The New "no-trans Fat" Law

[Explixitt]

- LINK -

You all may have heard of this, but I highly disagree with the "No-Trans Fat" Law. I mean, the world isn't really forcing you to eat in these restaurants, It's totally your choice of what goes into your body. (Unless someone injects some poison inside while you are tied up or asleep)

So why ban fatty oils? I mean, I, Myself, do eat fatty foods, but I also eat the vegetables, and I exercise usually twice a week to regulate my weight, so why? The food's gonna taste different, and the prices are gonna go up, I really don't see the point.

[Jose]

At 12/9/06 01:00 AM, Explixitt wrote: - LINK -

You all may have heard of this, but I highly disagree with the "No-Trans Fat" Law. I mean, the world isn't really forcing you to eat in these restaurants,

Same goes for the smoking ban that is going across a lot of the states. The world isn't forcing a person to go to a restaurant. So what if they get a titch of second hand smoke.

The trans-fat law is an attempt to take decision making rights away from the business owner and giving it to the government.

It's totally your choice of what goes into your body. (Unless someone injects some poison inside while you are tied up or asleep)

A lot of people are really ignorant to how bad it is for you.

So why ban fatty oils? I mean, I, Myself, do eat fatty foods, but I also eat the vegetables, and I exercise usually twice a week to regulate my weight, so why? The food's gonna taste different, and the prices are gonna go up, I really don't see the point.

This is an attempt to make you healthier by forcing the restaurants to serve more healthy food. Even though I don't believe in the method they are using, they are still doing more or less the right thing.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

At this rat the world is going to be a carrot eating, can recyling panseys

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

At 12/9/06 12:07 PM, scottish-cunt wrote: At this rat the world is going to be a carrot eating, can recyling panseys

rate not rat

[poxpower]

We don't have time to analyse everyhing we eat.
People don't want to spend time reading every label and then researching what's harmful so they can avoid buying that food.

Hell I bet you don't even know why transfat are bad for you. I sure as hell don't. All I know is that its bad.

How can I make choices with so little knowledge?

One less shitty thing I can buy without knowing it. Cool.

[Elfer]

Yeah yeah, same deal with drugs too.

The stupid part though is that in the rush to get rid of trans fat, everyone forgot about SATURATED fat. So now, we have all sorts of advertising about "no trans fat" on shit loaded in saturdated fat already.

Hint: Trans fats are technically not saturated fats, but they can easily be converted to saturated fat in your body. That was the problem with them. They began being used because people could advertise their product as having no saturated fat despite being loaded with trans fats. Now somehow people can get away with labelling their product no trans fat despite it being loaded with saturated fat. A travesty.

I actually saw some restaurant owner on the news, and they were saying that they use a lot of butter to fry stuff in because "it has no trans fat"

The person interviewing her said something along the lines of "Wow, really?" Which was met with "Yeah!"

The news program then went on to cut back to the anchor making a comment about how she didn't know butter was trans fat free. There were no comments made on the fact that butter is pretty much just a big chunk of saturated fats.

Stop getting your nutrition advice from the news, guys.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/9/06 01:43 AM, Jose wrote:

At 12/9/06 01:00 AM, Explixitt wrote:

The trans-fat law is an attempt to take decision making rights away from the business owner and giving it to the government.

IE.

Taking decision making rights away from the individual and giving it to the government.

[fli]

Eating food that is safe is a right--
NOW-- the degree of safety...

a burger made with regular fat VS a burger made with partally hydrated fat...

Clearly both are risks for your health,
but the later is a greater risk because over time it can have adverse health risk. The first one, you can lay off of it and eat salads and reverse a great deal of the health risks.

Otherwise,
this ban on transfats in burgers and other foods that use oil medium to cook-- this ban is more good than bad.

And it's not a whole ban on trans fat--
Chips and other bagged junk food still have that option.

[fli]

At 12/9/06 04:20 PM, Elfer wrote: Yeah yeah, same deal with drugs too.

The stupid part though is that in the rush to get rid of trans fat, everyone forgot about SATURATED fat. So now, we have all sorts of advertising about "no trans fat" on shit loaded in saturdated fat already.

Not all fats are equal.
Some of them are healthy like nearly all oils extracted by plant origins like avocado, olives, and nuts.

