NYC trying to ban trans fats in restaurants.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15020846/?GT1=8506

 

 

You think its bad when the government tries to wiretap terrorists without a warrant? Where is the outcry when local governments try to tell you what you can and can't serve in a restaurant? This is something that is going to affect people's daily lives more than anything the feds are trying to do and not a peep.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll pipe up. While it is probably legally OK, it bothers the heck out of me. Is the city council that lacking in other, important things to address? And I agree that it is far too intrusive.

 

The foie gras thing bothered me too, although in that case, I felt there was at least a more reasonable argument - that it was cruel in its production (and its just one food item). In this case, its definitely waaaaaaay too paternal.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15020846/?GT1=8506

You think its bad when the government tries to wiretap terrorists without a warrant? Where is the outcry when local governments try to tell you what you can and can't serve in a restaurant? This is something that is going to affect people's daily lives more than anything the feds are trying to do and not a peep.

I believe that one of the Chicago aldermen was trying to do this as well. Not sure which one, but it sounds like something Natarus would do.

[mreye]

I guess the lack of outrage is due to the fact that this was totally expected. It's the frog in the frying pan!

 

Start with just putting a small warning label on the package and an small extra tax. Next prevent them from advertising on TV, then the radio, then billboards and, oh yeah, add a little more tax and say it's to offset all the healthcare costs related to this product. Next, cut out all advertising at all. Next, and this is the most important, start a campaign to villify the industry as uncaring, evil bastards. Now, sue the hell out of them and ban their product all together!!

[santo=dorf]

I was going to ask, how is this any different from banning smoking in restaurants and bars?

[southsider2k5]

I was going to ask, how is this any different from banning smoking in restaurants and bars?

 

Well except for the fact that I am not going to kill anyone with my secondhand fat.

[jasonxctf]

i think regulating transfat is wrong. requiring restaurants to disclose what they cook with is right.

 

force them to inform me and let me make the decision.

[RockRaines]

i think regulating transfat is wrong. requiring restaurants to disclose what they cook with is right.

 

force them to inform me and let me make the decision.

The only problem is that our country is one of the most overweight if not the most overweight and unhealthy in the world. One of the reasons for this is these places serving food with dangerous fat. You would think people have the knowhow to make their own decisions, and then you see them eating until they cant leave their beds and then trying to sue companies for serving them the food.

[southsider2k5]

The only problem is that our country is one of the most overweight if not the most overweight and unhealthy in the world. One of the reasons for this is these places serving food with dangerous fat. You would think people have the knowhow to make their own decisions, and then you see them eating until they cant leave their beds and then trying to sue companies for serving them the food.

 

 

Tort.reform.

 

No one who eats on a regular basis at McDonalds should be able to sue them for making them fat, unless they were leading a purposeful campaign of mis/disinformation leading consumers to believe that those cheeseburgers they were eating were healthy, while the company knew otherwise. Nothing I have seen tells me that any of the fastfood companies are telling consumers things about their products that aren't true.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not sure what New Yorks constitution says, but I highly doubt their legislature has the authority for such a law. Most likely it will be considered unconstitutional. I don't see such a law being a legitimate state interest that's narrowly tailored (again, assuming NY's state consitution is similar to the federal constitution, which I'd imagine it is in this respect).

 

A smoking ban would be able to pass the rational basis test because it affects the health of the public, not just the individual.

 

Edit: I just saw it's the city council and not the state legislature. Same analysis would apply though.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Jenksismybitch

[mreye]

The only problem is that our country is one of the most overweight if not the most overweight and unhealthy in the world. One of the reasons for this is these places serving food with dangerous fat. You would think people have the knowhow to make their own decisions, and then you see them eating until they cant leave their beds and then trying to sue companies for serving them the food.

 

So send in the government to save us from ourselves!!!!

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 09:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well except for the fact that I am not going to kill anyone with my secondhand fat.

Second hand smoke doesn't kill.

[southsider2k5]

Second hand smoke doesn't kill.

 

Neither does global warming...

[NorthSideSox72]

Second hand smoke doesn't kill.

You're not serious, right?

 

I personally don't like the smoking bans, for a variety of reasons. But even so, there is no denying that second hand smoke causes health problems, and those problems can include deadly conditions.

 

 

Neither does global warming...

yet.

[santo=dorf]

I'm basing my opinion from Penn and Teller:Bulls*** (can't find the episode on google video now) where the first major study was thrown out by the courts because they determined the scientists pre-determined the results and cherry picked numbers to support their case.

 

Groups still refer to this study and increase the number to scare people and link any deaths in a smoking household to second hand smoke.

