Trans fat now illegal in NYC restaurants. [Archive]

MadMatt

12-05-2006, 11:53 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: It doesn't really bug me since there's no reason to use this stuff except in terms of profit for the people putting it into, well, everything.  It's a pretty clear case of sacrificing people's health and welfare for the dollar.  It's not like this stuff is essential or makes things taste better or even differently...it's just a cheaper kind of fat (in the most basic terms possible) that is much worse for you.  Shit should have never been approved in the first place.I hope the same thing happens with high fructose corn syrup.I don't think that is the point.  There is no way a City Government should be able to ban a legal food product.  If the FDA (or another government agency) convinces the Federal Government to enact a "ban" that is legally passed through the House an Senate there may be a legit argument.  However, there would probably still be a Constitutional argument about it's validity/legality.A measure that makes more sense would be a tax on Trans Fats that makes it less palatable for restaraunts to use them.  Still, there could be serious legal concerns about artificially influencing the marketplace.Maybe someone more schooled in legal particulars could weigh in, but I can't see how this ban can hold up. 

This message was edited by MadMatt on 12-5-06 @ 3:55 PM

angrymissy

12-05-2006, 11:54 AM

Works for me, why use that artificial crap if you don't have to.  Just use butter.Mojo, I agree that High Fructose Corn syrup should be banned as well.  It's actually cheaper to use real sugar!  I try to avoid HFCS and it's really really hard to do without eating an organic diet.  It's even in regular bread.  I went to buy fresh baked bakery bread from my local supermarket and even that had HFCS in it.

TheMojoPin

12-05-2006, 11:56 AM

MadMatt wrote: I posted a link in the daily thread.  The ban is ridiculous.  Restaraunts have 6 months to replace trans fat cooking oils, shortening, etc., with a complete ban on the ingredients after 18 months.The govt has NO RIGHT to do this.  I can see providing ingredient lists and amount/percentage/etc. of trans fats in the food being served so consumers are informed, but to ban a food product outright?  Get the hell out of here!  How about personal responsibility and eating in moderation?  How can this be legal/constitutional? See what I said above.  It should have never been approved in the first place.  The potential and very obvious health problems far outweigh any upside to using the stuff, which is only to save/make more money.People definitely need to take care of themselves, but shit like this and high fructose corn syrup make it an infinitely harder battle to do so, they're awful for you, and they're only being used for economic reasons.  Again, it's totally a case of choosing money over health.I agree, it's definitely "big government," but it can also be argued that it's the government trying to make up for a mistake it made in the first place for approving this stuff for use.

Judge Smails

12-05-2006, 12:00 PM

Trans fat now illegalSmoke 'em if ya got 'em.<img src="http://cineaste.jp/l/971.jpg" border="0" width="286" height="393" />

TheMojoPin

12-05-2006, 12:01 PM

MadMatt wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: It doesn't really bug me since there's no reason to use this stuff except in terms of profit for the people putting it into, well, everything.  It's a pretty clear case of sacrificing people's health and welfare for the dollar.  It's not like this stuff is essential or makes things taste better or even differently...it's just a cheaper kind of fat (in the most basic terms possible) that is much worse for you.  Shit should have never been approved in the first place.I hope the same thing happens with high fructose corn syrup.I don't think that is the point.  There is no way a City Government should be able to ban a legal food product.  If the FDA (or another government agency) convinces the Federal Government to enact a "ban" that is legally passed through the House an Senate there may be a legit argument.  However, there would probably still be a Constitutional argument about it's validity/legality.A measure that makes more sense would be a tax on Trans Fats that makes it less palatable for restaraunts to use them.  Still, there could be serious legal concerns about artificially influencing the marketplace.Maybe someone more schooled in legal particulars could weigh in, but I can't see how this ban can hold up. This message was edited by MadMatt on 12-5-06 @ 3:55 PM Actually, I totally forgot this was just a local ruling.  I WISH it was a federal ban.Again, there's no reason to use this stuff or HFCS except to save money.  The human cost in using both of these is probably incalcuable.  No, I'm not saying fat people would be magically gone if trans fat and HFCS were taken out, but there sure as shit would be a lot less of them...literally.  This stuff goes beyond just being in food that's "bad" for you...9 times out of 10 it's all up in the "healthy" food, too!  You essentially can't avoid them even if you're eating "right."Ultimately, while I wouldn't mind a ban everywhere, I can see the idea of taxing the stuff heavily.  There needs to be some kind of incentive not to use it because otherwise what company is going to turn down using the cheaper shit that actually keeps you from getting as full as you would with "normal" fat and sugar?

TheMojoPin

12-05-2006, 12:04 PM

angrymissy wrote: Works for me, why use that artificial crap if you don't have to.  Just use butter.Mojo, I agree that High Fructose Corn syrup should be banned as well.  It's actually cheaper to use real sugar!  I try to avoid HFCS and it's really really hard to do without eating an organic diet.  It's even in regular bread.  I went to buy fresh baked bakery bread from my local supermarket and even that had HFCS in it. Exactly.HFCS and trans fats are almost everywhere, HFCS especially.  That crap is basically empty calories that don't fill you up as much as "regular" sugar.  You will actually eat more than your body needs and crave more by eating HFCS than using the "natural" stuff.  It's like the crack of food additives.  A lot of people are going to just be fat, period...but a lot of people are overweight in large part due to things like HFCS and trans fats because you can't easily or cheaply avoid them.

K.C.

12-05-2006, 12:37 PM

I bet there's some sweet money to be made now on the black market selling trans-fatty foods.Make a few bucks...cause a few heartattacks...sounds like a business I need to get into.

MadMatt

12-05-2006, 12:53 PM

I'm not arguing about the health benefits of getting rid or Trans Fats (personally, I think it's a good idea), I am completely oppossed to a legislative ban.  To be fair, I am not a fan of the government legislating what is essentially a behavior and personal choice in almost any situation.  Seatbelt laws and complete bans on public smoking infringe upon choices that an individual has a right to make.I'm not saying that there can't be some restrictions, but outright bans are rarely the way to go.  For example, smoking should be allowed in Cigar Clubs or other establishments that clearly publicize that smoking is an "expected" behavior within their walls.  Short of that, an establishment should be allowed to provide a physically separate, enclosed ("weatherproof"), and ventilated area especially for smokers.  Neither option is avalable in the current smoking ban and that is going too far (IMO).All things being equal, if consumers are informed about what they are doing/eating/etc. it should be a matter of personal preference and responsibility.  We have become a culture of babies unable or unwilling to take personal responsibility for our actions.  It is sad that we have become accustomed to such legislation. 

