Posted on 12/05/2006 8:32:43 AM PST by Smogger
New York City first in U.S. to ban artificial trans fats in restaurant food.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Man.. NY sucks. This will put most of your Mom and Pop business out of business. The testing performed to determine calorie content is pretty expensive. You will have to submit each menu item for testing.
NY is finished.
To quote a bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie
(trans fat) is something we wish we could uninvent.
The sh*t is nasty.
Direct link to article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/
That's because there's no legitimate research showing HFCS is a health issue. I've always wondered how it's possible HFCS can be bad for you while and sugar (sucrose) isn't since they're both made up of the same two ingredients (glucose and fructose) in almost identical proportions. If one is bad for you then the other has to be just as bad. No way around it.
but anecdotal evidence has been presented asserting that the growth in the use of hfcs (since it was introduced in the 1970s) ties closely with the growth of obesity in the US.
I saw a study once that showed a direct correlation between the amount of rainfall in Fiji and the price of peanuts in Georgia. Just goes to show that correlations may be indicative but they don't prove a thing. Any research showing HFCS as being harmful, while sugar is not, has been thoroughly disproved. The growth in the rate of obesity is caused by people consuming more calories than they burn. England and Mexico are experiencing the same problems with obesity that we are yet they use very little HFCS in their diets.
..and that at that time they will be pulled off the market amid class action lawsuits brought against the manufacturers/distributors involved
Anything is possible when people stop caring about the truth. This article is a great example of that occurring. It's unfortunate we're so willing to give up our freedom in the name of junk science.
I must say, though, I agree with requiring restaurants to give more information about the food they serve so that we can make more educated choices for ourselves.
This is another example of excessive government. Perhaps NYC should regulate the size of newspapers, the content and size of soft drinks, the size of restaurant portions (soup to nuts) and the size of condoms? The Kremlin thought it could regulate everything, also.
Undoubtedly. The FDA is driven by politics and public opinion (and not making mistakes) so that is entirely possible. When you allow something like this to happen without a fight it emboldens the know nothing busybodies who will eventually demand the government do something on a national scale. Bush probably wouldn't. Hillary wouldn't hesitate. This decision may prove we're functioning properly on a small scale. Get enough small scale decisions like this and watch the feds come roaring in. I think it's bad no matter where it occurs.
Do you realize that 20-25% of the trans fat you consume comes from natural sources like meat and dairy? Pretty hard to get away from that sh*t.
the industry should take these kinds of actions by itself.
do you think ALL food controls and health inspections should be eliminated?
Duh, no. Typical nanny-state mentality to ban trans fat, hope you enjoy it. What else would you like to see the State eliminate?
Yep, when ever I talked to a smoking Nazi, I always asked them if they had the guy arrested.
SN: What guy?
ME: The guy that put a gun to your head and forced you to go into a bar/restaurant that had smoking.
SN: :: blank stare ::
ME: Or was it just more convenient to have the state come in and make the decisions for you, never mind that market forces would have been brought to bear, if you and other like minded people had boycotted establishments that didn't cater to your needs.
SN: :: blank stare ::
_________________________________________________________
That is brilliant.
Everyone should use that on Conservatives of Convenience on this forum.
Our fathers/mothers, grandfathers/grandmothers, and great grandfathers/grandmothers lived through this nonsense during Prohibition. They spoke out and the Government enacted an Amendment to repeal it. What has happened since....
When they came for the employees of the oldest profession in the world, I did not speak out, as I had no interest in purchasing sex.
When they came for the purveyors of what was deemed to be "obscene" or "offensive", I did not speak out, as I was not a fan of Lenny Bruce or Howard Stern.
When they came to ban the female mammary gland from TV, I did not speak out, because Brian Boitano told me not to.
When they came for the people who don't wear seatbelts, I did not speak out, as I always wore my seatbelt.
When they came for the marijuana smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a marijuana smoker.
When they came for the steroid users, I did not speak out, as I was not a steroid user.
When they came for the gamblers, I did not speak out, as I was not a gambler.
When they came for the cigarette smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a smoker.
When they came for the overweight and the obese, I did not speak out, as I was not overweight or obese.
When they came for the drinkers (again), I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.
Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out.
Well there seem to be a number of posters on this forum who've done just that. This is one more assinine piece of governmental meddling that they're perfectly okay with.
Next thing you know they'll be taking away guns.... oh, wait....
"The Soccer Moms were all fine with that because they couldn't cook anyway."
LOL
I'm guilty as charged with 5 of the first 7. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.
It wasn't my ox being gored so I didn't care. The only 2 I originally thought were silly to ban were breasts on TV and (audible gasp)naughty words on TV.
I'm learning a lot from fellow FReepers. I was wrong and they were right.
Milton Friedman may be dead, but the people he influenced in his 93 years on the planet are still alive. Myself included. That makes him immortal.
"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself.
The essence of political freedom is the absence of coercion of one man by his fellow men. The fundamental danger to political freedom is the concentration of power. The existence of a large measure of power in the hands of a relatively few individuals enables them to use it to coerce their fellow men. Preservation of freedom requires either the elimination of power where that is possible, or its dispersal where it cannot be eliminated.
It essentially requires a system of checks and balances, like that explicitly incorporated in our Constitution..."
-- Milton Friedman
That's right. The non smokers didn't give a hill of beans about smokers being abused, restricted and controlled. Now it's 'their' turn to taste the anti's wrath!
High Five!
HOME OF THE LAND, FREE OF THE BRAVE
Good one. The nanny-state is picking up steam.
We told 'em so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.