That's what I'd like to know. And since they might basically have fat equivalents (substitutes) that taste, more or less, the same - what the hell is the problem?Turquoise wrote:
Let me clarify. Trans fats are not a necessary component for most foods. They were created to improve the shelf life of various products before other preservatives with less adverse effects came into existence.Kmarion wrote:
You should ban skate boarding, water skiing, skydiving, polka dancing, bubble baths.. all things that can cause serious injury and send you to the community hospital.S.Lythberg wrote:
but the hospital visits come out of my (and your) tax dollars, especially in California, where a large percentage of the population is on government health plans
Banning restaurants from using trans fats only forces them to use alternatives that are healthier. How is this a bad thing?
i have a source that says you fist sheepTurquoise wrote:
I have a source that says you're an idiot. You'll have to look it up though.usmarine2 wrote:
stfu. do your own damn workHurricaИe wrote:
Source?
how terrible of me, I think I'll go cut myself nowKmarion wrote:
Is that what you do here? Sit on the sideline and watch the real debate waiting for the opportunity to scream out source? Try contributing.
Okey dokey - but no, solyent green is a better alternative cure to all our social ills.Kmarion wrote:
I'm glad I'm amusing you. It seems rather easy to do. You suggest my comparisons are being outrageous and yet you just compared arsenic with trans fats? There are people who have lived a hundred of years on a diet of nothing but trans fats..lol. Why don't you try that with arsenic. If someone wants to intentionally ingest arsenic go for it comrade.. seriously. That should cut down on the tax payers burden.topal63 wrote:
Double LOL, now eating trans fat constitutes a lifestyle? I mean if they put arsenic in food because it was sort of tasty and someone came up with a substitute - you'ld be against banning arsenic in food served to the public. Just because the effects are accumulated over time doesn't mean it can't be a poison to your body (in this case to heart health among other things).
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-26 12:38:16)
I never should've let that farmhand watch....usmarine2 wrote:
i have a source that says you fist sheepTurquoise wrote:
I have a source that says you're an idiot. You'll have to look it up though.usmarine2 wrote:
stfu. do your own damn work
Which is why these things are usually worked out without government interference. The consumers demand it. Can you not make a responsible choice between restaurants? If the restaurants are being dishonest and are not disclosing what is in their dishes than I would have a problem.Turquoise wrote:
Let me clarify. Trans fats are not a necessary component for most foods. They were created to improve the shelf life of various products before other preservatives with less adverse effects came into existence.Kmarion wrote:
You should ban skate boarding, water skiing, skydiving, polka dancing, bubble baths.. all things that can cause serious injury and send you to the community hospital.S.Lythberg wrote:
but the hospital visits come out of my (and your) tax dollars, especially in California, where a large percentage of the population is on government health plans
Banning restaurants from using trans fats only forces them to use alternatives that are healthier. How is this a bad thing?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
But what if 'the consumers' demanded that the government impose a regulation (included in the health code for the restaurants) that restricted the use of trans fats?Kmarion wrote:
Which is why these things are usually worked out without government interference. The consumers demand it. Can you not make a responsible choice between restaurants? If the restaurants are being dishonest and are not disclosing what is in their dishes than I would have a problem.Turquoise wrote:
Let me clarify. Trans fats are not a necessary component for most foods. They were created to improve the shelf life of various products before other preservatives with less adverse effects came into existence.Kmarion wrote:
You should ban skate boarding, water skiing, skydiving, polka dancing, bubble baths.. all things that can cause serious injury and send you to the community hospital.
Banning restaurants from using trans fats only forces them to use alternatives that are healthier. How is this a bad thing?
source??HurricaИe wrote:
But what if 'the consumers' demanded that the government impose a regulation (included in the health code for the restaurants) that restricted the use of trans fats?Kmarion wrote:
Which is why these things are usually worked out without government interference. The consumers demand it. Can you not make a responsible choice between restaurants? If the restaurants are being dishonest and are not disclosing what is in their dishes than I would have a problem.Turquoise wrote:
Let me clarify. Trans fats are not a necessary component for most foods. They were created to improve the shelf life of various products before other preservatives with less adverse effects came into existence.