This message was edited by MadMatt on 12-5-06 @ 5:03 PM

MadMatt

12-05-2006, 01:00 PM

I missed another point - you are right, there should be viable, affordable, and readily available alternative products for people who don't want to eat products with Trans Fats.  As I mentioned earlier, I can go with taxes on the use of trans fats or subsidies for products that don't use trans fats (although I think that is a stickier wicket), but a ban on such products just isn't right IMO. Such decisions as to wether or not to eat trans fats should be up to the individual and ruled by the forces of supply and demand.  Evening the playing field is one issue, but removing a choice altogether via local legislation is another matter entirely.

SatCam

12-05-2006, 01:58 PM

the economy will suffer

TheMojoPin

12-05-2006, 02:02 PM

Using trans fats or HFCS has no effect on the consumer in terms of the quality or taste or whatever of their product.  It's just cheaper for the companies that make the food to use it.  You're not getting food that tastes different becauser of this...just food that's not as bad for you.  There's zero reason for anyone to WANT to have this stuff in their food unless they're running one of the companies that saves money because of it.The overall target of this ruling, the retsaurants, is all wrong.  It's just going to force restaurants to have to go to more difficult and expensive lengths to get the food.  With the companies, their options would be simple...use regular trans fats and sugars, which are still easily produced.  It costs more, but it's not a huge leap to switch over, comparatively speaking.  For the average restaurant or consumer, finding foods without trans fats or HFCS is much more difficult a task, and much more expensive.I agree with the intentions of this ban, but not the actual details.  The companies that actually put this shit in the food should be targeted, not the people who have to buy the food.

Bulldogcakes

12-05-2006, 03:55 PM

MadMatt wrote: I posted a link in the daily thread. The ban is ridiculous. Restaraunts have 6 months to replace trans fat cooking oils, shortening, etc., with a complete ban on the ingredients after 18 months.The govt has NO RIGHT to do this. I can see providing ingredient lists and amount/percentage/etc. of trans fats in the food being served so consumers are informed, but to ban a food product outright? Get the hell out of here! How about personal responsibility and eating in moderation? How can this be legal/constitutional?  Because local governments have wide lattitude to do whatever they feel like. Basically, they can fuck with you whenever they want. And if you dont like it, tough. Look at all the cameras following your every move, the smoking ban in bars and restaurants, Seat belt laws, etc, etc. Rememeber this the next time somebody on the Left tells you that big corporations have all the power in this country. Its exactly the opposite. Government does whatever they want and corporations are powerless to stop them. And if they dont like your business, they can and will put you out of business whenever they feel like. Liberals get this exactly backwards. Its not big Corporations that are a threat to out freedom, its Government.

CaptClown

12-05-2006, 03:57 PM

So when are they going to make sex illegal? Or better yet when are the plastic bubbles for people going to be made mandatory?

angrymissy

12-05-2006, 04:04 PM

But WHY use transfats when you have DELICIOUS butter ?

WRESTLINGFAN

12-05-2006, 04:05 PM

NYC has become a "Nanny City"

Bulldogcakes

12-05-2006, 04:06 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: angrymissy wrote: Works for me, why use that artificial crap if you don't have to. Just use butter.Mojo, I agree that High Fructose Corn syrup should be banned as well. It's actually cheaper to use real sugar! I try to avoid HFCS and it's really really hard to do without eating an organic diet. It's even in regular bread. I went to buy fresh baked bakery bread from my local supermarket and even that had HFCS in it. Exactly.HFCS and trans fats are almost everywhere, HFCS especially. That crap is basically empty calories that don't fill you up as much as "regular" sugar. You will actually eat more than your body needs and crave more by eating HFCS than using the "natural" stuff. It's like the crack of food additives. A lot of people are going to just be fat, period...but a lot of people are overweight in large part due to things like HFCS and trans fats because you can't easily or cheaply avoid them.First of all, there's no credible medical evidence saying HFCS is bad for you. Secondly the only reason why its cheaper (In my experience, it's not) is the Federal Government subsidizes corn heavily. I have a wholesale bakery, and 80 lb pails of corn syrup cost the same as sugar per pound. The reason why large manufacturers will use HFCS is it's already emulsified. You dont have to make a simple syrup (Heat sugar and water till boiling) you can simply add your flavors and water to the corn syrup. It eliminates a step.  Oh, BTW people are fat not because they eat fat, not because they eat sugar or HFCS. They're fat bacause they eat too much, and increasingly get less and less exercise. THere are no bad foods, just bad amounts of them. If you dont believe me, check out the French diet and their obesity rates.  Stop blaming the food, blame yourself.

lleeder

12-05-2006, 04:08 PM

angrymissy

12-05-2006, 04:14 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: angrymissy wrote: Works for me, why use that artificial crap if you don't have to. Just use butter.Mojo, I agree that High Fructose Corn syrup should be banned as well. It's actually cheaper to use real sugar! I try to avoid HFCS and it's really really hard to do without eating an organic diet. It's even in regular bread. I went to buy fresh baked bakery bread from my local supermarket and even that had HFCS in it. Exactly.HFCS and trans fats are almost everywhere, HFCS especially. That crap is basically empty calories that don't fill you up as much as "regular" sugar. You will actually eat more than your body needs and crave more by eating HFCS than using the "natural" stuff. It's like the crack of food additives. A lot of people are going to just be fat, period...but a lot of people are overweight in large part due to things like HFCS and trans fats because you can't easily or cheaply avoid them.First of all, there's no credible medical evidence saying HFCS is bad for you. Secondly the only reason why its cheaper (In my experience, it's not) is the Federal Government subsidizes corn heavily. I have a wholesale bakery, and 80 lb pails of corn syrup cost the same as sugar per pound. The reason why large manufacturers will use HFCS is it's already emulsified. You dont have to make a simple syrup (Heat sugar and water till boiling) you can simply add your flavors and water to the corn syrup. It eliminates a step.  Oh, BTW people are fat not because they eat fat, not because they eat sugar or HFCS. They're fat bacause they eat too much, and increasingly get less and less exercise. THere are no bad foods, just bad amounts of them. If you dont believe me, check out the French diet and their obesity rates. Stop blaming the food, blame yourself.   <ol><li>T<a href="http://www.ajcn.org/">he American Journal of Clinical Nutrition</a>: "<a href="http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/4/537">Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity</a>" </li><li><a href="http://www.ajcn.org/">The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition</a>:"<a href="http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/51/6/963">Effect of drinking soda sweetened with aspartame or high-fructose corn syrup on food intake and body weight</a>" </li><li><a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/">Journal of American Medicine Association</a>: "<a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/8/927?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fullt ext=%22High+Fructose+Corn+Syrup%22&searchid=113519 4929044_2908&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama">Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Weight Gain, and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Young and Middle-Aged Women</a>" </li></ol>

cougarjake13

12-05-2006, 04:17 PM

what are you in for ???i was caught with a banned substance.cocain, heroin ???nah trans fat

HBox

12-05-2006, 04:19 PM

If you dont believe me, check out the French diet and their obesity rates. And in France and pretty much all of Europe the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup isn't anywhere near as high-spread due to the fact that its cheaper to use sugar there.

