated", "forward-thinking" and "progressive" and he is in control of your life for your own good.
But his way of thinking is easily refuted. The reality is that IF you are a savage because of your human nature, then HE is just as much a savage as you. From a libertarian perspective, he acts for more savage because is going around violating everyone's basic human rights to life (self-ownership), liberty, and property for his own power-lust and greed.
So perhaps we are all savages. I don't believe so, but I don't have time to refute that too. But if we are all savage, the most savage thing to do is to start organizing these savages into coercive hierarchies where the savages at the top can deny the rights to life (self-ownership), liberty, and property of those at the bottom. Hierarchy might work if we were all angels. But only horizontal organization and equal rights work when we are not. - siszam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well said gwertywatcher
- schroeder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The thing is that no one is saying, "Oh, you got trans fat? Gimme some of that!" Given the option no sane person would CHOOSE to consume trans fat. There is no benefit and it is bad for you. At the very least it should be labeled as being used if not banned. It's a man made product that is harmful. Like if someone in a lab made any other harmful substance and told everyone to eat it, it's the government's job to protect citizens from such things. That's what the FDA is for! As for cigarettes, I think that harmful chemical additives should be banned but if someone wants to grow tobacco and smoke it or buy it unadulterated it's their business.
- Lackadaisy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Yeah I hate to invoke "slippery slope" arguments, but when people let the government get away with banning *food items* food for dawkins' sake, it isn't too much of a stretch to think that the government would also very much like to regulate *everything* you can do to your body and create a blacklist of behaviors that are deemed just simply gross and are banned without any rational justification. If something causes no harm to anyone else you do not have a right to ban it. I can't understand this.
- lofiboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3So NYC will be getting the fat police to enforce that silly law?
Oh wait .. - freff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It's not so much that your being told what not to eat (if you want to buy a big jug of partially hydrogenated cooking oil from Sam's Club, that's all up to you), but they are telling restaurants what not to poison you with. Big difference.
- hoowahman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Anyone see family guy last night? If we had fat people associations at least we'd have groups to attack these laws and get our freedom back!
- codyman, on 10/12/2007, -14/+12If people want to eat fatty foods, let them... wtf
i mean come on, next your going to have bands on sugar or something because the government "knows whats best for you" because your just that stupid citizen that needs your hand held all the time
***** this ***** - jessecrouch, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10@bigdavediode
government doesn't need to be involved in such a process at all, in fact we'd probably all be a lot better off without it. organizations like the FDA are pretty much immune to any sort of legal action and are the FDA will NOT shutdown or be held accountable for mislabeling or saying something is safe when it is really not. private businesses would care about labelling food products accurately and with information consumers truly *do* demand because their reputation and therefore their money is at stake.
government institutions don't have to give a damn about accountability because they do not use the true vote of consumer demand, money, to let them know what to do.
the argument for "keeping" transfat unbanned is not the same thing as keeping transfats around in food. the concept is simple: don't regulate what i put in my body - i can make informed decisions for myself and don't need a "majority" of the population or some damn congressman to do it for me. - qwertywatcher, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Why is the government involved in this. This is not what they are for. We dont need parents. We already have those.
The gvoernment should protect me from attack. Help me if im ill and take care of my infrastructure.
Not Tell me what to eat
What to smoke
What to wear
what to think
and randomly attack other countries for those shame reasons.
Shame on all of us for allowing them to dictate over us. There is no freedom here. - 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"...I'm more informed than most Americans, and I'm in a much better position to evaluate the nutritional quality of my food."
Avoiding fast food is easy, compared to the research needed to avoid trans fats in grocery store items. I bet a lot of people don't realize that trans fat = shortening. The fryer oil has gotten a lot of news, and there was the Oreo cookie lawsuit; but there is much more trans fat in our environment than most people realize. How do you replace all those brands?
This ban could do a lot of good for apartment dwellers, but it may not do enough for the soccer moms and their poor children who are slowly being poisoned. - Barbarino, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5In a Democracy, the people are the government, so if you don't like the ban vote people in who will reverse it or stfu, there is no slippery slope here, the stuff is bad news and is should be gone. The good thing is NYC is so big and influential that this ban will trickle to every part of the country.
- Karyyk, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Be wary people, you're watching your freedoms wrested away from you at an alarming pace. The truly scary thing is that it seems no one cares. Sadder still is that most people probably won't care until there's precious little that can be done about it. Sure, some may say I'm overreacting here, but it only takes a pebble to start an avalanche. With each freedom that is allowed to be taken, you make it that much easier to give up your other freedoms. You need to be wondering what will be taken next, because it might not be as seemingly petty next time.
And as for NYC not doing this to make a few extra bucks off fines, come on people. When have you known the government to not fine every single person they can for a violation? -
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is