Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Where Do You Stand On Trans-fat Bans.  
User currently offlineBH From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 525 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1750 times:

I am doing a paper on the new push in the US for cities/states to ban trans-fats, and was wondering what some of my fellow anetters thoughts were on this. Do you agree with them, is this government interfering with personal choice, etc.

Any thoughts would be great, and could lead to you being cited with full credit in my paper!  cool 

65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20500 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1740 times:

Quoting BH (Thread starter):
Do you agree with them, is this government interfering with personal choice, etc.

You have to ask yourself, do people really go into a restaurant and ask for an order of trans-fats with their fries? No. Just like we didn't ask for DDT residue, etc. If something is proven harmful, it's the government's job to look after our welfare in these types of issues.

We elect a government to take care of all those things that we individually can't take care of on our own. Build roads, establish schools, foreign relations, on and on, and one of the things in the list is our health, safety and welfare.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineQXatFAT From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2404 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1728 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
You have to ask yourself, do people really go into a restaurant and ask for an order of trans-fats with their fries? No. Just like we didn't ask for DDT residue, etc. If something is proven harmful, it's the government's job to look after our welfare in these types of issues.

 checkmark  I could not agree more! I want to know what is harmeful to my body that way I can continue to stay healthy.



Don't Tread On Me!
User currently offlineBH From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 525 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1726 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
We elect a government to take care of all those things that we individually can't take care of on our own. Build roads, establish schools, foreign relations, on and on, and one of the things in the list is our health, safety and welfare.

Agreed, but I became confused on this since they are "banning" transfats, yet they are just putting warning labels on cigarettes. Smokes are obviously more harmfull than these fats, so i do not understand why they are not banned(one of the main point in my paper).


User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1726 times:

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 2):
I want to know what is harmeful to my body that way I can continue to stay healthy.

So you haven't yet realised that all those burgers and bean burrito's are harming your body and you need the government to make it the law for someone else to tell you? How about self education?



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1726 times:

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 2):
I want to know what is harmeful to my body that way I can continue to stay healthy.



Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
If something is proven harmful, it's the government's job to look after our welfare in these types of issues.

To your way of thinking, we should ban alcohol too, and cigarettes/cigars.

Be careful what you ask your government for.


User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1721 times:

Quoting BH (Thread starter):
is this government interfering with personal choice

Yes it is.

Other examples of personal choice include:

Murder, rape, burglary, speeding, slander...so the government choosing which personal choices shall be considered unlawful or subject to regulation is a big part of what they do.

My issue on this is that while this ban has been effected in Manhattan (and perhaps elsewhere), trans-fatty acids are not banned nationwide. Either they are OK for you or they are bad for you, and the FDA should make a nationally-binding ruling that is commensurate with the health risk associated with their ingestion.

I understand the concept of states rights to govern themselves, and in matters of social policy, etc., that's fine, but health issues are a job for national agencies and should be implemented nationally.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1717 times:

As far as I am concerned, above replies #1 and #2 are nothing short of roundabout ways of saying "I don't want to take responsibility for my actions. I'd prefer to have a nanny state and let those choices be spoon fed [so to speak] to me".

User currently offlineQXatFAT From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2404 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1708 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 4):
So you haven't yet realised that all those burgers and bean burrito's are harming your body and you need the government to make it the law for someone else to tell you?

I did not know bean burritos were bad for you. So cooking up regular pento beans and putting them in a tortilla is bad? And I dont eat burgers. How do you like that one  Wink? I know what foods are harmful to my body but if a resturant is cooking with something that I am unaware of, I want to know. It is as simple as that.

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 4):
How about self education?

Well I do do self education. There are somethings that I just cant study up on because of my limited knowledge. Thats when you look to others to help you out. Do you know what that is?

Quoting Matt D (Reply 7):
As far as I am concerned, above replies #1 and #2 are nothing short of roundabout ways of saying "I don't want to take responsibility for my actions. I'd prefer to have a nanny state and let those choices be spoon fed [so to speak] to me".