angrymissy

12-05-2006, 04:20 PM

<a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/18/resolution2.pdf">http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/18/resolution2.pdf</a>RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association urge the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to require the food industry to use non-fructose sweeteners and limit the use of high fructose syrups in their products

Bulldogcakes

12-05-2006, 04:20 PM

I'll add this. The ban on trans fats will mean bakeries will have to replace shortening and margarine with butter and lard. MMmmmm lard. Lard is not as hard at room temperature as shortening is, so if your recipe calls for shortening in the icing, you'll have to add more sugar to make the cake work. Mmmmmm a cake thats too sweet. Or, if you shift completely to butter (I will) it costs 8 times what margarine does (and if you factor in increased demand, it will only go much higher now with this ban). So I'll have to raise the price of your product enormously, 50% higher for some items. Many of the companies I compete against are out of state bakeries who dont have the misfortune of being located in NY. Put yourself in the shoes of my customers, local cafe and restaurant owners. One guy shows up with cakes that are $25 each, and you can buy others at the wholesale market where you already shop for $14-$16. Who will you buy from? And other local wholesalers unwilling to raise prices will move over to NJ. Either way, I'm fucked. I cant move and wont be able to compete with the out of state bakeries. Thanks Mike. You already made your billions, now fuck the little guy.  And BTW- THis only applies to restaurants and bakeries. The trans fats will still be all over your local supermarkets and delicatessens in packaged items. Which is where most food sales occur. Alot of trouble for small restaurants and bakeries and little impact on public health. People will still be eating this stuff every day.      

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-5-06 @ 8:41 PM

HBox

12-05-2006, 04:26 PM

The more I read about this ban the more useless it seems.

Bulldogcakes

12-05-2006, 04:30 PM

angrymissy wrote: <a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/18/resolution2.pdf">http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/18/resolution2.pdf</a> RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association urge the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to require the food industry to use non-fructose sweeteners and limit the use of high fructose syrups in their products   The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/business/yourmoney/02syrup.html">takes a look at that question</a>  Many scientists say that there is little data to back up the demonization of high-fructose corn syrup, and that links between the crystalline goop and obesity are based upon misperceptions and unproved theories, or are simply coincidental. "There's no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity," said Dr. Walter Willett, the chairman of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health and a prominent proponent of healthy diets. "If there was no high-fructose corn syrup, I don't think we would see a change in anything important. I think there's this overreaction."Dr. Willett says that he is not defending high-fructose corn syrup as a healthy ingredient, but that he simply thinks that the product is no worse than the refined white sugar it replaces, since both offer easily consumed calories with no nutrients in them. High fructose corn syrup's possible link to obesity is the only specific health problem that the ingredient's critics have cited to date — and experts say they believe that this link is tenuous, at best.   And please dont post anything from nutritionists. They are the most full of shit people on the planet. They make Chiropractors look like real Doctors.

johnniewalker

12-05-2006, 04:35 PM

I'm with BDC, lets bring down the man.   I'm glad that people are taking an interest in liberty over a non-imminent safety argument for once.  It is possible for health and safety to be marginalized for liberty. If you are going to make a shift, subsidize the smaller eateries or all or from the artile do what Chicago did and limit the ban to eateries making over a certain amount. 

angrymissy

12-05-2006, 04:41 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: angrymissy wrote: <a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/18/resolution2.pdf">http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/18/resolution2.pdf</a> RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association urge the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to require the food industry to use non-fructose sweeteners and limit the use of high fructose syrups in their products   The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/business/yourmoney/02syrup.html">takes a look at that question</a>  Many scientists say that there is little data to back up the demonization of high-fructose corn syrup, and that links between the crystalline goop and obesity are based upon misperceptions and unproved theories, or are simply coincidental. "There's no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity," said Dr. Walter Willett, the chairman of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health and a prominent proponent of healthy diets. "If there was no high-fructose corn syrup, I don't think we would see a change in anything important. I think there's this overreaction."Dr. Willett says that he is not defending high-fructose corn syrup as a healthy ingredient, but that he simply thinks that the product is no worse than the refined white sugar it replaces, since both offer easily consumed calories with no nutrients in them. High fructose corn syrup's possible link to obesity is the only specific health problem that the ingredient's critics have cited to date — and experts say they believe that this link is tenuous, at best.  And please dont post anything from nutritionists. They are the most full of shit people on the planet. They make Chiropractors look like real Doctors.   Ummm, hello...... DID I JUST SEE BULLDOGCAKES QUOTE THE NEW YORK TIMESbutbutLIBERAL BIAS!!!!!

FUNKMAN

12-05-2006, 04:43 PM

when are they gonna get rid of fat trannys?... i got nuthin

Bulldogcakes

12-05-2006, 04:45 PM

angrymissy wrote:Ummm, hello...... DID I JUST SEE BULLDOGCAKES QUOTE THE NEW YORK TIMESbutbutLIBERAL BIAS!!!!! You've got the wrong guy. I SUBSCRIBE to the NY Times. And listen to WNYC daily. And yes, I'm conservative on most issues. If you think all conservatives are talk show host cartoon cut outs, you really should get out more often.

johnniewalker

12-05-2006, 04:46 PM

angrymissy wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: angrymissy wrote: <a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/18/resolution2.pdf">http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/18/resolution2.pdf</a> RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association urge the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to require the food industry to use non-fructose sweeteners and limit the use of high fructose syrups in their products   The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/business/yourmoney/02syrup.html">takes a look at that question</a> Many scientists say that there is little data to back up the demonization of high-fructose corn syrup, and that links between the crystalline goop and obesity are based upon misperceptions and unproved theories, or are simply coincidental. "There's no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity," said Dr. Walter Willett, the chairman of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health and a prominent proponent of healthy diets. "If there was no high-fructose corn syrup, I don't think we would see a change in anything important. I think there's this overreaction."Dr. Willett says that he is not defending high-fructose corn syrup as a healthy ingredient, but that he simply thinks that the product is no worse than the refined white sugar it replaces, since both offer easily consumed calories with no nutrients in them. High fructose corn syrup's possible link to obesity is the only specific health problem that the ingredient's critics have cited to date — and experts say they believe that this link is tenuous, at best. And please dont post anything from nutritionists. They are the most full of shit people on the planet. They make Chiropractors look like real Doctors. Ummm, hello...... DID I JUST SEE BULLDOGCAKES QUOTE THE NEW YORK TIMESbutbutLIBERAL BIAS!!!!! I don't think the Boise Weekly, or the Salt Lake Tribune are in the scope of this issue.

Bulldogcakes

12-05-2006, 04:47 PM

FUNKMAN wrote: when are they gonna get rid of fat trannys?... i got nuthinNothin? I loved that! I'm still laughing!

