The Possible Ban on Fast Foods

[ArtDrake]

I was actually speaking to SmartyPants, along the same vein of conversation as you used in your last post.

[SmartyPants]

I don't suppose that goes for marijuana, too? It can be eaten...

Lately, I have been having a more liberal view on marijuana, but that is another topic all together.

And what do you think about forcing restaurants to cook food using clean tools? If they didn't have to wash their tools, the food price could be lower, since less water, detergent, washing machines, electricity and even employees would be needed. And, who knows, perhaps the food flavour would be better.

That is completely different.  Everyone wants the food they eat to be sanitary, while not everyone wants the food they eat be healthy.  Since consumers don't know how sanitary the kitchen is, they need government regulation to make sure that the food is safe.  Eating fast food is completely different.  Everyone who enters a fast food joint and asks for a nutrition chart, is given a nutrition chart.  That means people knownly eat unhealthy fast food.

[Ertxiem]

So, the problem is the time scale?
If something makes you sick the next day, then you say we need government regulation.
On the other hand, if something makes you sick the next decade, you say we don't need government interference.

Edit: Typo correction. (How could I write "seek the next decade" instead of "sick the next decade"!?)
While I'm at it, by "sick the next decade" I mean "after eating regularly the same stuff after around a decade, the disease symptoms are likely to appear".

[ArtDrake]

I like this analogy! We can go into a restaurant, and ask to see which of their meals were prepared using clean utensils and cooking equipment.

[SmartyPants]

I think the government is needed to protect consumers from shady business practices such as saving money by not properly cleaning cooking ware.  While many people are willing to have transfat in their food, no one is willing to have salmonial in their food.  The ban of transfat reminds me of prohibition.  Alcohol, like transfat, is unhealthy and because some people consume too much of it and live drastically shorter lives, progressives decided to ban it for everyone including people who enjoy it in moderation.

[ArtDrake]

I find it funny that people arguing for keeping trans fats in food start out saying "It's not fair; what about my freedoms?", and end up saying, "But I want to have very cheap food, and I don't care if it's bad for me."

[SmartyPants]

I find it funny that people arguing for keeping trans fats in food start out saying "It's not fair; what about my freedoms?", and end up saying, "But I want to have very cheap food, and I don't care if it's bad for me."

That is simply untrue.  The argument the whole time has been that one should have the freedom to choose if they they want or don't want to eat cheap foods with transfat.  Individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices instead of the government forcing their will on the people. If you don't want transfat in your food, then don't eat foods with transfat.

[ArtDrake]

So this is really about freedoms, and not about prices?

The government has the right to regulate the substances its population intakes, as long as there is reasonable grounds that the substances are harmful -- specifically, they impair the ability of the populace to work and fight. The well-being of the country's economy and the military are reason enough to restrict trans fats.

[SmartyPants]

So this is really about freedoms, and not about prices?

Organicly grown foods are more healthy.  Everyone should have the freedom to choose if they want to pay more for better organic foods or if they want to pay less for products that use pesticides.  The government doesn't have the right to step in and say that we can only buy what they want us to buy.

[ArtDrake]

The proper and controlled use of pesticides on crops from which food products are made is not detrimental to health.

The ingestion of trans fats is.

[Ertxiem]

[...]While many people are willing to have transfat in their food, no one is willing to have salmonial in their food.[...]

I'm not sure about that. If you sell people food and claim it's salmonella free, then people will complain if the food ends up having it. However, what if the price of food that could have salmonella was cheaper than other food and a warning was given. Perhaps there were people that may want to buy it and risk their health. Should the government restrict the freedom of these people?

[SmartyPants]

The proper and controlled use of pesticides on crops from which food products are made is not detrimental to health. The ingestion of trans fats is.

Both pesticides and transfats are not "detrimental to health" unless they are consumed in large amounts.  There isn't anything wrong with people consuming small amounts of transfat on occasion.

[...]While many people are willing to have transfat in their food, no one is willing to have salmonial in their food.[...]

I'm not sure about that...Perhaps there were people that may want to buy it and risk their health. Should the government restrict the freedom of these people?

Perhaps people want to buy cancer in a bottle.::)  I am not going to reply to a bunch of nonsensical what ifs.

[SmartyPants]

It is trans-fat today, but what is it tomorrow?  Butter?  Salt?  Chocolate?

Denmark first banned tran-fat and now heavly taxes all fat filled products such as all dairy products.

[ArtDrake]

This is why I like Denmark.  :-[

Honestly, they're the last country in the world to have to worry about being fat.
And as for your shoddy point, fat can't be banned; it's essential. Trans fat is not.

[SmartyPants]

You are missing my point.  I don't think we should encourage politicians to micromanage our diet, because politicians tend make stupid decisions.  For example:  You allow the government to ban transfat one day and the next day they heavly tax all foods with fat including healthy ones like milk.