Your opinion then. Not a fact  Wink



Don't Tread On Me!
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1706 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 6):
Yes it is.

Other examples of personal choice include:

Murder, rape, burglary, speeding, slander...so the government choosing which personal choices shall be considered unlawful or subject to regulation is a big part of what they do.

One could make the argument, however, that those choices that you listed have a direct negative impact on others, whereas consuming fatty foods (or drinking or smoking) do not.

I'm wishy-washy on this one. I think people need to be personally responsible for knowing what chemicals they're ingesting. It's hard to know where personal responsibility ends and governmental responsibility begins.

~Vik



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1691 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 4):
So you haven't yet realised that all those burgers and bean burrito's are harming your body and you need the government to make it the law for someone else to tell you? How about self education?

Trans-fats and hydrogenated oils are tasteless substances that have absolutely no place in food. Mono-saturated and pure vegetable oil are suitable replacements in the vast majority of food products.

There is no good reason to "keep" trans-fats.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 7):
As far as I am concerned, above replies #1 and #2 are nothing short of roundabout ways of saying "I don't want to take responsibility for my actions. I'd prefer to have a nanny state and let those choices be spoon fed [so to speak] to me".

How ignorant can you be?

I can't take a lab kit with me to every restaurant I eat so how am I suppose to know what is in my food? Do I not have the right to know what will go in my body? Trans-fats are used in so many types of foods it's impossible to know for sure what is a healthy eating option.

Governmental agencies already exist to enforce the health and quality of the food products we eat. Naturally, it is their responsibility to police trans-fats now that their danger is known.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 5):
To your way of thinking, we should ban alcohol too, and cigarettes/cigars.

The human body can safely metabolize quantities of alcohol. There is no safe intake of nicotine, however there is a multi-billion dollar lobby machine established to keep it legal.

Quoting BH (Reply 3):
Agreed, but I became confused on this since they are "banning" transfats, yet they are just putting warning labels on cigarettes. Smokes are obviously more harmfull than these fats, so i do not understand why they are not banned(one of the main point in my paper).

You can remove trans-fat from a food product without changing the flavor or texture.

You can't remove nicotine from tobacco and still have tobacco. Like I said, there is a multi-billion dollar lobby to keep tobacco legal.


User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1687 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
There is no safe intake of nicotine, however there is a multi-billion dollar lobby machine established to keep it legal.

I believe the multi-billion dolllar soy lobby is behind the trans-fat ban as well. Soy is listed as a good alternative to trans-fats.


User currently offlineCoz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1687 times:

Quoting BH (Reply 3):
Agreed, but I became confused on this since they are "banning" transfats, yet they are just putting warning labels on cigarettes. Smokes are obviously more harmfull than these fats, so i do not understand why they are not banned(one of the main point in my paper).

People enjoy consuming nicotine. Trans-fats do nothing to enhance the flavor of food; there's simply nothing about them that will cause a person to want to consume such a substance. The only thing trans-fats do is act as a preservative. Furthermore, they're clinically proven to cause coronary heart disease. Take a minute to consider the ramifications of health care costs regarding this substance.

There are various other methods of preserving food that will serve the same purpose without such health consquences, why should trans-fats be allowed?

Does anyone here have any reason to endorse trans-fat in food?


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20500 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1687 times:

Quoting BH (Reply 3):
Agreed, but I became confused on this since they are "banning" transfats, yet they are just putting warning labels on cigarettes.

Follow the money. There's a HUGE tobacco lobby funneling money to keep cigarettes on the market, and you KNOW they are bad for you, and you choose to smoke or not to smoke. Trans-fats are, like DDT was, seeping into nearly everything we eat.

There's an equally huge anti-smoking lobby. How about non-smokers just sit in the non-smoking section and not complain about me smoking? Oh, right, second-hand smoke seeps through to the non-smoking section. Same difference.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 5):
To your way of thinking, we should ban alcohol too, and cigarettes/cigars.

