The Possible Ban on Fast Foods

[ArtDrake]

I beg to differ on several points.

Does everyone know that trans fats are unhealthy? What's more, even if they have a vague concept of the fact that it's "not good for them," how many people know precisely what the risks are in eating trans fats? Science, which many people don't trust, tells us that a great many things are unhealthy, and the media simply include whatever our science finds in another article called, "Ten Items Everyone Loves, but are Really Bad for Us." Then all the risks are equated, skepticism with which the authenticity of the science is regarded increases, and no one trusts what the media says about food any more. They know that ice cream, smoking, marijuana, salt, McDonald's, beer, asparagus, and fried chicken are "bad" for them, but the reasons are very different, and all of the possible health detriments resulting from these are long-term defects and disorders, meaning that according to the theory of hyperbolic gratification, no one cares.

Since I have limited time with which to adress your remarks, I'm going to single out your fear-generating, hackle-raising comment that you placed at the end to scare us all.

"It is [trans fat] today, but what is it tomorrow? Butter? Salt? Chocolate?"

All of these are ridiculous. Sodium is an essential mineral. Butter is an entirely natural and healthy milkfat. Chocolate is an assembly of sugar (an essential nutrient) and cocao, which is a generally benign substance that acts as a subtle stimulant.

Trans fat, on the other hand, serves no purpose other than to be cheap and cause heart disease.

[Deagonx]

I think the point that he is making is that why should the people who don't give a damn about trans-fats suffer because of people who complain about it?

I mean, seriously? A law BANNING a food oil? If you dont want the food oil and you care so much. Check the ingredients or something and CHOOSE not to eat it. The thought is almost sickening that something like that might happen in my state.

[ArtDrake]

Sorry. When the capital letters come out, I tend to have more questions:

Are the people who really "don't give a damn" suffering without their trans fats?
Is the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens' well-being?
Do you know how much or how little replacing trans fats with their natural counterparts costs?
Do you believe that carcinogens are a true threat?

[Deagonx]

Sorry. When the capital letters come out, I tend to have more questions:

Are the people who really "don't give a damn" suffering without their trans fats?
Is the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens' well-being?
Do you know how much or how little replacing trans fats with their natural counterparts costs?
Do you believe that carcinogens are a true threat?

Q1: No as in, we dont give a damn about eating trans-fats. We eat them anyways.

Q2: To an extent. A law banning guns to be holstered on the streets is an example of this. Or a law banning driving while under the influence. Banning trans-fats, which is a CHOICE that only affects YOU. Is not an example of this. I mean, if drunk driving were allowed itd be fine if it didnt affect anyone other than the driver. But it DOES. People get hit.

Q3: Nope, cause I dont care.

Q4: What does cancer have to do with this? If you are about to say Trans-fats cause cancer Ima slap you all the way back to the lab that told you that and tell you to run the test again.

[ArtDrake]

No, I'm not going to tell you that trans fats cause cancer. It's just an arbitrary question that evaluates something. If you would please answer the question, I'd be obliged.

So you'd be perfectly fine without them; you don't care either way, but for the cost?
Do you think that governmental policy on the matter of self-harm should be rethought? I mean, there is a law against suicide, and against the use of hard drugs and other self-destructive actions.
Would you care much if McDonald's raised its prices a bit to accomodate for the new laws?

[Deagonx]

No, I'm not going to tell you that trans fats cause cancer. It's just an arbitrary question that evaluates something. If you would please answer the question, I'd be obliged.

So you'd be perfectly fine without them; you don't care either way, but for the cost?
Do you think that governmental policy on the matter of self-harm should be rethought? I mean, there is a law against suicide, and against the use of hard drugs and other self-destructive actions.
Would you care much if McDonald's raised its prices a bit to accomodate for the new laws?

No, I don't think Carcinogens are a threat.

Suicide is different. Majority of suicide is caused by some sort of mental disorder and cannot be helped.

Yes. Because I hate the new laws.

[ArtDrake]

Is something that kills you a threat? (Somewhat loaded question... say yes...)

Actually, much of suicide is the result of clinical depression, which can be helped.

Why do you hate a law that prevents a deadly substance from entering your body?

[bugfartboy]

I don't understand why anyone thinks the government should be involved in this.  McDonalds isn't secretly poisoning people to earn profits.  Everyone knows that trans-fats aren't healthy and they shouldn't be consumed on a regular basis.  A nutrition chart is available at every fast food chain if you ask for it, so they clearly aren't putting anything in their food that the consumers don't know about.  Instead of big brother government choosing what we can eat, individuals should make their own responsible choices.  When I exercise regularly, why should I have to pay more for a less tasty burger during my once a week trip to McDonalds?  Consumers like me and McD stockholders/employees shouldn't be punished, because some people make bad decisions in their eating habits.  Also, no body if forcing you go to McDonalds.  If you don't want high levels of transfat, then go to Subway (condiments have all the fat there).