HBox

12-05-2006, 04:48 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: angrymissy wrote:Ummm, hello...... DID I JUST SEE BULLDOGCAKES QUOTE THE NEW YORK TIMESbutbutLIBERAL BIAS!!!!! You've got the wrong guy. I SUBSCRIBE to the NY Times. And listen to WNYC daily. And yes, I'm conservative on most issues. If you think all conservatives are talk show host cartoon cut outs, you really should get out more often. Shouldn't you be picketing an abortion clinic Churchie?

Bulldogcakes

12-05-2006, 04:51 PM

HBox wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: angrymissy wrote:Ummm, hello...... DID I JUST SEE BULLDOGCAKES QUOTE THE NEW YORK TIMESbutbutLIBERAL BIAS!!!!! You've got the wrong guy. I SUBSCRIBE to the NY Times. And listen to WNYC daily. And yes, I'm conservative on most issues. If you think all conservatives are talk show host cartoon cut outs, you really should get out more often. Shouldn't you be picketing an abortion clinic Churchie? Just got back. Whew its cold out there!! Its tough saving unnamed blobs of cells that aren't technically life yet.

angrymissy

12-05-2006, 04:58 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: angrymissy wrote: Ummm, hello...... DID I JUST SEE BULLDOGCAKES QUOTE THE NEW YORK TIMESbutbutLIBERAL BIAS!!!!! You've got the wrong guy. I SUBSCRIBE to the NY Times. And listen to WNYC daily. And yes, I'm conservative on most issues. If you think all conservatives are talk show host cartoon cut outs, you really should get out more often. I KEEEEEDDDDIIINNNGGG

TheMojoPin

12-05-2006, 05:02 PM

And BTW- THis only applies to restaurants and bakeries. The trans fats will still be all over your local supermarkets and delicatessens in packaged items. Which is where most food sales occur. Alot of trouble for small restaurants and bakeries and little impact on public health. People will still be eating this stuff every day.I agree.  Like I already said, this new ruling hits the wrong people...restaurants and stores like yours are ultimately in the same spot as the average consumer...it's exceedingly difficult and expensive to avoid food with these ingredients.  If there's going to be any rulings, it should be on a much larger level hitting the companies and distributers that are basically giving you foods with trans fats and HFCS as almost the only options on a "normal" budget on pretty much any scale.  I look at as if what would be done if a common food preservative was found to significantly and dangerously increase your risk of getting cancer...it would be ruled unsafe for consumption and use in our food.  It's not like the government is actually telling you to eat certain foods...they're just keeping their eye on what's put into it and whether or not it's actually safe for us.  Isn't that why we have the FDA?And I agree that the ultimate way to not be fat is to exercise self-control...I already said that.  That said, however, you look at when things like trans fats and HFCS started to be used in nearly everything we eat here and you see some disturbing correlations.  Like I already stated, getting rid of both won't magically get rid of fat people, but I think it would be a safe bet to see obesity overall start declining very significantly.  You cannot underestimate how hard it these things make it for people to be "full."  People eat and eat and want more, much more than they would with "regular" fats and sugars...it's a brilliant marketing ploy when you get right down to it.

Bulldogcakes

12-05-2006, 05:17 PM

TheMojoPin wrote:If there's going to be any rulings, it should be on a much larger level hitting the companies and distributers that are basically giving you foods with trans fats and HFCS as almost the only options on a "normal" budget on pretty much any scale. I look at as if what would be done if a common food preservative was found to significantly and dangerously increase your risk of getting cancer...it would be ruled unsafe for consumption and use in our food. It's not like the government is actually telling you to eat certain foods...they're just keeping their eye on what's put into it and whether or not it's actually safe for us. Isn't that why we have the FDA? Despite my obvious opposition to this ban, I agree that trans fats are clearly bad for your health. Nobody can argue otherwise. I would gladly choose a trans fat free margarine and shortening if one existed. So far, I've only seen one company advertise a "Trans fat free" product. If others follow, there will be little disruption to most businesses. If not, guys like me are screwed. AS far as doing something on a larger scale, its my understanding you start running into issues about interstate commerce if you try to. Maybe the FDA can do it, I really dont know.      And I agree that the ultimate way to not be fat is to exercise self-control...I already said that. That said, however, you look at when things like trans fats and HFCS started to be used in nearly everything we eat here and you see some disturbing correlations. Like I already stated, getting rid of both won't magically get rid of fat people, but I think it would be a safe bet to see obesity overall start declining very significantly. You cannot underestimate how hard it these things make it for people to be "full." People eat and eat and want more, much more than they would with "regular" fats and sugars...it's a brilliant marketing ploy when you get right down to it.Do you actually believe that getting rid of trans fats will make obesity rates drop? Even the most optimistic proponents of this plan have no such dreams. This is about cardiovascular health, trans fats raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol. Thats it.

FUNKMAN

12-05-2006, 05:25 PM

first the trans am, now the trans fat, WHAT"S NEXT! it's a madhouse

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 05:55 PM

Another clear violation of individual rights by the government. If public health is the concern of the government, then why not mandate that everyone exercise daily, perhaps, a half an hour for healthy people, maybe a couple of hours for obese individuals, or those at risk of heart disease, etc. Too extreme, you say? Once we give the fuckers an inch by defaulting on principle, then it's deuces wild, and the end result: dictatorship. At least we'll all be healthy, right? 

Bulldogcakes

12-05-2006, 06:08 PM

laissezfaire wrote:  I love your name. It only exists one place on earth. Hong Kong.

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 06:31 PM

Would that were the case, Bulldogcakes, I would have moved years ago. They are moving in the right direction, however.

epo

12-05-2006, 06:35 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Rememeber this the next time somebody on the Left tells you that big corporations have all the power in this country. Its exactly the opposite. Government does whatever they want and corporations are powerless to stop them. And if they dont like your business, they can and will put you out of business whenever they feel like. Liberals get this exactly backwards. Its not big Corporations that are a threat to out freedom, its Government.    When the corporations control a majority of the politicians in office, it's the corporations that are the problem.  I'll believe otherwise when we move to publicly funded elections.

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 06:39 PM

If the politicians violate the rights (i.e., other individuals' freedom to action) of American citizens, then it is, ultimately, the politicians' fault whether they are influenced by Big Business, Big Jesus, Big Environment, etc.

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 06:43 PM

Publically funded elections just means that I'm expropriated and that those expropriated funds go towards candidates which I do not, necessarily, support. 

TheMojoPin

12-05-2006, 06:45 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Do you actually believe that getting rid of trans fats will make obesity rates drop? Even the most optimistic proponents of this plan have no such dreams. This is about cardiovascular health, trans fats raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol. Thats it.  Yes, I do.  Yet again, getting rid of trans fats and HFCS isn't going to get rid of fat people...reducing obesity rates is different from that and not as dramatic.  I guess it would be more accurate to say that "a lot of fat people would be less fat."  Some people are just going to be lazy and unhealthy no matter what.  But do we need the added uphill battle of trans fats and HFCS that's going to make people evn fatter?  That'll just lead to more widespread serious medical problems that put a burden on our healthcare system and makes that even more expensive.And yes, I realize this makes me a total hypocrite with my arguments against the scope of recent anti-smoking legislation.  I can't have it both ways.  If I support this, I really can't bitch about new laws against public smoking.