Then there are the fats of animals orgins such as butter and lard. No need to say how bad they are because everyone knows.

But neither plant nor animal fats are as harmful as trans-fat because they significantly raise your health risks such as heart disease, clogged arteries, diabetes.

Now, these things are also part of risk when you eat regular animal fat derived foods but the problem is reversing those health problems.

There is a glimmer of hope that people can control their heart disease, clogged arteries, and diabeties if one is eating a regular animal fat foods. But if you are eating foods cooked in partially hydrated oils, reversing or controlling them becames much more difficult.

Obesity is especially a problem because your body becomes resistant to losing fat created by eating trans-fatty foods.

This problem is a significant one enough to prohibit...
It's bad enought to eat lard and butter... but eat a food that will cause a problem and even more problems in terms of reversing its effects?

[emmytee]

I support it , just so that I can buy a big mac with my drugs :D

[GoryBlizzard]

I'm not against the trans fat ban because trans fat is only a preservative after all. It has no effect on the taste of food products. So things could be much worse.

[Proteas]

If Americans would take responsibility for themselves and their well being instead of having this "my situation is not my fault" mentality, there wouldn't be a need for the government to step in and ban the use of trans fats like this.

Freedom of choice is what you've got,
Freedom from choice is what you want.

[Begoner]

At 12/9/06 02:08 PM, Mercator wrote: Ahhhh...another step toward fascism ladies and gentlemen...

Because, as we all know, fascists gained power by halting obesity in its tracks. This law is evil, I tell you, evil! The fat people will save us from Hitler! I'm sorry, you were saying?

[fli]

At 12/9/06 07:47 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote: I'm not against the trans fat ban because trans fat is only a preservative after all. It has no effect on the taste of food products. So things could be much worse.

No, it's not "only" preserving foods... it's doing the same problems as regular animal derived fats... but aggrevates the problems by making the health side effects much more difficult to control...

Imagine obesity that can't be simply cured with healthy diet and excercise for many people.

I believe people have a choice... sure it's their choice to be eating a burger while knowing its risks.

But I also believe in safety, and trans-fat is a significant health issue that can be curbed somewhat.

If people are gonna be dumb, well... okay let them be dumb.
But at least give them a window of opportunity to leave should they gain some sense in the future.

It would be sad for people to get diabetes that's impossible to control... and that's what this law is trying to provide.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/9/06 09:16 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 12/9/06 02:08 PM, Mercator wrote:

Because, as we all know, fascists gained power by halting obesity in its tracks. This law is evil, I tell you, evil! The fat people will save us from Hitler! I'm sorry, you were saying?

No, but fascists did take contol by limiting a person's choices.

You of all people should be going against this Begoner.

[Gunter45]

It's ridiculous, plain and simple. I'm all for some form of regulation in the food industry, but only to the point where people are kept safe from negligence, not their own eating habits. This is definately on a slippery slope, in my opinion. Not only is this law socialist in that it hinders free enterprise, it also bites the consumer in the ass by driving up the costs restaurants have to incur, the costs their suppliers incur, and every link on the supply chain.

[JerkClock]

You know the government really needs to stop with the fascist "We know what's best for you even more than you do" stuff. If people want to kill themselves, fuck 'em. It isn't my problem.

[SolInvictus]

here are three simple steps that don't involve making laws that piss people off:
1) eat less; self explanitory.
2) eat healthier; don't tell me "but thats what the law is trying to do" you should know potato chips and prepackaged food generally aren't good for you in large quantities, so it an apple and some other healthy things more often tubby.
3) learn how to cook; that way you know whats in your food and how it was prepared and you can avoid aditives and preservatives that would otherwise be in there.

[JerkClock]

Actually, anything in large quantities is bad for you, including fruits and vegetables.

[Elfer]

At 12/9/06 10:38 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: No, but fascists did take contol by limiting a person's choices.

You of all people should be going against this Begoner.

Kind of like how you can't sell or install asbestos insulation any more, right?

[Loch-Ness-Monster]

I think it's a good idea. It's not like they're banning all fatty foods. Trans fats come from hydrogenated vegetable oils, which are just a mass production alternative to non-hydrogenated oils like butter, lard, ect. The food you eat won't taste any different, it'll just be healthier. Now I know there will still be some who say it's a fascist thing to do, but using Elfer's example of asbestos, public health legislation has been around in some form for decades. There's nothing fascist about it.