I understand that the toys in happy meals are met to entice children, yet no body is forcing that children to buy a happy meal.  When I was a kid, I got some lego toy in my happy meal.  Later in the week, I ask my parents to go back, so I could get another.  Do you know what I didn't get another happy meal or another the toy?  My parents was responsible enough to say "No". Because government got involved, even kids with responsible parents won't get toys in their happy meals.

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

Hate to join the party late, but Ducky, I believe the point Smarty was getting at was: If they can ban this, what's to stop them from banning more and more with no reason? If you havn't noticed, Americans have a way of going overboard.

[ArtDrake]

Going overboard with what? With restrictive policy? Of course not. McCarthy tried that, and everyone hated him for it. Oppose the law when it actually is something harmless, benign, yummy, or otherwise dear to you. Until then, I don't believe that's a reasonable objection.

[Deagonx]

Going overboard with what? With restrictive policy? Of course not. McCarthy tried that, and everyone hated him for it. Oppose the law when it actually is something harmless, benign, yummy, or otherwise dear to you. Until then, I don't believe that's a reasonable objection.

Trans-fats may not be harmless, benign, yummy, or otherwise dear to me. But Fast Food is.

[ArtDrake]

Is the sale of all "Fast Food" being banned?
Will fast food be harder to acquire if trans fats are banned?
Will it be much more expensive?

Would you rather pay 25% more for fast food (worst case scenario; it's not likely that prices will increase that much), knowing that you were being served a food that was quick, still quite cheap, tasted good, and won't give you heart disease; or would you rather pay the same cheap rate we pay now for quick easy food that will?

And lastly, I ask you: were you aware that approximately fifty thousand people die every year in just the United States due to heart disease induced by the consumption of artificial trans fats? That number is equivalent to saying that everyone you know, and everyone that they know is dead. That's how deadly this stuff is. In a town of 100,000, that's about sixteen people every year, meaning that at least one of the people will be someone someone you know knows.

Each one of these deaths (think: life ending, not just statistics) is entirely preventable, and is caused by something that no one even likes.
It's just cheap and convenient. So, are these some fifty thousand people worth saving from the consequences of their uninformed actions?

[SmartyPants]

Since I have limited time with which to adress your remarks, I'm going to single out your fear-generating, hackle-raising comment that you placed at the end to scare us all.
"It is [trans fat] today, but what is it tomorrow? Butter? Salt? Chocolate?"
All of these are ridiculous. Sodium is an essential mineral. Butter is an entirely natural and healthy milkfat. Chocolate is an assembly of sugar (an essential nutrient) and cocao, which is a generally benign substance that acts as a subtle stimulant.
Trans fat, on the other hand, serves no purpose other than to be cheap and cause heart disease.

Government has already try to limit those three things.  Butter has transfat.  New York City has tried to pass a law that limits the amount sodium allowed in the food.  Schools across the country aren't allowed to sell candy of any type.

Are the people who really "don't give a damn" suffering without their trans fats?

My wallet and tongue will suffer.

Is the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens' well-being?

In this instance, No.  The government doesn't have the right to limit an individual's freedom when his choices can't harm anyone else.

Do you know how much or how little replacing trans fats with their natural counterparts costs?

I don't think you have a great understanding of the economy.  The reason that natural alternatives are not drastically more expensive then transfats is because the demand for transfat alternatives is low.  If the government forces the companies to use the natural alternatives, then they are artificially increasing the demand and the price of natural alternatives.  Ethanol was also cheap until the government forced companies to put it into their gas.

Do you think that governmental policy on the matter of self-harm should be rethought? I mean, there is a law against suicide, and against the use of hard drugs and other self-destructive actions.

First, the law against suicide is dumb because you can't prosecute someone who is dead.  Also, your examples of self-destructive actions are harmful to others.  If you knew someone who killed themselves, then you would know the detrimental effect it has on a family and community.  Highly addictive drugs tend to lead to an increase in violence and crime.

Would you care much if McDonald's raised its prices a bit to accomodate for the new laws?

I would care alot, because the price is one of the main reasons I buy McDonalds.

Would you rather pay 25% more for fast food (worst case scenario; it's not likely that prices will increase that much), knowing that you were being served a food that was quick, still quite cheap, tasted good, and won't give you heart disease; or would you rather pay the same cheap rate we pay now for quick easy food that will?