TheMojoPin

12-05-2006, 06:49 PM

laissezfaire wrote: Another clear violation of individual rights by the government. If public health is the concern of the government, then why not mandate that everyone exercise daily, perhaps, a half an hour for healthy people, maybe a couple of hours for obese individuals, or those at risk of heart disease, etc. Too extreme, you say? Once we give the fuckers an inch by defaulting on principle, then it's deuces wild, and the end result: dictatorship. At least we'll all be healthy, right?  This isn't nearly as sweeping as your melodramatics imply.  Again, I see the mentality of banning ingredients like this as similar to banning something used commonly that's found to cause high rates of certain diseases amongst people.  That's why we have agencies like the FDA.  It's not like the government ruling on the shit we ingest is something new...we have agencies like the FDA for a reason.And why are people talking like they're being deprived of food here?  You can still eat whatever you want and have it taste exactly the same...nobody is banning junk food.  It's ideally a step towards banning or at least regulating ingredients in the foods that makes them even worse, or keeps "good" food from truly being good for you.  The food itself, by and large, will be the same if they switch back to using "regular" fats and sugars.

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 06:50 PM

The fundamental question Mojo is, should the government dictate a person's health status (Congrats for acknowledging the contradiction in your argument)?

johnniewalker

12-05-2006, 06:52 PM

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 06:57 PM

The FDA is fundamentally anti-constitutional, in that the premise it is founded upon is that food and/or medicine producers are guilty until proven innocent, i.e., preventive law, which is the antithesis of our Constitution's intentions (although I could find a number of flaws with the Consitution, I still regard any regulation as economically unnecessary and immoral--and no not accordinging to Christian morality, but by holding man's life as the standard of value).

TheMojoPin

12-05-2006, 06:58 PM

laissezfaire wrote: The fundamental question Mojo is, should the government dictate a person's health status (Congrats for acknowledging the contradiction in your argument)? In what capacity?  Because I don't see that happening here at all in ANY capacity.  It's basically saying "this is bad for you no matter who you are and what your health is and it serves no real purpose in how the average consumer enjoys their food so it's gone."

johnniewalker

12-05-2006, 06:59 PM

TheMojoPin

12-05-2006, 07:03 PM

laissezfaire wrote: The FDA is fundamentally anti-constitutional, in that the premise it is founded upon is that food and/or medicine producers are guilty until proven innocent, i.e., preventive law, which is the antithesis of our Constitution's intentions (although I could find a number of flaws with the Consitution, I still regard any regulation as economically unnecessary and immoral--and no not accordinging to Christian morality, but by holding man's life as the standard of value). So you don't even think that something like the FDA is a "necessary evil?"  Have you read about the things that inspired it being founded?  People were literally putting anything they wanted to into the food products Americans consumed.Saying that attempting to prevent really hamrful shit from being put into our consumables is "anti-constitutional" is really taking the constitution to an absurdly literal level.While flagrant abuses of the constitution need to be stopped, this country has found that strictly adhering to the document verbatim in every situation was and is impossible.  Washington, Adams and Jefferson all had to find ways to "tweek" the interpretation of the wording of the constitution as the country changed and expanded, and they were just the first three guys running the show.  The constitution is not a static document, nor was it ever meant to be.

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 07:05 PM

In the same capacity, Mojo, that they ban smoking in "public" places (even though, these are of course privately owned properties). As I have intimated previously, if you support in any degree that the government can violate the rights of its citizens in any way, then you agree, whether implicitly or explicitly, that the government has the "right" to infringe upon free choice and action.

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 07:07 PM

Why is "evil," i.e., that which is against life, necessary to human life?

TheMojoPin

12-05-2006, 07:09 PM

laissezfaire wrote: In the same capacity, Mojo, that they ban smoking in "public" places (even though, these are of course privately owned properties). As I have intimated previously, if you support in any degree that the government can violate the rights of its citizens in any way, then you agree, whether implicitly or explicitly, that the government has the "right" to infringe upon free choice and action. You're trying to break it down into an all or nothing approach that isn't applicable to real life.

johnniewalker

12-05-2006, 07:09 PM

laissezfaire wrote: In the same capacity, Mojo, that they ban smoking in "public" places (even though, these are of course privately owned properties). As I have intimated previously, if you support in any degree that the government can violate the rights of its citizens in any way, then you agree, whether implicitly or explicitly, that the government has the "right" to infringe upon free choice and action. We've always said that, form the beginning of the consititution.  You are absolutely right in characterizing it as a "right" to infringe upon free choice and action.  The justification is that absolute liberty is harmful.

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 07:09 PM

Laws, according to you Mojo, shouldn't be literal and objective? They should simply change based upon the feelings, intuitions, etc. of the interpreter(s)?

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 07:11 PM

How is absolute liberty, i.e., the right to act freely so long as you respect the rights of others, a harm to others? I have never heard a rational defense of such a position.

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 07:14 PM

If life isn't all or nothing (one extreme to one extreme), then how does one arrive at the concepts of "compromise" or "middle-of-the-road" without the extremes on which those concepts genetically depend?

johnniewalker

12-05-2006, 07:18 PM

laissezfaire wrote: How is absolute liberty, i.e., the right to act freely so long as you respect the rights of others, a harm to others? I have never heard a rational defense of such a position.  I'll give you answers to both1. No laws need not always be literal and objective. At some level we are a majoritarian politcal system, unless there is an interest such as freedom of speech. So yes we can have laws based on feelings and emotions, which in other words are morals and traditions. Try codifying the rationales of laws based on diversity or culture literally and objectively. 2. Child labor is an example of absolute freedom of government regulation 

This message was edited by johnniewalker on 12-5-06 @ 11:19 PM

laissezfaire

12-05-2006, 07:27 PM

Why is freedom of speech an absolute, according to you premise. After all, the majority can decide what is right and wrong (e.g., Nazi Germany). Secondly, child labor, which I would like you to define, went out following the Industrial Revolution in this country. One needs only to look at Third World countries to see child labor persisting, and why it is necessary to the survival of the child. To say that one must restrict "absolute liberty" is a contradiction for it means the government has the right to infringe upon rights. I've enjoyed the discussion, guys (and gals, if applicable), but I've got to get some sleep for classes tomorrow. If I have some time and the thread is still open, I'll definitely post responses tomorrow. All this fuss over trans fat :)

HBox

12-05-2006, 07:56 PM

laissezfaire wrote: How is absolute liberty, i.e., the right to act freely so long as you respect the rights of others, a harm to others? I have never heard a rational defense of such a position. That is completly open to interpretation. In this example people selling and the people consuming trans fat are responsible for harming others. Trans fat is raising incidents of heart disease that would otherwise not happen. That costs us all whether one has insurance or not. If a person develops heart disease from trans fat and they have insurance those insurance rates go up. If that person does not have insurance we all pay anyway through higher hospital bills or higher taxes. It harms employers as well in lost productivity and their share of the higher insurance rates.I have a feeling I know where you're going to go with this, though.