Banning restaurants from using trans fats only forces them to use alternatives that are healthier. How is this a bad thing?
lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I cant understand why you people are making this so difficult. When you pay for my health care, then you can tell me what to eat. simple as that. whats with the walls of text?
i heard it through the chainKmarion wrote:
source??HurricaИe wrote:
But what if 'the consumers' demanded that the government impose a regulation (included in the health code for the restaurants) that restricted the use of trans fats?Kmarion wrote:
Which is why these things are usually worked out without government interference. The consumers demand it. Can you not make a responsible choice between restaurants? If the restaurants are being dishonest and are not disclosing what is in their dishes than I would have a problem.
lol
It's curious actually; the article in the OP doesn't say whether this was voted on or if Ahnolds just did it.
edit: But what would you say given my scenario I posted? If the people wanted it put in the health code regulations?
Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-07-26 12:43:07)
Fat substitutes are notorious for causing terrible diarrheatopal63 wrote:
That's what I'd like to know. And since they might basically have fat equivalents (substitutes) that taste, more or less, the same - what the hell is the problem?Turquoise wrote:
Let me clarify. Trans fats are not a necessary component for most foods. They were created to improve the shelf life of various products before other preservatives with less adverse effects came into existence.Kmarion wrote:
You should ban skate boarding, water skiing, skydiving, polka dancing, bubble baths.. all things that can cause serious injury and send you to the community hospital.
Banning restaurants from using trans fats only forces them to use alternatives that are healthier. How is this a bad thing?
How many diners do you go to have nutrition facts listed with each entree? While I typically side with personal responsibility as well, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that we really can't leave nutrition totally up to the individual in this country.Kmarion wrote:
Which is why these things are usually worked out without government interference. The consumers demand it. Can you not make a responsible choice between restaurants? If the restaurants are being dishonest and are not disclosing what is in their dishes than I would have a problem.Turquoise wrote:
Let me clarify. Trans fats are not a necessary component for most foods. They were created to improve the shelf life of various products before other preservatives with less adverse effects came into existence.Kmarion wrote:
You should ban skate boarding, water skiing, skydiving, polka dancing, bubble baths.. all things that can cause serious injury and send you to the community hospital.
Banning restaurants from using trans fats only forces them to use alternatives that are healthier. How is this a bad thing?
Restaurants only disclose what they are required to, and customers usually don't bother asking.
Maybe it's Big Brother of me to support bans such as this, but honestly, sometimes I think it's necessary. I wasn't totally against the Patriot Act either, just certain parts of it.
I meant trans-fat substitutes, meaning it is still a fat, substituting a healthy-fat for an unhealthy one. My bad.S.Lythberg wrote:
Fat substitutes are notorious for causing terrible diarrheatopal63 wrote:
That's what I'd like to know. And since they might basically have fat equivalents (substitutes) that taste, more or less, the same - what the hell is the problem?Turquoise wrote:
Let me clarify. Trans fats are not a necessary component for most foods. They were created to improve the shelf life of various products before other preservatives with less adverse effects came into existence.
Banning restaurants from using trans fats only forces them to use alternatives that are healthier. How is this a bad thing?
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-26 12:45:49)
In many fast food restaurants, a switch to saturated fats away from trans fats is the norm now. I haven't noticed any digestive differences in terms of that (sorry, TMI).S.Lythberg wrote:
Fat substitutes are notorious for causing terrible diarrheatopal63 wrote:
That's what I'd like to know. And since they might basically have fat equivalents (substitutes) that taste, more or less, the same - what the hell is the problem?Turquoise wrote:
Let me clarify. Trans fats are not a necessary component for most foods. They were created to improve the shelf life of various products before other preservatives with less adverse effects came into existence.
Banning restaurants from using trans fats only forces them to use alternatives that are healthier. How is this a bad thing?
I demand sources
!!!
!!!
I mean non fat chemicals like olestra, not other fat variantsTurquoise wrote:
In many fast food restaurants, a switch to saturated fats away from trans fats is the norm now. I haven't noticed any digestive differences in terms of that (sorry, TMI).S.Lythberg wrote:
Fat substitutes are notorious for causing terrible diarrheatopal63 wrote:
That's what I'd like to know. And since they might basically have fat equivalents (substitutes) that taste, more or less, the same - what the hell is the problem?
