NYC passes trans fat ban

Bye-bye Crisco (which, by the way, was the first mass-marketed partially hydrogenated oil, dating back to 1912)

Crisco has had a 100% trans-fat-free shortening product for a couple years now.

If you can find a way to preserve oils at room temperature without hydrogenating the stuff, I'm all ears.

There are plenty of alternatives. The food industry uses trans fats because it's so cheap. They can easily move to tropical oils.
 
Don't you understand the purpose of the ban?

We the people are to damn stupid to know what is best for us, and we need liberals to make those choices for us

Only liberals know what is best for society. Who are we to question them?


Oh, right.....they should tell the restaurants what to put on our :plate:

But what about all those transfat goodies they sell in the stores? :confused:
Don't tell me they are going to eliminate the COOKIE aisles?!!
 
Crisco has had a 100% trans-fat-free shortening product for a couple years now.



There are plenty of alternatives. The food industry uses trans fats because it's so cheap. They can easily move to tropical oils.

Yeah, and I try to eat healthy as anybody should, but I don't think it should be forced. If the two tubs of lard next door want to save a buck a day eating trans fats instead of safer alternatives, it's their choice.

Didn't know a whole lot about the alternatives and everything, so thanks for the info. I assumed there was something, because even NYC wouldn't have intentionally crashed their economy. The problem I have, though, is not that I don't think there are alternatives, but that people should be free to choose what they want, rather than having the nanny-state make it illegal for their own good. It's like the roast beef I slice every day at my job in a deli. The store brand stuff isn't bad, but the good stuff not only tastes better, it's much leaner and has far less sodium. It's also a dollar a pound more. I encourage the good stuff, but I don't force. It's supposed to be the customer's choice. If Georgia stepped in and set standards for fat and sodium content that the store brand didn't live up to, then it would go away and the good stuff would be all that's there. It might prevent a few health problems, but is that really worth your freedom to make your own choices?
 
Yeah, and I try to eat healthy as anybody should, but I don't think it should be forced. If the two tubs of lard next door want to save a buck a day eating trans fats instead of safer alternatives, it's their choice.

The reason trans fats are being singled out is because it's a "man made" substance and very few people know anything about it. If you want to eat ten pounds of bacon, go for it. It's natural and most have been educated in saturated fats. However if the food industry develops an unnatural process that makes foods very unheathly just because it's cheap, well I think that is wrong and it should be phased out.
 
restaurants don't have nutrition labels on their menus

So it's OK to sell trans fats in the cookie aisles as long as they have nutrition labels?

But the restaurants can't sell them? Even if they were to identify them in their menus?

That seems unfair and biased against the restaurants.
 
So it's OK to sell trans fats in the cookie aisles as long as they have nutrition labels?

But the restaurants can't sell them? Even if they were to identify them in their menus?

That seems unfair and biased against the restaurants.

As long as the public is givin the opportunity to become educated on what they are eating. I bet the ban wouldn't pass if restaurants put nutrition info on their menus, but they never will. Again, trans fats are developed through a man made process. It's not like bacon fat.
 
The reason trans fats are being singled out is because it's a "man made" substance and very few people know anything about it. If you want to eat ten pounds of bacon, go for it. It's natural and most have been educated in saturated fats. However if the food industry develops an unnatural process that makes foods very unheathly just because it's cheap, well I think that is wrong and it should be phased out.

So why not corn syrup, which has been linked to diabetes? That's an unnatural process that's only there because it's cheap.

And you're still missing the point. Yes, trans fats are harmful. Yes, their only purpose is to drive down costs. However, these reasons alone are not enough to issue a blanket ban on them, thus denying people the right to take the risk. I mean, where does it stop? Do we ban the sale of used cars without airbags, or without a federally mandated minimum number of airbags? The only reason not to have airbags is to be cheaper, and having them is safer. What about hamburgers cooked below medium-well? Other than taste, there's no real benefit to rawer burgers, but it increases the risk for E. coli. Should I be barred from ordering my hamburger medium-rare if I want to? It always starts with the taking away of a seemingly bad choice, with tons of excuses backing it up, but where does it stop? Surely, it won't stop at trans-fats, especially not when it gets votes from certain lobbies.
 
Give me 1 logical reason why trans fats should be allowed for usage in our food industry. Until then, it really doesn't matter what happens with this thread.

I have. You've simply chosen to ignore them in favor of a totalitarian view that anything that's not good for you should be banned. The logical fallacy in your argument is that the 'logical' qualifier in your statement will be used as carte blanch to reject everything I say as illogical.
 
I have. You've simply chosen to ignore them in favor of a totalitarian view that anything that's not good for you should be banned. The logical fallacy in your argument is that the 'logical' qualifier in your statement will be used as carte blanch to reject everything I say as illogical.

You've given me plenty of reasons, but I wanted logical reasons why they should be allowed? If tacobell starts putting hydrocloric acid in their kidsmeals, will you be mad and want that to be removed from restraunts? If so, then it would only be equal for me to say that you are in "favor of a totalitarian view". Hell, all you have to do is look at my avatar to know that your statement is wrong. I support people doing anything they want as long as they know the risks and are not affecting the liberties of others. Ba
 
You've given me plenty of reasons, but I wanted logical reasons why they should be allowed? If tacobell starts putting hydrocloric acid in their kidsmeals, will you be mad and want that to be removed from restraunts? If so, then it would only be equal for me to say that you are in "favor of a totalitarian view". Hell, all you have to do is look at my avatar to know that your statement is wrong. I support people doing anything they want as long as they know the risks and are not affecting the liberties of others. Ba

See, I told ya so. You used the qualifier 'logical,' then declare all of my perfectly rational reasons 'illogical.' It's asinine.

Oh, and there are small traces of hydrochloric acid in lots of food. It's hard to avoid, as it's a naturally occurring chemical found in every animal's digestive tract.
 
You've given me plenty of reasons, but I wanted logical reasons why they should be allowed? If tacobell starts putting hydrocloric acid in their kidsmeals, will you be mad and want that to be removed from restraunts? If so, then it would only be equal for me to say that you are in "favor of a totalitarian view". Hell, all you have to do is look at my avatar to know that your statement is wrong. I support people doing anything they want as long as they know the risks and are not affecting the liberties of others. Ba

Perhaps you could give one ligical reason why you believe it is your place to tell others what they can and can't do when they are harming no one but themselves?

Last I heard, that was THE argument that homosexuality was "okay."
 
Perhaps you could give one ligical reason why you believe it is your place to tell others what they can and can't do when they are harming no one but themselves?

Last I heard, that was THE argument that homosexuality was "okay."

I know you're an intelligent person, unlike glock and rsr who cannot understand much outside of the rush kool-aid. I'm saying that restaurants should not be able to serve poison to unknowing customers. I don't care what people do as long as they know the risks. Restaurants know what they are doing, yet it's convenient to not tell the customers what is in their food. Tobacco companies got away with it for a long time, then we became educated and informed the public what is their cigarettes. Now it's time for us to educate the public what is in their fries.
 

Forum List

Back
Top