I would be extremely angry if the price went up.  Since I don't eat to excess and I exercise regularly, I don't have to worry about heart disease.  If I had a weight or cholesterol problem, then I wouldn't eat fastfood even if they removed transfat.

And lastly, I ask you: were you aware that approximately fifty thousand people die every year in just the United States due to heart disease induced by the consumption of artificial trans fats? That number is equivalent to saying that everyone you know, and everyone that they know is dead. That's how deadly this stuff is. In a town of 100,000, that's about sixteen people every year, meaning that at least one of the people will be someone someone you know knows.

Those people died due to a lifetime of bad choices.  Why should people like me be punished because other people chose to eat fatty foods on a regular basis and not exercise?  With your logic, alcohol should be illegal, because many people died of liver failure because they choose to excessively drink for years.  Motorcycles should be illegal because many people died because they recklessly weave between cars.  This reminds me of high school lunch.  After playing tennis in Houston humidity for an hour in a half, I want to heat a hershey bar.  I can't get my candy bar, because the government said schools can't sell them due to the high rate of obesity.  Because some fat kids choose to eat six candy bars, two personal pizzas, and mozzarella sticks before going home to nap and watch tv, nobody is allowed to have a hershey bar.  Why punish everybody for other people's bad choices?

[ArtDrake]

Butter does not have trans fats. Margarine has trans fat.

Do you know what the grounds are for limiting sodium?
Can you salt your food?

What is the strict definition of candy? Without one such objective definition, the ban is meaningless.
Does candy play a role in education?
Must you buy your Hershey's chocolate bar at school?
Can you not bring your own?

Do you think that trans fats taste better?
Do you know by how much or how little the substitution of non-trans fats for trans fats would increase the cost of fast foods?

The reason that natural alternatives are not drastically more expensive then transfats is because the demand for transfats is low.  If the government forces the companies to use the natural alternatives, then they are artificially increasing the demand and the price of natural alternatives.  Ethanol was also cheap until the government forced companies to put it into their gas.

Are you saying that the demand for trans fats is low?
Would you care to provide a link backing up your remark about ethanol? I'd be obliged.
Why do you use the qualifier "artificially" when all actions pertaining to the economy could be construed as being "artificial"?

What makes a suicide more detrimental to a community than any other death?
Do you believe that suicide is illegal on the grounds of being damaging to the families of the suicidal?
Do you realize that attempting to commit a crime despite being stopped is also a crime?

Do you realize that restaurants constantly increase their prices, and that you would most likely not even notice the price difference due to a trans fat ban if no one told you that it was taking effect?

Are you always extremely angry when McDonald's' prices go up?

Are you not aware that while regular exercise is beneficial to human health, it cannot prevent trans fat-induced coronary heart disease, and that the risk is, in fact, barely abated by your exercise?

Do you honestly think that every single person that dies of coronary heart disease that can be attributed to trans fats has made "a lifetime of bad decisions," and that they are all people that go to McDonald's regularly? Or that they didn't exercise?

Utilizing my logical process, smoking ought be banned as a result of a combination of their addictive properties, their detrimental effect on others inhaling the air surrounding the one smoking (known as second-hand smoke), and their destructive effect on the mouth, throat, and lungs.

Public drunkenness should be and is illegal because it upsets bystanders and is, if repeated, destructive to the one drinking.

Weaving in between cars should be banned because it can result in car wrecks and death, and, like the others, is a destructive behavior. It doesn't always kill the rider. It may not ever kill the rider if he or she only does it once. But it sure as heck will kill a lot of motorcycle riders if they do it. Such is eating trans fat.

Why do you want a sticky mess that will melt promptly after playing an hour and a half of tennis, by which time anyone doing so would surely be sweaty? (not conducive to the debate)

Finally, I wish to give an argument to support my questioning. I shall use your example with the fat children. The grounds for banning the sale of candy at schools is the prevention of the purchase and consumption of candy by children without the consent of their parents. Often, it is the candy children buy with the lunch money they are given, at the expense of healthier options, that fattens the child. It is a preventative measure, designed to reduce the accessibility of these snack items. If a child with responsible parents wishes to bring a candy snack item to school at some point, they may do so without making the purchase at school. With an insulated and chilled lunch box, their candy bar will not melt. Less accessibility, but less kids buying candy without their parents' consent.

[SmartyPants]

Clearly, you don't have any idea what you are talking about, since you keep asking nonsensical questions.

[Deagonx]

Clearly, you don't have an idea what you are talking about, since you only argument is asking nonsensical questions.

This.