I cook myself 95 percent of the time. I think it is law to provide nutritional information in Florida. I can't remember the last time I didn't see one. I have a friend that has a gluten allergy.Turquoise wrote:
How many diners do you go to have nutrition facts listed with each entree? While I typically side with personal responsibility as well, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that we really can't leave nutrition totally up to the individual in this country.Kmarion wrote:
Which is why these things are usually worked out without government interference. The consumers demand it. Can you not make a responsible choice between restaurants? If the restaurants are being dishonest and are not disclosing what is in their dishes than I would have a problem.Turquoise wrote:
Let me clarify. Trans fats are not a necessary component for most foods. They were created to improve the shelf life of various products before other preservatives with less adverse effects came into existence.
Banning restaurants from using trans fats only forces them to use alternatives that are healthier. How is this a bad thing?
Restaurants only disclose what they are required to, and customers usually don't bother asking.
Maybe it's Big Brother of me to support bans such as this, but honestly, sometimes I think it's necessary. I wasn't totally against the Patriot Act either, just certain parts of it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Things must be a lot more lax up here in NC. We're heavy on regulating sanitation, but not nutrition.Kmarion wrote:
I cook myself 95 percent of the time. I think it is law to provide nutritional information in Florida. I can't remember the last time I didn't see one. I have a friend that has a gluten allergy.Turquoise wrote:
How many diners do you go to have nutrition facts listed with each entree? While I typically side with personal responsibility as well, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that we really can't leave nutrition totally up to the individual in this country.Kmarion wrote:
Which is why these things are usually worked out without government interference. The consumers demand it. Can you not make a responsible choice between restaurants? If the restaurants are being dishonest and are not disclosing what is in their dishes than I would have a problem.
Restaurants only disclose what they are required to, and customers usually don't bother asking.
Maybe it's Big Brother of me to support bans such as this, but honestly, sometimes I think it's necessary. I wasn't totally against the Patriot Act either, just certain parts of it.
There is a ZERO point ZERO chance I'd do that (check before eating at a restaurant). I don't even care if they do serve me trans-fat. I am not at risk - I am thin and exercise regularly. I wouldn't even know the difference - and my health wouldn't be affected either.Turquoise wrote:
How many diners do you go to have nutrition facts listed with each entree? While I typically side with personal responsibility as well, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that we really can't leave nutrition totally up to the individual in this country.Kmarion wrote:
Which is why these things are usually worked out without government interference. The consumers demand it. Can you not make a responsible choice between restaurants? If the restaurants are being dishonest and are not disclosing what is in their dishes than I would have a problem.Turquoise wrote:
Let me clarify. Trans fats are not a necessary component for most foods. They were created to improve the shelf life of various products before other preservatives with less adverse effects came into existence.
Banning restaurants from using trans fats only forces them to use alternatives that are healthier. How is this a bad thing?
Restaurants only disclose what they are required to, and customers usually don't bother asking.
Maybe it's Big Brother of me to support bans such as this, but honestly, sometimes I think it's necessary. I wasn't totally against the Patriot Act either, just certain parts of it.
PS: Kerry I am with you on the personal choice thing mostly, and also I have similar opinions when it comes to freedoms, but I am not sure that what has been stated is even close to being an effective slippery slope argument. That this is a domino in a chain that ends with my enslavement to the system (or them dictating to me what I can and cannot do).
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-26 12:57:38)
topal63 wrote:
There is a ZERO point ZERO chance I'd do that (check). I don't even care if they do serve me trans-fat. I am not at risk - I am thin and exercise regularly. I wouldn't even know the difference - and my health wouldn't be affected either.Turquoise wrote:
How many diners do you go to have nutrition facts listed with each entree? While I typically side with personal responsibility as well, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that we really can't leave nutrition totally up to the individual in this country.Kmarion wrote:
Which is why these things are usually worked out without government interference. The consumers demand it. Can you not make a responsible choice between restaurants? If the restaurants are being dishonest and are not disclosing what is in their dishes than I would have a problem.
Restaurants only disclose what they are required to, and customers usually don't bother asking.