[Rex Kickass]

Is it my understanding that the transfats being regulated are more along the lines of in the oils used to cook with? So this is more like taking the lead out of paint, no?

[southsider2k5]

I'm basing my opinion from Penn and Teller:Bulls*** (can't find the episode on google video now) where the first major study was thrown out by the courts because they determined the scientists pre-determined the results and cherry picked numbers to support their case.

 

Groups still refer to this study and increase the number to scare people and link any deaths in a smoking household to second hand smoke.

 

Hey that's cool. I found this one guy, who even better than a judge is a senator, who doesn't believe in global warming so we can just throw out all of the decades of research and scientists who say otherwise!

 

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

 

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.

 

From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

 

The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth’s temperatures and mankind’s carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.

 

Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

 

In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?

[santo=dorf]

So you have a problem with me agreeing with the scientists they interviewed, and you respond by quoting a guy who is disagreeing with scientists (on a completely different topic as well.) I don't follow you at all.

 

I think Global Warming exists, but it's not as extreme as people think and won't have that much of an effect as some people are prediciting? Weren't there scientists back in the 1970's saying global warming would lead to an ice age? But now global warming wll lead us to burning to death?

[NorthSideSox72]

I think Global Warming exists, but it's not as extreme as people think and won't have that much of an effect as some people are prediciting? Weren't there scientists back in the 1970's saying global warming would lead to an ice age? But now global warming wll lead us to burning to death?

The basic science at play there is that an increase in temperatures will in fact lead to an ice age. Counterintuitive as it may be, its what has happened prior to other ice ages.

[southsider2k5]

So you have a problem with me agreeing with the scientists they interviewed, and you respond by quoting a guy who is disagreeing with scientists (on a completely different topic as well.) I don't follow you at all.

 

I think Global Warming exists, but it's not as extreme as people think and won't have that much of an effect as some people are prediciting? Weren't there scientists back in the 1970's saying global warming would lead to an ice age? But now global warming wll lead us to burning to death?

 

I was trying to make my point by being a little absurd... I picked out one guy who didn't believe conventional wisdom and decades of research to prove that pretty any that opinion is going to have people who have "proof" that everyone else is wrong. Heck there is still a flat earth society in exsistance who believe all of the lunar landings are faked and have "proof" to back them up. Personally I would tend to side with the vast majority of science and research on a project vs someone Penn and Teller dug up for ratings.

[Jenksismyhero]

Hey that's cool. I found this one guy, who even better than a judge is a senator, who doesn't believe in global warming so we can just throw out all of the decades of research and scientists who say otherwise!

 

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

 

 

I'm confused, are you being sarcastic? You don't agree with him?

 

From his speech it seems some of the 'decades of research' have been proven false.

[southsider2k5]

I'm confused, are you being sarcastic? You don't agree with him?

 

From his speech it seems some of the 'decades of research' have been proven false.

 

Read my post right above yours...

[Jenksismyhero]

Read my post right above yours...

 

 

Gotcha. A good point.

[mr_genius]

The basic science at play there is that an increase in temperatures will in fact lead to an ice age. Counterintuitive as it may be, its what has happened prior to other ice ages.

 

someting to do with large amounts of fresh water entering the ocean via melting ice caps. i guess it slows the oceans currents or something and that leads to a lowering of overall temperature on the surface of the earth..

 

 

 

I'm basing my opinion from Penn and Teller:Bulls*** (can't find the episode on google video now) where the first major study was thrown out by the courts because they determined the scientists pre-determined the results and cherry picked numbers to support their case.

 

Groups still refer to this study and increase the number to scare people and link any deaths in a smoking household to second hand smoke.

 

i've heard the same thing.

[jackie hayes]

Is it my understanding that the transfats being regulated are more along the lines of in the oils used to cook with? So this is more like taking the lead out of paint, no?

I think that's how most of these tfs get in the food, although in principle the ban is on any artificial transfats.

 

I'm not sure. You have some people who claim that cooking with oils without the artificial transfats doesn't affect the taste, but I have a hard time believing that. McD's could surely do without the bad press, so I imagine they'd switch to a healthier oil if it doesn't hurt the taste and costs about the same. So I'd guess that any oil that's equivalent in taste costs significantly more. Were non-lead paints much more expensive than lead paints? (Real question, I dunno the history.)

 

I have no problem with a little bit of paternalism. It'd be nice if everyplace would just list every single pesticide used at each stage, all genetic modifications, and all nutrition information, and I could take in all that information quickly, and I had the chemical and medical education to appreciate every bit individually and how it might interact with the rest of my lifestyle. But what can I say, I'm just sorta dull like that.

 

Sorry for the off-topic post.