From the producers of "The Smoking Ban," bring you "The Food Ban"

[Eaglez]

I can say that I'd like to be allowed to eat what ever the farg I want without the government slapping my wrists about it.

You still can eat whatever the farg you want. But, like always has been the case, you won't have any say in what goes into what you're eating at a public place. Or, in this case, what they're cooking it in.

A restaurant is not a public place -- it is a private entity. No one is forcing you to go eat there, and the government cannot use its coercive powers to make you eat there.

It's a matter of freedom and letting the markets make the decision. Put the information out there. Let people inquiry and ask whether restaurants use trans-fats to prepare their food. Then, if you have reservations about ingesting it, don't eat at that restaurant. The restaurants will then have an option -- if there is a fall in revenue, the restaurant will probably want to stop using trans fats. But, in that circumstance, the change is dictated by consumers, not by a governmental entity which, in my opinion, is abusing its powers.

Trans fats are probably used because they are cost-effective. Government imposing a regulation effectively raises costs for those private entities. I can't agree with that as a matter of principle. If a private entity wants to raise their costs of production and pass it off to the consumer, they should do it acting upon their own volition. If anything, put out the information regard trans fats, and if someone still wants to ingest the substance knowing or having reason to know about its effects, then who gives a darn.

There is a difference between informing the citizenry about the dangers of trans fats and actually making a decision for them. Obviously, this crosses into the decision making category.

[Diomedes]

The stuff is poison.  Plain and simple.  Banning it doesn't mean the end of anything except less poison.  You can still make donuts.  And they'll still be cheap.  Civil liberties are not being limited by this any more than they are by banning arsenic in food.

[Geowhizzer]

All this talk about doughnuts is making me hungry.

[Beermonkey]

"Demolition Man" might prove to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the future.

I sure hope so, I want to know how to use the clam shells.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

You mean.... you don't know how to use the 3 shells?

[Munson]

I can say that I'd like to be allowed to eat what ever the farg I want without the government slapping my wrists about it.

You still can eat whatever the farg you want. But, like always has been the case, you won't have any say in what goes into what you're eating at a public place. Or, in this case, what they're cooking it in.

A restaurant is not a public place -- it is a private entity. No one is forcing you to go eat there, and the government cannot use its coercive powers to make you eat there.

It's a matter of freedom and letting the markets make the decision. Put the information out there. Let people inquiry and ask whether restaurants use trans-fats to prepare their food. Then, if you have reservations about ingesting it, don't eat at that restaurant. The restaurants will then have an option -- if there is a fall in revenue, the restaurant will probably want to stop using trans fats. But, in that circumstance, the change is dictated by consumers, not by a governmental entity which, in my opinion, is abusing its powers.

Trans fats are probably used because they are cost-effective. Government imposing a regulation effectively raises costs for those private entities. I can't agree with that as a matter of principle. If a private entity wants to raise their costs of production and pass it off to the consumer, they should do it acting upon their own volition. If anything, put out the information regard trans fats, and if someone still wants to ingest the substance knowing or having reason to know about its effects, then who gives a darn.

There is a difference between informing the citizenry about the dangers of trans fats and actually making a decision for them. Obviously, this crosses into the decision making category.

What the hell is giving out information on it going to do? The government gives out info on HIV all the time and it's still spreading like wildfire.

Trans-fat is terrible for a person, and I don't think many people are going to want to be bothered with inquiring a restaurant about thier use of it.

[Eaglez]

Munson, your analogy is horrible on so many levels. No offense, bro, but it's pretty bad.

I don't know how you can even compare trans fatty acids to HIV. Where do you even start? One is a disease that is not very prone to visible symptoms and therefore is difficult to detect while the other is a visible substance that one can either choose to ingest or not to ingest. HIV awareness is predicated on the fact that HIV is difficult to detect, but all one has to do to figure out if trans fats are in their food is to ask. The burdens are completely different. One is hidden, one is readily apparent.

And like I said, having close to complete information is the key. If people are informed about the risks of HIV, then they might be less prone to subject themselves to promiscuous or dangerous activity (i.e. sleeping with complete strangers, sharing needles, etc.). Therefore, more awareness will lead to less cases since people will alter their behavior to the known risk.

The same thing with trans fats. If the trans fats are so horrible for you, people will take that into consideration and ingest less of it; ultimately leading to its non-use in virtually all restaurants or in cooking in general. And all of this can be done without government abusing its ability to coerce behavior.

If people are too lazy to actually care about what they put into their bodies, then they do so at their own peril. It's not the job of any governmental entity to regulate activities that only affect that individual's health.

Are there a need for governmental regulations? Sure. But it is in the form of regulating negative externalities (which are effects on 3rd parties; or things that happen outside the primary transaction) So pollution, for example. Or addressing free rider issues (everyone benefits from police, fire departments, roads etc. so not any one person should foot the bill; that's why we pay taxes).