Maybe it's Big Brother of me to support bans such as this, but honestly, sometimes I think it's necessary. I wasn't totally against the Patriot Act either, just certain parts of it.
Do you know how many athletes or otherwise healthy young people have dropped dead from massive heart attacks?
We don't vote to send billions overseas, we don't vote to bail out the housing industry. Too often the will of the people is ignored. Cali is kinda an offbeat state so it wouldn't surprise me (if so have a ball). This is why smaller government is good. I'm not being affected by the flower power state.HurricaИe wrote:
i heard it through the chainKmarion wrote:
source??HurricaИe wrote:
But what if 'the consumers' demanded that the government impose a regulation (included in the health code for the restaurants) that restricted the use of trans fats?
lol
It's curious actually; the article in the OP doesn't say whether this was voted on or if Ahnolds just did it.
edit: But what would you say given my scenario I posted? If the people wanted it put in the health code regulations?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
the healthier you are, the more you're capable to work and therefore legally obliged to pay tax. It's no use to the state that everyone is a david.p lookalike.usmarine2 wrote:
I cant understand why you people are making this so difficult. When you pay for my health care, then you can tell me what to eat. simple as that. whats with the walls of text?
Be happy, people you dont know want you to live and prosper.
edited to be more coherent.
Last edited by m3thod (2008-07-26 13:01:39)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Trans fats can kill you regardless of your health situation. It's all a matter of how much trans fats you consume over a given period of time.topal63 wrote:
There is a ZERO point ZERO chance I'd do that (check before eating at a restaurant). I don't even care if they do serve me trans-fat. I am not at risk - I am thin and exercise regularly. I wouldn't even know the difference - and my health wouldn't be affected either.Turquoise wrote:
How many diners do you go to have nutrition facts listed with each entree? While I typically side with personal responsibility as well, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that we really can't leave nutrition totally up to the individual in this country.Kmarion wrote:
Which is why these things are usually worked out without government interference. The consumers demand it. Can you not make a responsible choice between restaurants? If the restaurants are being dishonest and are not disclosing what is in their dishes than I would have a problem.
Restaurants only disclose what they are required to, and customers usually don't bother asking.
Maybe it's Big Brother of me to support bans such as this, but honestly, sometimes I think it's necessary. I wasn't totally against the Patriot Act either, just certain parts of it.
PS: Kerry I am with you on the personal choice thing mostly, and also I have similar opinions when it comes to freedoms, but I am not sure that what has been stated is even close to being an effective slippery slope argument. That this is a domino in a chain that ends with my enslavement to the system (or them dictating to me what I can and cannot do).
Source. And, please make it specific. Please demonstrate how many young healthy people who failed to check the restaurant menu for trans-fat dropped dead on the spot of a heart attack.S.Lythberg wrote:
Do you know how many athletes or otherwise healthy young people have dropped dead from massive heart attacks?topal63 wrote:
There is a ZERO point ZERO chance I'd do that (check). I don't even care if they do serve me trans-fat. I am not at risk - I am thin and exercise regularly. I wouldn't even know the difference - and my health wouldn't be affected either.Turquoise wrote:
How many diners do you go to have nutrition facts listed with each entree? While I typically side with personal responsibility as well, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that we really can't leave nutrition totally up to the individual in this country.
Restaurants only disclose what they are required to, and customers usually don't bother asking.
Maybe it's Big Brother of me to support bans such as this, but honestly, sometimes I think it's necessary. I wasn't totally against the Patriot Act either, just certain parts of it.
PS: I am 45.
I definitely favor the referendum idea. Hell, for almost all social issues, I think referendums should be used.Kmarion wrote:
We don't vote to send billions overseas, we don't vote to bail out the housing industry. Too often the will of the people is ignored. Cali is kinda an offbeat state so it wouldn't surprise me (if so have a ball). This is why smaller government is good. I'm not being affected by the flower power state.HurricaИe wrote:
i heard it through the chainKmarion wrote:
source??
lol
It's curious actually; the article in the OP doesn't say whether this was voted on or if Ahnolds just did it.
edit: But what would you say given my scenario I posted? If the people wanted it put in the health code regulations?
It's only the economic and foreign policy decisions that I think should be controlled by the elected.