[fli]

At 12/10/06 10:13 PM, Loch-Ness-Monster wrote: ...it'll just be healthier. Now I know there will still be some who say it's a fascist thing to do, but using Elfer's example of asbestos, public health legislation has been around in some form for decades. There's nothing fascist about it.

Actually, it won't be "healthier"--
But transfats do raise the risk of eating a burger and fries by making one's ability to control health problems associated to fatty foods significantly more difficult.

Like I said...
Obesity that doesn't respond to excercise and changed eating habbits.
Diabetes that doesn't respond to insulin or better life style changes.

I think businesses should have a great degree of freedom,
but since trans fats put people in more in harm than the usual animal derived fats... this ban is good thing for all consumers.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/10/06 09:59 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/9/06 10:38 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Kind of like how you can't sell or install asbestos insulation any more, right?

You mean like how it affects and damages other peoples bodies, so in effect damages thier rights.

I wasn't aware that I have clogged arteries was in any way inringing on your rights.

[MindControlFun]

We need to go to the root of the problem. They're private businesses. Why shouldn't private businesses be able to do what they want? What if I wanted a resaurant that served fatty foods and cigarettes, and only hired waiters with tight butts and leather pants? Oh, I can't do that. Because, apparently, it's not the patrons' choice to eat at my restaurant?

Laws like this are good intentioned, but absoloutely irrational. We need to make a stand and repeal these laws that are taking away our freedoms. Sure, it's "not that big of a deal", but it's a slippery slope, and however small, it's still restrictive.

[SmilezRoyale]

I'm very supportive of banning most illegal drugs (Except alcahol because the addiction to it is to intense for any un-authoritarian government to handle)

It would be nice if the average american didn't have to depend on uncle sam to save them from a fatty death, as would it be nice if buisnesses didn't have to depend on uncle sam to make sure that they do the right thing.

I have no real feelings for or against the banning of unhealthy food additives there are good and bad effects to either choice both medically and economically.

You know i can imagine, since in america all of top causes of deaths are heavilly influenced by the things that are put into our bodies, like cancer inducing chemicals, to colesterol, and so forth, with all of the deaths happening with these things, i hope that if evolution takes it course, americans in the future will have much stronger metabolisms then they did before. Theoretically it would work, the only thing missiing in the picture is long periods of time for the evolution to occur.

[Draconias]

This is a demonstration of Democracy in action. No matter how much you say "Those people should just go elsewhere," that is a major inconvenience, and you can never be sure what you receive from restaraunts. If the people want to force restaraunts to make healthier cooking choices to promote the general health of consumers and increase the ease of eating healthy, that's perfectly fine.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/11/06 10:06 PM, Draconias wrote: If the people want to force restaraunts to make healthier cooking choices to promote the general health of consumers and increase the ease of eating healthy, that's perfectly fine.

Then they can boycott, but making a law that basically says that your not allowed to eat this or this, is an infrasion on personal choice and what goes into your body.

The government should stay out of this.

[SolInvictus]

forcing restaurants and companies to make healthier products does not teach the public healthy eating habits.

[Madferit]

At 12/9/06 01:00 AM, Explixitt wrote: - LINK -

You all may have heard of this, but I highly disagree with the "No-Trans Fat" Law. I mean, the world isn't really forcing you to eat in these restaurants, It's totally your choice of what goes into your body. (Unless someone injects some poison inside while you are tied up or asleep)

So why ban fatty oils? I mean, I, Myself, do eat fatty foods, but I also eat the vegetables, and I exercise usually twice a week to regulate my weight, so why? The food's gonna taste different, and the prices are gonna go up, I really don't see the point.

EXACTLY. FREE FUCKING choice man. People choose what they eat. It's all because those fat people on Oprah yelling at how the McDonalds made them fat. NO, it't the fat-asses' fault.

[JimmyDimples]

Hmm... at this rate... anyone ever think that before too long, there could be a new version of gel/a-n-k-h's flash game "Hustler"... only with burgers, pizza, chips, and Oreos being the stuff smuggled? ;-/

"Whadaya think you're doing, slingin' hash on OUR turf?!"