California ban on trans fats goes into effect tomorrow

myp · Dec 31, 2009

Tomorrow, California will become the first state in the nation to impose a ban on restaurants using trans fats. The bill was signed into law a year and half ago and stated that by January 1st, 2010, all restaurants in the state would have to comply.

Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/31/BAIM1BB7FO.DTL&type=printable

I guess when they start controlling your health care they have to start watching what you eat too

Thoughts?

Computer_Head · Jan 2, 2010

Although I'm against health care reform, I do like this idea because trans fat is very unhealthy and there are better alternatives than trans fatty acids. I don't see it as the government "watching what you eat", so to speak, but just enhancing policies on the proper ingredients to make food. We already have health department regulations, I feel this really isn't much different.

DodgeFB · Jan 2, 2010

myp said:
Tomorrow, California will become the first state in the nation to impose a ban on restaurants using trans fats. The bill was signed into law a year and half ago and stated that by January 1st, 2010, all restaurants in the state would have to comply.

Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/31/BAIM1BB7FO.DTL&type=printable

I guess when they start controlling your health care they have to start watching what you eat too Thoughts?

Just goes to prove the old "Governator" has been sleeping with the democrats too long.

Dirk · Jan 2, 2010

Trans fat is horrible stuff.

However, i think this should be a matter of individual conscience. I agree with awareness campaigns, of course.

myp · Jan 2, 2010

Computer_Head said:
Although I'm against health care reform, I do like this idea because trans fat is very unhealthy and there are better alternatives than trans fatty acids. I don't see it as the government "watching what you eat", so to speak, but just enhancing policies on the proper ingredients to make food. We already have health department regulations, I feel this really isn't much different.

I doubt anyone disagrees that trans fat is unhealthy. The real question is what gives the state the right to ban it if one wants to consume trans fat even if they know it is bad?

Dirk said:
Trans fat is horrible stuff.

However, i think this should be a matter of individual conscience. I agree with awareness campaigns, of course.

Agreed. Awareness campaigns (privately funded please

) are fine- bans, not so much.

Delta · Jan 3, 2010

myp said:
I doubt anyone disagrees that trans fat is unhealthy. The real question is what gives the state the right to ban it if one wants to consume trans fat even if they know it is bad?

Same thing that gives them the right to ban drugs I suppose. Besides, they aren't banning you from consuming it, they're banning it from restaurants using it. Big difference.

Dirk · Jan 3, 2010

myp said:
Agreed. Awareness campaigns (privately funded please ) are fine- bans, not so much.

Well, businesses wouldn't care - i reckon a lot of them would actually support them. But if you mean individuals organising through free federation and running awareness campaigns, then yes, i was thinking privately funded.

deanhills · Jan 3, 2010

myp said:
Tomorrow, California will become the first state in the nation to impose a ban on restaurants using trans fats. The bill was signed into law a year and half ago and stated that by January 1st, 2010, all restaurants in the state would have to comply.

Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/31/BAIM1BB7FO.DTL&type=printable

I guess when they start controlling your health care they have to start watching what you eat too Thoughts?

Would people know what the difference is? How would they be able to test it? I can just see them going to the restaurant with their own test kits! :giggle:

myp · Jan 3, 2010

Delta said:
Same thing that gives them the right to ban drugs I suppose. Besides, they aren't banning you from consuming it, they're banning it from restaurants using it. Big difference.

True- maybe I should have rephrased it to what gives the government the right to tell restaurants what to do? If consumers were really that scared about the trans fats, the restaurants wouldn't sell them anyway. Sure it is bad for them, but it is their choice.

Dirk said:
Well, businesses wouldn't care - i reckon a lot of them would actually support them. But if you mean individuals organising through free federation and running awareness campaigns, then yes, i was thinking privately funded.

Yep, that's what I meant- although I personally believe some businesses would care too as is evident by the philanthropic actions of companies such as Google. You can say it is all for publicity, but either way they are promoting good things.

deanhills said:
Would people know what the difference is? How would they be able to test it? I can just see them going to the restaurant with their own test kits! :giggle:

Not sure if they'd notice, but that is besides the point- if they really didn't want them the restaurants wouldn't have them anyway as they wouldn't sell.