TheMojoPin

12-06-2006, 05:59 AM

laissezfaire wrote: Laws, according to you Mojo, shouldn't be literal and objective? They should simply change based upon the feelings, intuitions, etc. of the interpreter(s)? The basis of them, yes.  But I'm also a realist and realize the socieites and perspectives that create a law at one time are not necessarily going to be as absolutely appicable down the line because society changes.  That's why something like the constitution was purposely designed to be a flexible document...they're not called "ammendments" for no reason.  Yes, there are some basic absolutes in common laws (murder is bad, etc.), but trying to argue that the government maybe eventually banning something like trans fats is a blatant violation of the tennants of the consititution is going out of your way to take it as blinders on-literally as possible.Let me put it this way...if the banning is with the idea that it'll make it easier and cheaper for people to buy healthy food when the current system makes it exceedingly difficult and expensive to find foods without things like trans fats and HFCS, why is that such a terrible thing?  You're arguing that it's the "right" of the people to eat the unhealthiest food possible, and I do agree with that.  Getting rid of trans fats doesn't get rid of unhealthy food.  It would just make finding healthier foods easier and less expensive.  Isn't that a better solution?  The people who want food that's bad for you can still get it and afford it and the people that don't want it now have more options and don't have to spend as much.  Middle of the ground...a compromise...not an absolute in either direction because the government is not banning unhealthy food or making anyone exercise or any of the things you declared in your first post in this thread.  This isn't preventing "the people" from getting what they want because there are legitimate alternatives out there that potentially can satisfy all sides.  There doesn't need to be an absolute here.

ralphbxny

12-06-2006, 06:05 AM

This is going to help about 5% of the people. Most eat so much crap it aint going to help much!

FUNKMAN

12-06-2006, 06:10 AM

they should just make the trans fat eaters eat outside with the smokers

TooCute

12-06-2006, 06:26 AM

Yes, I'm sorry that it's all the restaurant owners and people like bulldogcakes
who are getting the shaft here, and that in the end this kind of legislation
won't make a huge difference in the amount of trans fats that people
consume.

But stop getting all upset about big brother legislation and blah blah blah -
it's not limiting my ability to eat transfats if I want to. It's just limiting the
ability of people to put poison in my food. Are we going to get all pissy at
legislation that says you can't put E. coli in tacos?

FUNKMAN

12-06-2006, 07:03 AM

TooCute wrote:  we going to get all pissy at legislation that says you can't put E. coli in tacos? is it just me or did that sound just a little hot?

johnniewalker

12-06-2006, 07:34 AM

laissezfaire wrote: Why is freedom of speech an absolute, according to you premise. After all, the majority can decide what is right and wrong (e.g., Nazi Germany). Secondly, child labor, which I would like you to define, went out following the Industrial Revolution in this country. One needs only to look at Third World countries to see child labor persisting, and why it is necessary to the survival of the child. To say that one must restrict "absolute liberty" is a contradiction for it means the government has the right to infringe upon rights. I've enjoyed the discussion, guys (and gals, if applicable), but I've got to get some sleep for classes tomorrow. If I have some time and the thread is still open, I'll definitely post responses tomorrow. All this fuss over trans fat <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smile.gif" border="0" />  I didn't know if you were being difficult, but your argument is an interesting one.   Well, there is no absolute general rights, the general right of freedom of speech is bounded.  I used the word interest before because right attached to something that general doesn't properly define how our bill of rights is interpreted.  Majorities can decide what is right and wrong that's why interests are there to protect minorities.  Its a limited democracy.    Also I'm not quite sure we are using the same definition of absolute.  You asked why can't we have absolute liberty and why can't people just respect the rights of others.  You are implying that people know a set of rights of others, even if you assume that the bounds of their rights and democracy are going to inevitably conflict.  Why you fell out of favor laissezfaire, was b/c of, WWII, and how minorities and majorities interact, and secondly, ecominically,  the great depression.  It brings up a good point, but I think this is a restriction in a grey area up for discussion.

A.J.

12-06-2006, 08:14 AM

FUNKMAN wrote: they should just make the trans fat eaters eat outside with the smokers Only if they are required to pay sin taxes like we are.

FUNKMAN

12-06-2006, 08:17 AM

A.J. wrote: FUNKMAN wrote: they should just make the trans fat eaters eat outside with the smokers Only if they are required to pay sin taxes like we are.i like it

Yerdaddy

12-06-2006, 08:20 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: I'll add this. The ban on trans fats will mean bakeries will have to replace shortening and margarine with butter and lard. MMmmmm lard. Lard is not as hard at room temperature as shortening is, so if your recipe calls for shortening in the icing, you'll have to add more sugar to make the cake work. Mmmmmm a cake thats too sweet. Or, if you shift completely to butter (I will) it costs 8 times what margarine does (and if you factor in increased demand, it will only go much higher now with this ban). So I'll have to raise the price of your product enormously, 50% higher for some items. Many of the companies I compete against are out of state bakeries who dont have the misfortune of being located in NY. Put yourself in the shoes of my customers, local cafe and restaurant owners. One guy shows up with cakes that are $25 each, and you can buy others at the wholesale market where you already shop for $14-$16. Who will you buy from? And other local wholesalers unwilling to raise prices will move over to NJ. Either way, I'm fucked. I cant move and wont be able to compete with the out of state bakeries. Thanks Mike. You already made your billions, now fuck the little guy.  And BTW- THis only applies to restaurants and bakeries. The trans fats will still be all over your local supermarkets and delicatessens in packaged items. Which is where most food sales occur. Alot of trouble for small restaurants and bakeries and little impact on public health. People will still be eating this stuff every day.     This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-5-06 @ 8:41 PM On the issue of this ban on trans fat, I side with Bulldogcakes. I think the ban is a mistake because of his reasons cited above. He's the expert and, by accident, I found other experts confirming what he wrote above. By accident, I mean I read where he posted a head of Harvard nutrition and then denounced nutritionists. This guy's more than just a nutritionist, obviously, but I googled him to see if I could find a reference to him as a nutritionist so I could make fun. Wouldn't that be hysterical! Well, instead of me posting an awful jab at BDC I found this guy's interview for a Frontline piece. I read it, then read the others. Here's some of what's relevant to this debate:<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/interviews/willett.html" target="_blank">Walter Willett is professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School</a> [QUOTE]How is the simplification -- eat less fat -- manifest in this food guide pyramid?Well, the food guide pyramid that was developed in 1991 really is based on the idea that all fat is bad. Therefore [if] fat is bad, and you have to eat something, carbohydrate must be wonderful. So the base of the pyramid is really emphasizing large amounts of starch in the diet. We're told we can eat up to 11 servings a day, and if that wasn't enough starch, the pyramid puts potatoes along with the vegetables, so you can have up to 13 servings a day. That's a huge amount of starch.<img src="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/art/blank.gif" border="0" width="10" height="12" /> Where's fat?Fat's up at the top of the pyramid, and where it says explicitly "fats and oils, use sparingly." It doesn't make any distinction about the type of fat, and it tells us to eat basically as little as possible. <img src="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/art/blank.gif" border="0" width="10" height="12" /> From a

TheMojoPin

12-06-2006, 10:02 AM

Yeah, it sucks because I support the idea of using less trans fats and HFCS, but you guys are right in that this ban does nothting except hurt restaurants and small business owners.  It doesn't really address what I'm arguing for and does little for the consumer.  It just fucks over guys like BDC.

