NYC Bans Trans Fats From Eateries

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 6 2006, 12:25 PM) [snapback]358469[/snapback]</div>

there's personal suffering from bad choices that affects only you, and there's racking up all sorts of medical bills and affecting others (by massively increased cost of care) who require care but not due to their own bad decisions. if we can find a way to make the apathetic "oh well, they will fix me when my heart fails again so i can keep eating whatever i please" person more liable for their costs than "well, i hope this new heart fixes my congenital defect" person, thereby keeping insurance rates reasonable and coverage better than nonexistent, then i'm all for the idea of dumping trans fats into all unhealthy foods. after all, they taste better don't they?

apathy is the key here. and again, fast food is still available. we're not killing ronald mcdonald or anything. we're replacing a single ingredient that as far as i have seen shows no redeeming properties.

and again, to reinforce my position, if they took away fast food i'd be upset. not for myself on this issue since fast food is not a part of my life, but the idea does not sit well with me. changing the ingredients... well... that just isn't the same as far as i can see.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Dec 6 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]358482[/snapback]</div>

but alcohol is a drug and it's not illegal... who decides what drugs are illegal? we return to the same question. alcohol is addictive and those addicted can and will destroy their lives in pursuit of alcohol. the same generalization can be made for many drugs. you might say, well many of the scheduled drugs sensitize the brain immediately. so... alcohol begins to upregulate and downregulate receptors pretty damn quickly too and in people who are more likely to become addicted, you just might see immediate sensitization.
marijuana is less harmful and less addictive than cigarettes (in fact, to get mice or rats to self-administer, you have to give insanely high doses- in the 5-10 mg/kg range- of thc which is present in the low single-digit percentages in typical marijuana preparations), yet the former is illegal and the latter can be purchased at the local gas station for a few bucks a pack.

same question, different application.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Dec 6 2006, 01:19 PM) [snapback]358506[/snapback]</div>

u r right on all accounts. Libs do like big brother though or using tools to impose their wishes on others like judicial fiat, etc.

 

hey, I have a RADICAL idea:

turn medicine into a truly altruistic profession, cap MD salaries at 50K, and elminate huge lawsuits. Then, make QUALITY, MEANINGFUL, healthcare free across the board for everyone.

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Dec 6 2006, 01:35 PM) [snapback]358515[/snapback]</div>

by extending ones decision making to the whole group via health care costs extends the argument beyond trans-fats. Ban cigarettes for sure. Ban cars. Ban sugar. Ban ice cream. Ban birth - because that for sure racks up HUGE health care costs over the next 80 years of the babies life :lol: In any event the money spent on that persons health care if he eats too much trans-fat stays in the economy and generates jobs, research, taxes, etc - it is actually good for us for people to have bad health - keeps the economy humming almost like war :lol:

Society decides what is legal and what is not - real simple - dealt with it. it is up to you to sell your concepts of legal and illegal substances to the majority of us in your society - if you cant convince us whether it is addicting or not legal vs illegal will be determined by the majority of us.

Besides - currently illegal drugs -- using your concepts from your first paragraph - causes a significant $ expendature to our entire society via overdoses, birth defects, heart disease, motor vehicle accidents, etc - so they should remain illegal :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Dec 6 2006, 02:44 PM) [snapback]358482[/snapback]</div>

1. I would argue what precisely "excess" means, with respect to the biological diversity of human beings out there, and

2. The average person (which I consider myself to be), has no idea how bad transfats can be. You can't expect everyone to have some sort of "high" (I know, subjective, but used to illustrate the point) degree of nutritional knowledge.

I had no idea until recently, I'm not exactly a "read the label" on the box when it comes to food kinda guy, and I'm pretty sure I'm far from being alone in this respect. It seems to me, transfats are a more egregious type of fat, and therefore, I'm kind of glad the gov. has stepped in, and removed it from me, I see no negative consequences to this, unless, of course, I happen to favor some food obnoxiously high in transfats...

Hey, maybe I can make a buck now in the black market sale of spectacular tasting Oreo cookie clones made with transfats... h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Dec 6 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]358518[/snapback]</div>

I am for that too - i would love to bill per hour what my attorney bills me including phone calls. Or you want to cap attorneys too :lol: How about baseball players? Would you pay more for those who take steroids do to their increased operating costs :lol: I know, cap everyone's income - make food free - clean the air and water - stop using fossil fuels - chant kumbaya - and we can all live happily ever after :lol:

50K - your funny - less than my garbageman makes - thanks for holding my profession is such esteem. your sure have a complete handle on the healthcare profession and its multiple offshoots like pharmacueticals, infrastructure costs, costs of transplantation, gene therapies, stem cell research, etc, etc.

we do agree in that we can easily eliminate the current med mal problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Dec 6 2006, 01:44 PM) [snapback]358482[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I would like a reasoned response. Defending them as legal is a nonsensical political argument. As for poison or toxin, be so good to explain the difference that makes you so confident that trans fats are not, but jimson weed (sp?) and petroleum e.g., are.

Just in case your political leanings are getting ahead of your knowledge of the subject, be aware that concensus expert opinion is that no safe amount of trans fats has been identified.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 6 2006, 01:46 PM) [snapback]358522[/snapback]</div>

but nevermind lost productivity and lost income from those who are ill- you don't pay taxes on money you don't make. plus federal support like social security benefits in the case of severe disability. oh yeah and how about people who go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills or die with thousands of dollars of debt that are not going to end up being paid? no, that's all good for society isn't it...

the majority, in this case, being who? i don't think many of us have a say in that.

alcohol overdoes kills people, causes birth defects, do not know about heart disease, car crashes, etc as well. it's legal.

cigarettes cause heart disease, a host of types of cancer, birth defects, etc. they're legal.

it's funny that people are willing to question every side of one issue, but accept a parallel issue wholly with no questioning...