Nope, you choose to drink or smoke. Give me a list of everything you ate in the past week and whether or not there was a trans-fat in any of them, and if you knowingly ate it or not, and I might agree with you.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 7):
replies #1 and #2 are nothing short of roundabout ways of saying "I don't want to take responsibility for my actions. I'd prefer to have a nanny state and let those choices be spoon fed [so to speak] to me".

Hey Matt, how about a nice spray of DDT? I'm sure it can be arranged. Up for it?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBH From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 525 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1687 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 7):
As far as I am concerned, above replies #1 and #2 are nothing short of roundabout ways of saying "I don't want to take responsibility for my actions. I'd prefer to have a nanny state and let those choices be spoon fed [so to speak] to me".

Good point, people should be responsible in their food choice. People choose not to drink alcohol, smoke, etc.., why cant they choose what they eat with out the government telling them.


User currently offlineQXatFAT From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2404 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1685 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
Trans-fats and hydrogenated oils are tasteless substances

This is correct. Thank you for pointing that out. So now I buy my peanut butter that has no hydrogenated oils in it. Before you could not tell the difference if someone was to put two samples infront of you and ate them.



Don't Tread On Me!
User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1685 times:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 9):
One could make the argument, however, that those choices that you listed have a direct negative impact on others, whereas consuming fatty foods (or drinking or smoking) do not.

A fair point, but drinking can have a direct impact on others (drunken drivers, brawling hillbillies smashing beer bottles on innocent barflys  Wink ), as can smoking (second-hand smoke). The fatty food argument is weaker, I'll admit.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 5):
To your way of thinking, we should ban alcohol too, and cigarettes/cigars.

Be careful what you ask your government for.

Well, the alchol ban has been tried and failed miserably. Also, the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have been well documented. Consumption of large amounts of alcohol is at least already considered unlawful in matters of public intoxication, etc.

Cigarettes are regulated to varying degrees, but may never be banned due to the strength of the tobacco lobby. As a smoker, I freely admit that cigarettes and cigars should be regulated as a drug-delivery system.


User currently offlineQXatFAT From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2404 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1680 times:

Quoting BH (Reply 14):
Good point, people should be responsible in their food choice. People choose not to drink alcohol, smoke, etc.., why cant they choose what they eat with out the government telling them.

Like Aero said, give me a list of foods that have the trans fats in them at the resturant and I will not eat those foods. It is as simple as that. You KNOW that there is tobacco in your cigarett. I do not know there is transfat in my Veggies or anything like this.



Don't Tread On Me!
User currently offlineBH From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 525 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1670 times:

Quoting Coz (Reply 12):
Does anyone here have any reason to endorse trans-fat in food?

Not for the engineered Transfats but for the natural ones that occur in animal fats and milk I might. There are some dietary supplement called CLA that contain natural transfats and claim to help in weight loss and muscle gain, however these statement are not backed by the FDA, so for now I can only see it as another dietary supplement that it full of B/S until its claims are supported.


User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1670 times:

Quoting Coz (Reply 12):
Does anyone here have any reason to endorse trans-fat in food?

No, I just see problems with policing such bans. Besides, the NYC ban does not apply to packaged foods used by the restaurant to prepare meals, so it is sort of a half-assed attempt at improving health. It only applies to food created in the kitchen itself.

A lot of this was discussed in a thread a while back...you can read some my arguments from that.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/1454232


User currently offlineBH From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 525 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1662 times:

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 17):
Like Aero said, give me a list of foods that have the trans fats in them at the resturant and I will not eat those foods.

As the FDA has required food labels to list transfats, I think they should move those requirements to the restaurant field also, and req. them to provide a list upon request that list not only transfats but all other ingredients as well.


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20500 posts, RR: 62
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1658 times:

Quoting BH (Reply 20):
I think they should move those requirements to the restaurant field also, and req. them to provide a list upon request that list not only transfats but all other ingredients as well.