Uncle Smokey

12-06-2006, 10:19 AM

BDC are most of your customers located in NY?  If that's the case, then how are you at a competitive disadvantage with out of state wholesalers?   Everyone, even out of state bakers, is going to have to provide NY businesses with transfat free products, because from what I'm led to gather, restaurants will not be permitted to sell them otherwise.   It's not like a cafe in Bklyn is going to be able to pick and choose between your product and a cheaper, transfat shortened product from Hoboken.  It will be illegal for them to sell that in a NY restaurant.

phixion

12-06-2006, 12:10 PM

[QUOTE][child labor, which I would like you to define, went out following the Industrial Revolution in this country/QUOTE]are you high? while there are no exact dates we'll say the american industrial revoluton ended during reconstruction i can argue that it ended just before the civil war but ill be conservative and say during reconstruction. we'll say 1870. and child labor ended on a grand scale during the Great Depression. so easily thats 60 years of child labor in an industrialized america.  back to transfats yeah it sucks for the small guy like bulldogcakes yeah im sorry its gonna cost you more money, but its also gonna cost any busines man more money who doesnt have enough fire exits or a sprinkler system or enough ventilation. i mean it sucks that its gonna cost you more per order or whatever but think about it liek this. those customers will be alivelonger thus buying more shit off you and hopefuly itlll even out in the end. and you want to compare french diets? how aobut german diets. red  meat and cabbage and beer in some form or another yet they have obesity rates quite similar to france. and id rather have meat cooked in beer than fuckin snails.

Bulldogcakes

12-06-2006, 05:01 PM

epo wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Rememeber this the next time somebody on the Left tells you that big corporations have all the power in this country. Its exactly the opposite. Government does whatever they want and corporations are powerless to stop them. And if they dont like your business, they can and will put you out of business whenever they feel like. Liberals get this exactly backwards. Its not big Corporations that are a threat to out freedom, its Government.  When the corporations control a majority of the politicians in office, it's the corporations that are the problem. I'll believe otherwise when we move to publicly funded elections. #1-If you dont like a companies policy, you are FREE to shop elsewhere. Literally thousands of other options. If you dont like your governments policies, you still have to follow them, or risk jail. So you will do as your told, like the little serf you are.  #2-If companies weren't able to influence policy by buying their way in, they (and anyone else with money) would not exist for very long. Its the worlds simplest political equation. The rich are by definition 1% or less of the population. Corprations aren't even that, no corporation can vote in any election. If I were a politician, who makes his living getting elected, I'd demonize the 1% and tell the other 99% that they're getting screwed by them. "Vote for me I'll fix that nasty 1%" and I'll win alot of elections that way.   #3-Corporations want to run their businesses, not take sides in partisan politics. If they find it necessary to buy in to politics, its because their business is being threatened in some way. New law, new regulation. Who do you think has the power in that relationship? A politician has the platform to ruin a companies good name, sick the justice department after them, and fine them out of existence. What can a company do, except fund his opponent? Even then, incumbants tend to win almost always, so thats not much of a threat in most elections.    You sir, are lost.

Bulldogcakes

12-06-2006, 05:12 PM

johnniewalker wrote: laissezfaire wrote: The fundamental question Mojo is, should the government dictate a person's health status (Congrats for acknowledging the contradiction in your argument)? Laissefaire we haven't seen you since 1928, where have you been? Fixed that for you. It makes me laugh when people act like we still have it today. Ask any CEO that question, if you dont mind him laughing in your face.

HBox

12-06-2006, 05:23 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: johnniewalker wrote: laissezfaire wrote: The fundamental question Mojo is, should the government dictate a person's health status (Congrats for acknowledging the contradiction in your argument)? Laissefaire we haven't seen you since 1928, where have you been? Fixed that for you. It makes me laugh when people act like we still have it today. Ask any CEO that question, if you dont mind him laughing in your face.  That's completely incidental though. He was laughing before you asked him and he'll be laughing afterwards seeing as he's swimming in a pool of hundred dollar bills.

Bulldogcakes

12-06-2006, 05:41 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: By accident, I mean I read where he posted a head of Harvard nutrition and then denounced nutritionists. FUCK! That son of a bitch doesn't let me get away with ANYTHING!!!!The rest of his post, however, is required reading for anyone interested in this subject. Again I want to reiterate. I DONT want to use these products. The last thing I want to do is damage anyone's health. My head baker has a cholesterol problem, I'm well aware of what trans fats are and why they're bad for you. But this ban is heavy handed, accomplishes little, and will only serve to puttting guys like me out of business. IF the Mayors claim is true, and there's NO reason for major manufacturers to use these (and I've yet to find ANYTHING suporting that claim, and tons of evidence that there's no other way to make margarine and shortening). If they will be able to make margarine and shortening without any trans fats, and I will be able to purchase them then I'll have no problem. If those products dont start showing up at the wholesalers, then I'm fucked.