Delta · Jan 3, 2010

myp said:
True- maybe I should have rephrased it to what gives the government the right to tell restaurants what to do? If consumers were really that scared about the trans fats, the restaurants wouldn't sell them anyway. Sure it is bad for them, but it is their choice..

I can see your argument. So I assume you believe there should be no age restrictions on cigarettes or alcohol and that there should be no ban on elicit drugs? And I can also assume that you believe businesses should have free reign to do whatever they please?

Dirk · Jan 3, 2010

Delta said:
I can see your argument. So I assume you believe there should be no age restrictions on cigarettes or alcohol and that there should be no ban on elicit drugs?

All drugs should be legalised.

myp · Jan 3, 2010

Delta said:
I can see your argument. So I assume you believe there should be no age restrictions on cigarettes or alcohol and that there should be no ban on elicit drugs? And I can also assume that you believe businesses should have free reign to do whatever they please?

Age restrictions is another story in my opinion as younger people (I am talking like 12-13 year olds) may not fully understand the effect that drugs have on them. That sense of maturity still is not there as the brain hasn't switched over to a the thinking process that adults go through. For this reason, I believe that there should be an age limit to when you can do drugs, cigarettes, etc.

Once a person has reached adulthood though, they should be able to do as they please (when it comes to drugs.)

As for companies, I am not sure what you are asking here. I believe in a legal system, which means that contracts and laws would still be upheld. I just don't think laws such as bans on trans fat should exist. A lot of people would be surprised by how much the market can take care of when government isn't there- it has happened in the past and it continues to happen with any problem the market faces.

JustHatched · Jan 4, 2010

myp said:
Age restrictions is another story in my opinion as younger people (I am talking like 12-13 year olds) may not fully understand the effect that drugs have on them. That sense of maturity still is not there as the brain hasn't switched over to a the thinking process that adults go through. For this reason, I believe that there should be an age limit to when you can do drugs, cigarettes, etc.

Once a person has reached adulthood though, they should be able to do as they please (when it comes to drugs.)

As for companies, I am not sure what you are asking here. I believe in a legal system, which means that contracts and laws would still be upheld. I just don't think laws such as bans on trans fat should exist. A lot of people would be surprised by how much the market can take care of when government isn't there- it has happened in the past and it continues to happen with any problem the market faces.

I can agree with you, children don't possess the capacity to make these decisions. As for the adults, we should be able to chose what goes in our systems. The scientists of the world are always changing what can kill us anyway. And before anybody posts it, we all can agree the smoking is unhealthy by all standards. I'm talking about the foods we eat, they don't really know, what is good for me would probably kill the next person. As far as drugs go, I say legalize, get the tax money to waste on something.

Delta · Jan 4, 2010

myp said:
Age restrictions is another story in my opinion as younger people (I am talking like 12-13 year olds) may not fully understand the effect that drugs have on them. That sense of maturity still is not there as the brain hasn't switched over to a the thinking process that adults go through. For this reason, I believe that there should be an age limit to when you can do drugs, cigarettes, etc.

The problem is, most adults are just as ignorant. Which is why the number of cases of heart disease is skyrocketing. Not only that but these ignorant parents feed their kids terrible food (e.i. loaded with trans fat), most likely including many restaurants. So when trans fats have as big of health conerns as most drugs, I think restrictions are needed.

Once a person has reached adulthood though, they should be able to do as they please (when it comes to drugs.)

As for companies, I am not sure what you are asking here. I believe in a legal system, which means that contracts and laws would still be upheld. I just don't think laws such as bans on trans fat should exist. A lot of people would be surprised by how much the market can take care of when government isn't there- it has happened in the past and it continues to happen with any problem the market faces.

