That's Fit

Why is this a good thing? I get that trans fats are bad, but so are a multitude of other foods. Exactly where does this line get drawn? Is the endgame here for the food-police to get everyone eating nothing but granola and fat free yogurt?

I'm not sure why people can't decide to eat what they want when they want, screw the consequences. Snowboarding, skydiving and walking down the street can be hazardous to your health as well (tell me something that can't potentially be hazardous to your health) do we ban everything?

Reply

Oh, and I'm not a company/work for a company that has anything to do with this. Just a guy who knows I can make better decisions about my personal choices than my government (by the way, I live in Boston so this doesn't directly affect me...yet).

Reply

"This city proposal has its detractors of course, which most likely make up companies that make and/or sell Trans Fat supplies to the larger processed food and restaurant industry."

Of course, it's also possible to oppose a government that never saw a vice it couldn't legislate against - or private property it couldn't trample upon. This proposal is nothing more than the ever growing nanny state. Personally I'll take a fat populace over a fat government any day.

"That does not diminish the fact that Trans Fats are one of the worst things you can consume in your diet in my opinion."

Thanks for enforcing your opinion at the point of a gun. Why can't people simply choose to eat healthier? Oh right - they're not as smart as you.

Reply

I totally agree that a heathier population is a solid goal, but is prohibiting unhealthy foods really the answer? If trans fats are outlawed, how long until alcohol is the next target? If not alcohol, perhaps foods with too much sugar, or too much cholesterol or foods that make some legislator sick. What, really, are the health benefits of ice cream when you can make people eat non-flat unflavored organic yogurt?

Personally, I want to be able to indulge in whatever I want after a week of brown rice, grilled chicken and hitting the gym.

Reply

Don't see why I should tone it down, Brian. Last time I checked, all government regulations were (ultimately) enforced by guys with guns. Interesting how people forget that when they imagine their strange fat-free fascist utopias.

Anyway if you don't like *my* opinions--or the way I express them--why not try to ban disagreeable speech as well? Seems to fit right in with your philosophy.

Reply

Thanks for such lucid feedback, Hank. After all, I never did "enforce anything" with a gun -- just stated an opinion -- so, I'll leave it at that. I respect your opinion but *completely* disagree. That's what makes this country great :-)

Regards and health all,

Brian

Reply

No, Brian. This isn't a matter of just agreeing to disagree. This is one group of "thinkers" forcing their belief on everyone else. Their "religion" so to speak. When will you be forcing everyone to the gym? Banning white flour? Stocking only fruits and veggies in grocery stores? I don't want to participate. So what then?

Reply

I just want to add that once again the all powerful government knows more than the weak people who support it. I say spend your money and brain power on more important things. Is this the same government that said eggs and butter were bad so we ate margarine and lo cholestrol fake eggs then they found out margarine was bad? It is OK to drink nutrasweet in diet sodas but not OK to have french fries with that? What it really amounts to is that the government really does NOT know better and they really do not need to keep us from harming ourselves. That is our job.

Reply

I just read a newspaper article today from my state, Alabama, in regard to a possible ban on cupcakes in the classrooms. The response from the person interviewed was something to the effect of "We don't need a ban. Our nutrition plans is fine as it is."

This, of course, coming from the state in the top 1% of childhood obesity (not to mention type II diabetes).

My point bringing this up is simply that no, the public DOESN'T always know better. That paraphrase is from someone who's voice can make a difference in our children's health, and they won't even admit that poor school nutrition is a part of the problem. (I lived my junior high experience on nacho chips and "penis" fries. The only reason I didn't gain weight like my friends is thanks to my ever-faithful genes).

They should consider an incentives program, though. Like giving bonuses to restaraunts that use subsititutes instead of banning them altogether. You can bet a bundle people would start opting for change that way, and it would be by their own decision. Raise the rewards high enough, and in time, trans fat might be obsolete (they did it with the drinking age, why not this?).

Crystal Meth isn't sold illegally because nobody wants it. The government can ban anything they want, but I don't want to see the next Prohibition Act. There's got to be better ways the government can deal with this situation before resorting to actions I would call a "last resort."

In response to you, Lyn: The government has made some mistakes in the past. They will make more, simply because we don't know eveything right this minute. New data about things are discovered everyday. But even is margarine is bad for you, that doesn't mean butter has suddenly become healthy again.

Reply

Excellent points, Bessie. From my experience, most of the public has absolutely no clue about 99% of nutrition. Hence, they almost need to be told exactly what to do.

But, the answer is not government-imposed rules, which some of these comments suggested I was trying to push across (I wasn't if you read the post completely). My opinion is that education about nutrition is so horribly absent that most folks will never know what is truly good and truly bad for them without spending the time to research. No wonder many millions of us are becoming so obese and unhealthy -- it's sad.

Reply