Do I understand you right? You'd like a food label like you find on a can of beans next to every item on a restaurant's menu?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineQXatFAT From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2404 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1656 times:

Quoting BH (Reply 20):
As the FDA has required food labels to list transfats, I think they should move those requirements to the restaurant field also, and req. them to provide a list upon request that list not only transfats but all other ingredients as well.

There is our compromise for you and me then BH. Nice to know we can work that out civil  Wink haha

But honestly, no resturant IMO will list down what entres will have trans fats in them. Most resturants already tell you the jist of whats in the food but not the spices. I believe it was KFC who made it public that they will be changing their oils to a healthyer (is that an oxymoron?) oil to deep fry their food.



Don't Tread On Me!
User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1648 times:

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 22):
healthyer (is that an oxymoron?)

No, just a misspelling.  Wink

For example, olive oil has health benefits, as does fish oil/cod liver oil.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1646 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
If something is proven harmful, it's the government's job to look after our welfare in these types of issues.

Then I take it you are for an absolute ban on smoking and most alcohols (with an exception for red wine). Both these products have been proven harmful. How about violent movies, loud music and sunbathing. Should the government ban us from going to the beach? Is the risk of skin cancer any less dangerous than heart disease. Should the government place engine limiters on all cars so the posted speed limit should never be exceeded? Should it enforce 8 hours of sleep a night, perhaps ordering TV networks to shut down at 10 PM?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
We elect a government to take care of all those things that we individually can't take care of on our own.

There's a big difference between hidden dangers and known dangers that people voluntarily assume. This country is going to hell in a handbasket because people choose to do things that are dangerous with full knowledge of the danger and then want to wipe their hands of the personal responsibility.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
Build roads, establish schools, foreign relations, on and on, and one of the things in the list is our health, safety and welfare.

Sorry but if you're taking about the national government the constitution is 100% against you on this. Legislating for the general welfare is not a power of the federal government. Only a ridiculously broad reading of the commerce clause has allowed Congress to legislate things that were clearly outside the powers that the framers of the constitution wanted the federal government to have.