[edited to clarify wording]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Dec 6 2006, 03:53 PM) [snapback]358531[/snapback]</div>

Things get disturbing once you start wondering why precisely medical school cost so much, and start asking "why, why, why"... I have a theory, and I know you won't agree with it, so there's really no need to argue it, but I believe the number of Dr.'s available in the U.S. is intentionally regulated through various means and forces. h34r:




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Dec 6 2006, 03:53 PM) [snapback]358531[/snapback]</div>

Just a side note, but I hate to tell you doc, this ain't no different for almost any BS these days.... :lol:

I actually applaud the MD's that get out of school and file for full bankruptcy! Pure genious!

 

I like a big Trans Fat sandwich now and again. On whole wheat bread of course.

 

Wow, so much said in the hour i took for lunch... lets see if i can add my replies where they're needed.

Seatbelts: Laws requiring seatbelts to be present in automobiles is good - it's not always only the driver in the car, and in some instances you may want a seatbelt, and if one wasn't available that would be a problem. However, i think it needs to be universal across the board, to include things like buses, which i haven't seen seatbelts in. Laws requiring you to wear seatbelts, OTOH, i'm not sure i agree with. If i choose not to wear a seatbelt, only i am injured should there be a serious accident... But I don't know the full details of how it all works - airbags may be more dangerous if you aren't wearing a seatbelt, in which case the legislation would need to include disabling those if you weren't belted in, etc.

galaxee, i agree that people need to be more liable for their costs instead of just getting a free ride, and that the health care providers need to distinguish between healthy life style and non-healthy life style to some degree (not sure how, though), as unhealthy life style leads to a greater risk for higher medical expenses... I think that would solve many of the problems, by lowering health care costs for those people who choose to be proactive about it (as well as encouraging healthy eating and exercise, thus reducing the obesity thats running rampant in this country).

I also agree with you that the whole decision of what is legal and what isn't appears very arbitrary... But lets remember, they tried to outlaw alcohol at one point, and the public practically revolted (in the form of black markets, etc) and it didn't change anything except push it under ground. As for marijuana... I guess their reasoning behind that is the mind altering abilities of the drug, and the massive payoffs they get from the cartels to keep it illegal - if it was legal, the drug trade wouldn't be nearly so lucrative.

Mystery Squid, you're absolutely correct in that the average person doesn't know how bad trans fat can be. but on the other hand, 30 years ago the average person didn't know how bad smoking can be (even 10 years ago it was probably only like 50/50). But the government didn't ban them just because they were bad for you... they put warnings on the packages, and encouraged campaigns to increase awareness. Why can't the same be done here?


I think i got most of the points that weren't already addressed...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Dec 6 2006, 02:05 PM) [snapback]358542[/snapback]</div>

obviously you are in the minority then - and you haven't noticed it? :lol:

 

You should read the NEJM article before posting further on this topic, Evan. There are many other articles to back up the conclusions the authors arrive at from their results.

The most obvious difference between trans fats and tobacco is that the latter is regulated and not sold to minors. Trans fats are as good as in the water supply. As I said earlier, we do not allow cigarette machines in our schools, and by the same token trans fats should not be there either. And as I also said above, I am in favor of banning their production, not pissing around with free choice at restaurants.

Regarding safe amounts, this is almost always an inductive conclusion based on dose response data. Trans fats fit that model just as well as hundreds of chemicals you would be quick to label as poisons, and demand not be added to our foods.

 

no, we don't allow cigarette machines in the schools... but they're also different from trans fats. If you want to ban those from schools, we can talk about that - by why ban them from consenting adults?

Trans fat doesn't cause addiction. It doesn't cause death or immediate health problems. It just presents problems to those who eat it in excess for extended periods of time, much like anything will. Go ahead, regulate the amount of trans fat that can be used in food - that would be one thing. but banning it completely is absurd when they're still allowing worse items to be served right along with those with trans fat.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 6 2006, 04:39 PM) [snapback]358564[/snapback]</div>

Well, I can't quite say I disagree with this...

Of course, the only other dimension I add into this, is transfat seems to be the big bad guy on the block now, what will it be 5, 10, or 15 years from now? I could be ingesting something far worse and we won't know about it for years... h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 6 2006, 01:44 PM) [snapback]358484[/snapback]</div>

lol .. no, I'm not. Sorry I was unclear; didn't mean to make you jump

FWIW, my defense of seat-belt laws is probably different than most. I expect people to take responsibility for their actions, but do not subscribe to the fallacious idiocy libertarians like to call 'social darwinism'. My problem with voluntary seat belt (or helmet) use in adults is that in US society, people are not held fully liable when injury from lack of use occur. They receive medical care, sometimes life-long, usually on the public dime. My money, my say in how they behave.

It is the side of the coin that modern day libertarians forget, when ranting about personal rights. They are limited by encroachment upon others.

I argue for elimination of trans fats in the food supply for the same reasons: the morbidity caused becomes a massive societal burden that *I* end up paying for, and I don't want to. Inability to actually restrict trans fats to so called consenting adults is just more (trans) icing on the cake.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Dec 6 2006, 04:47 PM) [snapback]358653[/snapback]</div>

"They are limited by encroachment upon others."

Right! It is the fallacy of libertarianism.