But when you are talking about trans fats, there are only two people to the transaction -- the provider and the ingester. If the ingester knows, and still ingests, why should the government step in and act paternalistic? To me, it steps outside the bounds of proper government intervention.

[Munson]

Munson, your analogy is horrible on so many levels. No offense, bro, but it's pretty bad.

I don't know how you can even compare trans fatty acids to HIV. Where do you even start? One is a disease that is not very prone to visible symptoms and therefore is difficult to detect while the other is a visible substance that one can either choose to ingest or not to ingest. HIV awareness is predicated on the fact that HIV is difficult to detect, but all one has to do to figure out if trans fats are in their food is to ask. The burdens are completely different. One is hidden, one is readily apparent.

And like I said, having close to complete information is the key. If people are informed about the risks of HIV, then they might be less prone to subject themselves to promiscuous or dangerous activity (i.e. sleeping with complete strangers, sharing needles, etc.). Therefore, more awareness will lead to less cases since people will alter their behavior to the known risk.

The same thing with trans fats. If the trans fats are so horrible for you, people will take that into consideration and ingest less of it; ultimately leading to its non-use in virtually all restaurants or in cooking in general. And all of this can be done without government abusing its ability to coerce behavior.

If people are too lazy to actually care about what they put into their bodies, then they do so at their own peril. It's not the job of any governmental entity to regulate activities that only affect that individual's health.

Are there a need for governmental regulations? Sure. But it is in the form of regulating negative externalities (which are effects on 3rd parties; or things that happen outside the primary transaction) So pollution, for example. Or addressing free rider issues (everyone benefits from police, fire departments, roads etc. so not any one person should foot the bill; that's why we pay taxes).

But when you are talking about trans fats, there are only two people to the transaction -- the provider and the ingester. If the ingester knows, and still ingests, why should the government step in and act paternalistic? To me, it steps outside the bounds of proper government intervention.

The point was that people are too lazy to really care about shtein that's unhealthy for them, which is why this country has an obeisity problem. My point was giving out information about something that's bad for people is about as efective as handing out pamphlets about AIDS to a bunch of teenagers. They're still going to go out and have unprotected sex with people they've never met.

People can be told about trans-fats, but they're still gonna go out to a restaurant and eat without going "hey, I don't want trans-fats in my food." People have this "it can't happen to me" view on everything, and sometimes something has to be done.

And I agree with your view on things that would have some sort of effect on a 3rd party...*cough* like smoking indoors *cough*....but just becausue the ingestion of trans-fat only effects you, doesn't mean it still is, as someone pointed out, practically poison, and you shouldn't be ingesting it.

[General_Failure]

"Demolition Man" might prove to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the future.

We're going to freeze Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes?

Snipes is already frozen. When was the last time he did a movie?

[rjs246]

Blade Trinity.

Yeah, I didn't see it either.

[Eaglez]

That's just the fundamental difference we have then. You want to make decisions for those people, I don't.

[Munson]

Well see, that's the thing. It's not black or white, make all the decisions or make none of them....sometimes the government has to step in (trans-fats), sometimes it shouldn't (seat-belt laws)....Some things need to be banned/have laws against them, others don't. This particular law I agree with, trans-fats should just go away period.

I was just saying that simply telling/warning people about them wasn't gonna do much, and this is something that just flat out needs to be outlawed, not have a warning label.

[Diomedes]

http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-45/1169819370194520.xml&storylist=penn

Philly may be next to ban transfats.  Ha.

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Restaurants, food trucks and takeouts would be barred from using products that contain trans fats under legislation introduced in a City Council panel.

The Committee on Public Health and Human Services approved the measure Thursday, and it will go the full Council for the first of two votes on Feb. 1.

Restaurants would have to rid their kitchens of trans fats by Sept. 1 under the bill by Councilman Juan Ramos.

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the council panel up to 1,000 heart attacks and 250 deaths a year could be eliminated by a trans fat ban in Philadelphia.

New York City's Health Department approved a ban on trans fats effective this July, and a similar measure is pending in New Jersey.

[Rome]

O/T here, but along the same lines...

Speaking of fascist bullshtein...

Federal highway funding will end if Florida doesn't enact "tougher" seat belt enforcement laws.

All this means is the pigs will be able to pull you over if they see you driving without a seatbelt.  Isn't that MY CHOICE?   Oh, wait, I forgot... driving is a "privalege" not a right.

It amazes me that we let our civil liberties be stripped from us one by one without so much as a fight anymore.  Call me paranoid but doesn't it seem like "the state" (state, federal, whatever) is testing the waters to see just how much bullshtein we'll swallow before we say "enough's enough?"

Sure feels that way to me.

[ice grillin you]

seat belt laws are ridiculous beyong belief....no matter where you stand on the whole civil liberty thing theres no one who can defend them