Yea well companies aren't in the business of looking out for customers. Trans fats have no positive benefit except that they help preserve food = less waste and more profit for the company at the customers expense. The market is all about profit, and that's the problem - that's why restrictions are needed.

myp · Jan 4, 2010

Delta said:
The problem is, most adults are just as ignorant. Which is why the number of cases of heart disease is skyrocketing. Not only that but these ignorant parents feed their kids terrible food (e.i. loaded with trans fat), most likely including many restaurants. So when trans fats have as big of health conerns as most drugs, I think restrictions are needed.

There are tons of privately funded institutions which are pushing health awareness and companies are starting to take notice as people look to buy healthier foods. How much bad publicity has Mcdonald's received over the years from the media- privately funded companies? Ignorance is not a valid excuse for government bans because in the end who says the government is even right on everything? As advocates for medical marijuana will tell you, the line is often blurred.

Delta said:
Yea well companies aren't in the business of looking out for customers. Trans fats have no positive benefit except that they help preserve food = less waste and more profit for the company at the customers expense. The market is all about profit, and that's the problem - that's why restrictions are needed.

And what drives that profit? Consumer demand. If consumers want it, businesses look to provide it. Sure they aren't looking out for consumers directly, but often through the demand of consumers they end up doing it anyway. If there is bad information in the market, other people will start businesses to meet that demand for information. Media outlets and companies such as Consumer Reports are great examples- they run on the basis of profit, but indirectly they actually provide a system of checks and balances with many businesses, which in turn benefits consumers. The market is not a forced institution such as government- it is a flexible one and it is one that is driven by free will and what the people want. What people want is what suppliers, or businesses, seek to meet and in the end the people do get what they want.

If most of the people really don't care about trans fats, then so be it. Why should the government step in? The government is supposed to be for the people in the end isn't it?

omej · Jan 4, 2010

I think pretty much most restaurants have already stopped using trans fats so this bill is pretty symbolic. That is - it's symbolic in the wrong way. There's already talk about taxing unhealthy snacks such as chips and soda.

All restaurants (and foods) are required to have their nutrition facts and ingredients made available - that's good enough for people who care about their health. America is obese because of our lifestyle - we need awareness campaigns not banning and taxes.

deanhills · Jan 5, 2010

Delta said:
Yea well companies aren't in the business of looking out for customers. Trans fats have no positive benefit except that they help preserve food = less waste and more profit for the company at the customers expense. The market is all about profit, and that's the problem - that's why restrictions are needed.

Perhaps restrictions can only be effective when you have food inspectors around almost on a daily basis. People are very naive to expect that regulations will guarantee absence of trans fats in all of the restaurants. If I were that much against trans fats, I would still make sure I eat in a reputable restaurant that has a proven track record of caring about this. I would just be too cynical to believe that a regulation would guarantee total absence of trans fats. The benefits of the regulations would be more along the lines of making people more aware and for manufacturers to be more focussed on creating products that don't contain trans fats.

Dirk · Jan 5, 2010

deanhills said:
Perhaps restrictions can only be effective when you have food inspectors around almost on a daily basis. People are very naive to expect that regulations will guarantee absence of trans fats in all of the restaurants. If I were that much against trans fats, I would still make sure I eat in a reputable restaurant that has a proven track record of caring about this. I would just be too cynical to believe that a regulation would guarantee total absence of trans fats. The benefits of the regulations would be more along the lines of making people more aware and for manufacturers to be more focussed on creating products that don't contain trans fats.

A brilliant point. Couldn't have put it better myself.

(That's actually not saying much, my mind is horribly disorderly)

deanhills · Jan 5, 2010

Dirk said:
(That's actually not saying much, my mind is horribly disorderly)

Definitely does not come across disorderly. I would rather describe your thoughts as unconventional most of the time as a reflection of original thinking about the issues.

Dirk · Jan 6, 2010

deanhills said:
Definitely does not come across disorderly. I would rather describe your thoughts as unconventional most of the time as a reflection of original thinking about the issues.

Thank you. You're brimming with compliments today. :redface:

In the spirit of reciprocity, i quite enjoy how you find a middle ground with everything. Compromise is good. And certain things, you're very passionate about, which is always nice to read.

California ban on trans fats goes into effect tomorrow

Similar threads