Uncle Smokey

12-06-2006, 06:36 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: #1-If you dont like a companies policy, you are FREE to shop elsewhere. Literally thousands of other options. If you dont like your governments policies, you still have to follow them, or risk jail. So you will do as your told, like the little serf you are. #2-If companies weren't able to influence policy by buying their way in, they (and anyone else with money) would not exist for very long. Its the worlds simplest political equation. The rich are by definition 1% or less of the population. Corprations aren't even that, no corporation can vote in any election. If I were a politician, who makes his living getting elected, I'd demonize the 1% and tell the other 99% that they're getting screwed by them. "Vote for me I'll fix that nasty 1%" and I'll win alot of elections that way.   #3-Corporations want to run their businesses, not take sides in partisan politics. If they find it necessary to buy in to politics, its because their business is being threatened in some way. New law, new regulation. Who do you think has the power in that relationship? A politician has the platform to ruin a companies good name, sick the justice department after them, and fine them out of existence. What can a company do, except fund his opponent? Even then, incumbants tend to win almost always, so thats not much of a threat in most elections.    You sir, are lost.  Do you even read this shit before you post it?  In order:#1  Has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  Telling someone to "shop elsewhere" does absolutely nothing to stem the tide of corporate money  influenced rollbacks in environmental regulations, steering of  defense contracts or massive agribusiness subsidies to name just a few of the literally numberless areas where corporate money has corrupted American politics. #2 Is an out and out defense of bribery.  "If the simple facts of my case aren't good enough, I'll have to buy my way in or I won't last very long. "   Bullshit.   The fact that the very rich constitute a small fraction of our population is precisely why they should have small fraction of influence.  That's how democracy is meant to work.  What you're advocating is a plutocracy where people's (and corporations') interests and opinions are proportionally more valuable because of how much cash they can lay on the table.  #3 Corporations are doing a hell of a lot more than defending their interests when their businesses are being "threatened in some way"  by big bad politicians.   They buy influence on every level of government and are often remunerated out of the taxpayers' pocket.  Let me ask you, is Wal-mart struggling to survive when it throws massive amounts of "issue advertising" and soft money into a local election to build a store in a community against local opposition?  Are they threatened in some way when they then go on the dole for property tax breaks, recruitment and training funds, road and highway funds, public assistance for its poverty level workers, and dozens of other forms of governmental largesse?  If you think it's the policy makers with the power here, you're out of your head.  Taxpayers are getting worked both ways and you're cheerleading from the sidelines because somehow you've managed to equate wealth with virtue and entitlement.

Bulldogcakes

12-07-2006, 05:08 PM

Uncle Smokey wrote:Do you even read this shit before you post it? In order:#1 Has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Telling someone to "shop elsewhere" does absolutely nothing to stem the tide of corporate money influenced rollbacks in environmental regulations, steering of defense contracts or massive agribusiness subsidies to name just a few of the literally numberless areas where corporate money has corrupted American politics. What? "Nothing to do with the issue at hand" and then you start talking about ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS/DEFENSE CONTRACTS/FARM SUBSIDIES ?? You cant be serious. This is a thread about trans fats. Here's a hint for posting. Try of thinking what a sane person might say in response. It may help your arguments.   #2 Is an out and out defense of bribery. "If the simple facts of my case aren't good enough, I'll have to buy my way in or I won't last very long. " Bullshit. The fact that the very rich constitute a small fraction of our population is precisely why they should have small fraction of influence. That's how democracy is meant to work. What you're advocating is a plutocracy where people's (and corporations') interests and opinions are proportionally more valuable because of how much cash they can lay on the table. Its not bribery, its called DEMOCRACY. Everyone is allowed to petition/lobby their government, its right there in the first ammendment. That includes Corporations whose businesses may be affected by legislation. And the general public has no idea about how to run the complicated matters of high finance, and its further proven by how clueless your post is. Good policy is made with everyone affected at the table/hearings. What you're is advocating is absurd. We are not a pure democracy. We are a Representative Republic. We vote for people we hope are smart enough to deal with the complicated issues of the country and the public keeps score. If things are going well, they get re-elected. If you want to see the results of pure democracy, look at the ballot and initiatives they have in California, and what a mess that states finances are. If you want to see the results of anti-business attitudes like yours, look at NYC of the 1970's and Great Britian in the early 80's. "Plutocracy"? Because I think Business has every right to be part of the political process? Politicians have a zillion reasons to advocate for the public interest, having a few reasons to listen to the businesses that are affected doesn't make us a Plutocracy. Really, you sound like a knee jerk talking like that.     #3 Corporations are doing a hell of a lot more than defending their interests when their businesses are being "threatened in some way" by big bad politicians. They buy influence on every level of government and are often remunerated out of the taxpayers' pocket. Let me ask you, is Wal-mart struggling to survive when it throws massive amounts of "issue advertising" and soft money into a local election to build a store in a community against local opposition? Are they threatened in some way when they then go on the dole for property tax breaks, recruitment and training funds, road and highway funds, public assistance for its poverty level workers, and dozens of other forms of governmental largesse? If you think it's the policy makers with the power here, you're out of your head. Taxpayers are getting worked both ways and you're cheerleading from the sidelines because somehow you've managed to equate wealth with virtue and entitlement.    No, I equate wealth with wealth. Entitlement with entitlement and virtue with virtue. I'm not the fuzzy

Uncle Smokey

12-07-2006, 08:24 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: What? "Nothing to do with the issue at hand" and then you start talking about ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS/DEFENSE CONTRACTS/FARM SUBSIDIES ?? You cant be serious. This is a thread about trans fats. Here's a hint for posting. Try of thinking what a sane person might say in response. It may help your arguments.   Here's a hint for posting: read your own posts on the same page of this thread before you presume to tell me what the thread is about.  Look, the really GOOD parts are even highlighted. epo wrote:Bulldogcakes wrote: [quote]Rememeber this the next time somebody on the Left tells you that big corporations have all the power in this country. Its exactly the opposite. Government does whatever they want and corporations are powerless to stop them. And if they dont like your business, they can and will put you out of business whenever they feel like. Liberals get this exactly backwards. Its not big Corporations that are a threat to out freedom, its Government.  When the corporations control a majority of the politicians in office, it's the corporations that are the problem. I'll believe otherwise when we move to publicly funded elections. #1-If you dont like a companies policy, you are FREE to shop elsewhere  My original point stands.  The relationship between government and business is infinitely more nuanced and far reaching than a company's policy statement.  Telling people to "shop elsewhere" is perfectly irrelevant to the examples I cited and dozens more like them.    Its not bribery, its called DEMOCRACY. Everyone is allowed to petition/lobby their government, its right there in the first ammendment. That includes Corporations whose businesses may be affected by legislation. And the general public has no idea about how to run the complicated matters of high finance, and its further proven by how clueless your post is. Good policy is made with everyone affected at the table/hearings. What you're is advocating is absurd. We are not a pure democracy. We are a Representative Republic. We vote for people we hope are smart enough to deal with the complicated issues of the country and the public keeps score. If things are going well, they get re-elected. If you want to see the results of pure democracy, look at the ballot and initiatives they have in California, and what a mess that states finances are. If you want to see the results of anti-business attitudes like yours, look at NYC of the 1970's and Great Britian in the early 80's. "Plutocracy"? Because I think Business has every right to be part of the political process? Politicians have a zillion reasons to advocate for the public interest, having a few reasons to listen to the businesses that are affected doesn't make us a Plutocracy. Really, you sound like a knee jerk talking like that. [quote]  See one of the nice things I did was to provide you examples of the points of yours I was refuting.   Saves on bullshit.   For example, how about you show me anyplace in my posts where I so much as hinted or intimated that corporations or wealthy individuals should not have a voice in government.  Go ahead, I'll wait.........Can't find any? You know why? Because I never said it.  What I said specifically was that wealthy individuals and corporations should not be able to purchase DISPROPORTIONATE access and influence.  And the reason I said that was precisely because we live in a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC as you feel the need to point out.&