California bans restaurants from using trans fats
July 26, 2008 By STEVE LAWRENCE , Associated Press Writer
California Gov.r Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks to U.S. Olympic athletes and local officials at the U.S. Olympic Team Processing Facility at San Jose State University in San Jose, Calif., Friday, July 25, 2008. Schwarzenegger was there to greet U.S. Olympic athletes at the facility before they depart to China for the Beijing Olympic Games. (AP Photo/Darryl Bush)
(AP) -- California on Friday became the first state to ban trans fats from restaurant food, following several cities and major fast-food chains in erasing the notorious artery-clogger from menus.
Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .
Similar stories from PHYSorg:
Number of fast-food restaurants in neighborhood associated with stroke risk
Feb 19, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Nonagenarian researcher petitions FDA to ban trans fats
Sep 03, 2009 |
5 / 5 (2) |
1
Trans fats hinder multiple steps in blood flow regulation pathways
Jun 16, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Portions -- not fast food -- may lead to wider waistline, study shows
Feb 02, 2009 |
3.5 / 5 (2) |
0
News coverage of trans fat prompts shoppers to avoid certain products
Apr 20, 2009 |
4 / 5 (1) |
0
Enjoy that flavour, it's the taste of GOP.
ayup...when the gov't crosses the line to tell me how to live correctly, what to eat, what to (not) smoke, buckle up, wear a helmet, pay half of what I earn to the taxman....that's when personal freedom loses to authoritarian control. Since when did we elect public officials to manage our daily lives? All this interest in my health, while a good idea, is massively paternalistic and in no freaking way an intention by the founders of this country.
One BIG reason this is allowed to happen....and I truly believe this is a big part...except for skinheads like nilbud...is the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. The Biggest Lobby in the US (no joke...it is)! Behind the scenes in the shady corridors of Congress...evil insurance company lobbists, prolly dressed in capes and named nilbud or something, lurk and spread nanny-ism across the globe...saving their premiums for their sinister world domination. Think about it...makes some weird sense lol.
???
Perhaps some people need to be protected from their own stupidity.
when did Big Brother get the job of protecting me from myself??? izzat what it breaks down to? try this....some elitist snobs from upstate New York get together one Sunday and decide, well, you know, fast food is bad for you. Monday they pass a law and McDonny's is outta business. tuesday, they say obesity is rampant. wednesday, everyone has to jog 5 days a week. thursday, rock music and video games are too violent. friday, its a felony to possess or listen to linkin park or play halo. sounds like a good orwellian week to me!
come on pple! wake up and get a pair. its about self-determination and the right to your own life and your own decisions, not some control freaks in washington. let em worry about nat'l defense and interstate commerce. read something by milton freedman. it'll change your life.
For example, it's taken decades for social mores to turn against tobacco because the industry has blatantly lied about the effects and spent billions to shape the culture to promote its effects.
Further, we are not built to eat the "American" diet based on processed corn products (high sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc). It causes obesity. Every country that switched to that diet has rapidly developed an epidemic of obesity - even China.
Decades of work in food science have resulted in food that's very bad for you being much cheaper than food that's good for you. As a result, the poor can only afford the very cheap processed food that at the very same time is killing them.
Historically, the poor ate more healthy than the rich (whole grains, beans, etc) while the rich ate all red meat, fatty foods, etc. Now, curiously, for the first time in history the situation is reversed. The rich switch to the diets that the poor have always used - backyard vegetable gardens, fruits, etc.
And more importantly, sundoc, who's going to take care of you when your bad habits catch up with you and you get coronary artery disease and everything else?
It's going to come out of MY pocket in either increased health insurance costs for group coverage (employer provided or otherwise, which is an INDIRECT tax), or directly out of my pocket in taxes to fund Medicare and Medicaid.
Frankly, I choose to eat in a way that keeps me maximally healthy and exercise. I don't cost the health system much money - and I admit it costs me significantly more to feed myself and my family in this manner than eating all junk food, but the farmers' market and other methods help keep cost down.
I don't have a problem with your individual choices, but don't ask me to subsidize YOUR bad choices.
Are you willing to die for your convictions? If you are, by all means sign documents clearly stating that if you don't have the funds to pay for your care that you will die.
But of course you won't. You'll depend on the generosity of hospitals, insurance, or the public fisc to save your life. If you declare bankruptcy that's another form of subsidy as well.
Follow your argument to its logical conclusion and I don't think you'll follow through.
You're allowed to make bad choices - so long as it doesn't effect me or cost me anything. But when it does, your right of choice STOPS. you need to get that through your head.
It's not about individual choice. Alcoholics and drug addicts argue that they should be allowed to destroy themselves, but society doesn't endorse or condone that. We recognize that such individuals are mentally ill and need help, even if we don't force them to get it.
As a group, people that argue Milton Friedman do NOT follow through. By your logic, you should just be allowed to die if you can't pay.
I don't support that. You need to stay alive - you have people that are important in your life.
If you aren't willing to kill yourself, you have things that want to live for. But the diet you are on and the path you are headed down are a slow route to early death.
Don't you care about your parents and your family and your wife / husband / children? Don't they deserve to have you with them for many years and not crippled by heart disease or the like?
besides the flaws inherent in absolute monetarism and/or literal interpretation of Milton Friedman...avoiding economics in this discussion is difficult...free will and self determination does not equate with absolute rejection of cultural norms. get it thru your head that cultural norms are not absolute. we as a civilization attempted to approach cultural truth with our constitution, avoiding more specific interpretations for this reason.
i applaud and even envy your personal commitment to self improvement and but frankly to quote you, "Frankly, I choose...". that is *precisely* my point. it is your decision, your own free will, your *right* to live this way.
i understand you feel bitter at the millions of ppl who abuse their own bodies, spending their own limited personal resources for drugs, alcohol, trans fats, SUV's, fried chicken, and bibles. i feel your pain. may not be right by your standards, but cultural mores don't equate to constitutional law.
what is right is not always "your" decision to make. by "your" i'm implying "the gov't", as you have taken the liberty of expressing your own viewpoint as law.
i sympathize about the health care issue, health care being my field. i am a daily witness to the consequences of personal neglect. while i encourage ppl to take care of themselves, to watch fat intake, to avoid fast/junk food, to exercise, to take their medicines, etc...i don't mandate it. what gives me or anyone else the right to enforce this? just because you might have to foot the bill in the form of higher taxes doesn't give you the right to force society to take better care of itself. i try to inspire ppl i meet, but i don't require the same of them. i blame gov't for making society dependant on others for guidance, as well as for entitlements and "free-healthcare", which is a self-perpetuating monster...but i digress.
thank you for your interest in my family. my wife and kids appreciate your consideration, and i sincerely return this.
but your well-intentioned gov't is essentially a nanny-state which will chose my menu, mandate physical fitness, neutralize my religious beliefs (for i'm sure they won't agree with yours), "normalize" my income (which i assume is again the next logical adoption of cultural norms), and will ultimately force me to adopt different cultural ideals which neither I nor my family embrace.