25 Vikkyvik : True, but the things you mention ARE illegal, as they should be (well, not second-hand smoke per se, but smoking has been banned in a lot of public p
26 BH : No not at all. Upon request, if someone wants to know they can ask and be provided with a separate list, I think it would be ridiculous to have every
27 Post contains images QXatFAT : Then I would consider this a hidden danger. We do not know what entres in the resturant have these trans fats. Say you were to get a dinner plate of
28 AeroWesty : Read my follow-up replies. We are a republic. Read up on it. We elect representatives to take care of what the population wants taken care of. If the
29 BH : Another point to be heard is that Transfats were developed to be a healthier alternative to saturated fats, now they are seen being worse. With a tran
30 AeroWesty : I have a little bit of real cream on my oatmeal in the morning, and I like real half'n'half when I drink coffee. I use so little of it though, if I b
31 767Lover : With the impending NYC ban, we still won't know. The ban does not apply to packaged products used by the restaurant to create dishes. So, you could b
32 Searpqx : This thread in its entirety captures the contradictions and pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. Trans-fats are obviously bad, have no benef
33 Post contains links QXatFAT : Quoting Searpqx (Reply 32): What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of banning trans-fats while cigarettes, booze, etc are simply 'regulated'. I d
34 Searpqx : A minor point, if its simply a matter of knowledge, require the restaurants to disclose. However the ban isn't being proposed because one is a choice
35 767Lover : Along that line, I never understand the fake sugar thing, especially when it comes to small amounts like in coffee. People would rather ingest a chem
36 Nancy : One of my friends has a serious inflamatory bowel disease It could kill her. She always asks what is in the food in the resturaunt before she orders i
37 Post contains images QXatFAT : You bring out a good point in your counter point to me as well but I had to do this but, from "Thank You For Smoking" he got it right on the nose by
38 Post contains images CastleIsland : The thing is, on the whole there's nothing inherently "better" about a chemical that occurs naturally than one that is synthetic. No doubt you could
39 Post contains links 767Lover : Then there's this.... Acrylamide Level in Food Largely Unknown By LIBBY QUAID AP Food and Farm Writer WASHINGTON — Maureen Cohen read a newspaper ar
40 Post contains images FlyDeltaJets87 : Wrong. When someone commits one of these crimes, they are forcing their will on to another person. When someone makes a decision to consume a meal co
41 CastleIsland : Well, I'm not wrong in my statement, it's just that you draw a distinction that I can see but don't view as strongly as you do.
42 IFEMaster : This is a laughable post. Let's break it down... People choose to drink when they are fully aware of the dangers. And people choose to smoke when the
43 AeroWesty : Not saying the government should babysit us. See my previous argument regarding DDT. It was proven to be harmful, and removed. I don't see anyone run
44 Queso : I think this is going overboard. Trans-fats are not classified as a poison or a contaminant. While they might not be the most healthy ingredient in fo
45 Post contains links GuitrThree : Actually, yes. They are.... http://syndication.indiatimes.com/articleshow.cms?msid=20451713 The whacko "scientist," Rachel Carson's idea has now been
46 AeroWesty : Personally, I'm glad you had to go halfway around the globe to pick up a promoter of DDT. How about something more domestic, and for its use as it wa
47 FlyDeltaJets87 : The nutritional information is often available (like many of the fast food chains post this information online), should you ask for it. If it isn't,
48 BH : Thanks for all the quick responses everyone. I am about halfway through my paper, so keep them coming. So far these 2 post are directly cited in my wo
49 Queso : Glad I could help out, I'm sure CastleIsland will be too. Somewhat ironic that those are the two you chose (so far), he and I see a lot of things dif
50 QXatFAT : I asked my Political Science teacher on this issue and here is his response... Hi Kyle, It is good to hear from you. I hope things are going well. You
51 LTBEWR : Already, public pressure on the food industry is causing voluntary decisions to end or substantually reduce the use of trans fats in many mass market
52 Kmh1956 : Wait around six months or so until the FDA etc changes their mind again and decides that trans-fats (whatever the hell they are...does anyone really k
53 Post contains images WellHung : I suppose you folks were also crying about the asbestos ban. And let's not forget lead-based paint. After all, what business does the government have
54 Pope : I think your professor's statement regarding the FDA is incorrect. The power to create an FDA rests in the innerstate commerce clause because nowhere
55 FlyDeltaJets87 : People can't always control what they're exposed to in the air around them, but they can control what they shove into their pie holes. Don't want to
56 Post contains links Aa757first : And people choose to walk into McDonald's and order a large Big n' Tasty value meal. Newsflash, when you see fries being pulled out of a vat of oil a
57 Doona : Fat never got anyone elected. I'm all for government looking out for the welfare of its citizens, but when it comes to fat? Hell, is there anyone lef
58 Post contains images AeroWesty :
59 Doona : Well, I'm right, aren't I? If politicians took as much contributions from McDonald's and Burger King as they did from the tobacco industry, trans-fat
60 Post contains images AeroWesty : Oh you are! I just bust a gut laughing when you typed it like that. That was hilarious.
61 FCA767 : When i was in the US i made sure i took a 45 minute walk just to go to wendys because they had a menu displaying which of their products had no trans
62 767Lover : Sex without a condom can be life threatening. Perhaps the government should ban that as well?
63 Post contains images Doona : Not just a pretty face, sweetheart. Don't give them any ideas... Cheers Mats
64 FriendlySkies : I completely agree... There is no good reason to allow the use of a product that has been proven to be a huge contributor to the causes of heart disea
65 Post contains images Baroque : Great post DfwR. To read some of the other posts, you would think either that trans fats had a distinctive colour, taste or is it normal practice in
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...