NY Bans Most Trans Fats from Restaurants - page 2

NY bans most trans fats from restaurants - Yahoo! News... Read More

  1. by   pickledpepperRN
    I am so very sorry. This is exactly the kind of divisive debate I was hoping to avoid.
    I am with you if you think people should be able to make their own choices.
    I do not agree with the mayor on this.
    Why can't we discuss the trans fat ban without getting into a "red state" "blue state" debate.
    Why demonize half of our fellow Americans?

    Let's communicate on the issue.

    My opinion is that there is a big difference between exposing others to second hand smoke and someone eating potatoes fried in trans fat.

    Are you for a ban on smoking in public places? I am
    Are you in favor of banning trans fats being served in New York City? I am not
  2. by   Gromit
    I had no interest in the political ramifications until it was mentioned that this mayor espoused traditional conservative values. He does not, and I think THAT case has been clearly made.
    Now, outside of that, I was against the laws mandating that restaurants could not cater to smokers.
    Do I want to eat next to (or even in the same room as) someone smoking a cigarette? Absolutely not. BUT I believe that the free market, NOT the government, should dictate weather or not a restaurant would cater to smokers. IN other words, if the non-smoking crowd refused to patronise a place that allowed smoking, the owner of that establishment would have to decide where his profits lay. But the one who made the business should be allowed to cater to whomever he (or she) liked. Sadly the government saw fit to deny the business owner the right to practice business as they saw fit, and mandate that they would NOT allow them to cater to the smoking crowd. I see that as just as wrong as I see them telling the restaurants what kind of grease or food they can serve. Its really a simple matter of deciding how far you are willing to let the government intrude. Non-smokers were no more forced into the doors of smoking establishments anymore than you or I are forced to wolf down burgers or other foods cooked in oils that could well be bad for you. If people got a sudden health-kick and avoided places that didn't serve healthy food, then those places would begin to serve healthy food or close their doors. Simple, basic economics.
    As you could probably guess, I'm not a big fan of bans. After all, the things thy're banning now may well have no effect on you -but eventually they will be banning things you may hold dear. If you don't stand up for the freedoms and desires of others, then who will you expect to stand up for yours when the time comes?
  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    I am very glad I no longer have to inhale second hand smoke in the break room, hospital cafeteria, and even the nurses station in order to work as a bedside nurse.
  4. by   epiphany
    I always worry about putting too much transfat in my body eating in restaurants, as I have no control over how much they put. I mean, no offense, but this ban might not be so unpopular with new yorkers. Are you any of you native new yorkers? I am asking in ernest, I'm curious.

    I can see how this measure might seem drastic, but it's really pro-consumers, and in the end probably good for business. I know I'm going to eat out a lot more. I mean restaurants can find creative ways to make their food taste good. As for freedom choice and all that, well, I choose to eat at home a lot because I know how much transfat restaurant food has. It's really not much of a choice. This ban is really going to give me choices.

    Just a different point of view from someone who LOVES transfat.
    Last edit by epiphany on Dec 12, '06
  5. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from Gromit
    I had no interest in the political ramifications until it was mentioned that this mayor espoused traditional conservative values. He does not, and I think THAT case has been clearly made.
    Now, outside of that, I was against the laws mandating that restaurants could not cater to smokers.
    Do I want to eat next to (or even in the same room as) someone smoking a cigarette? Absolutely not. BUT I believe that the free market, NOT the government, should dictate weather or not a restaurant would cater to smokers. IN other words, if the non-smoking crowd refused to patronise a place that allowed smoking, the owner of that establishment would have to decide where his profits lay. But the one who made the business should be allowed to cater to whomever he (or she) liked. Sadly the government saw fit to deny the business owner the right to practice business as they saw fit, and mandate that they would NOT allow them to cater to the smoking crowd. I see that as just as wrong as I see them telling the restaurants what kind of grease or food they can serve. Its really a simple matter of deciding how far you are willing to let the government intrude. Non-smokers were no more forced into the doors of smoking establishments anymore than you or I are forced to wolf down burgers or other foods cooked in oils that could well be bad for you. If people got a sudden health-kick and avoided places that didn't serve healthy food, then those places would begin to serve healthy food or close their doors. Simple, basic economics.
    As you could probably guess, I'm not a big fan of bans. After all, the things thy're banning now may well have no effect on you -but eventually they will be banning things you may hold dear. If you don't stand up for the freedoms and desires of others, then who will you expect to stand up for yours when the time comes?
    My husband and I did not vote for the anti-smoking ban here in California. Neither of us are smokers. We both hate to be around smokers.

    But we feel the same way you do.

    Having said that, I do enjoy not having to eat in a restaurant with smokers across the room . . . and we've gotten so used to it that it seems odd to visit Reno and walk into a casino and be surrounded by cig smoke.

    steph
  6. by   Gromit
    Quote from stevielynn
    My husband and I did not vote for the anti-smoking ban here in California. Neither of us are smokers. We both hate to be around smokers.

    But we feel the same way you do.

    Having said that, I do enjoy not having to eat in a restaurant with smokers across the room . . . and we've gotten so used to it that it seems odd to visit Reno and walk into a casino and be surrounded by cig smoke.

    steph
    Likewise, I also refused to patronise restaurants that permitted smoking. My dislike of the ban was strictly from a 'freedoms vs restrictions' standpoint. A business should be free to cater to whomever they desire.
    There was a historic restaurant in Ybor City (next to Tampa, FL) who catered to cigar smokers -they even had a walk-in humidor where you could select your favorite cigar to enjoy. Needless to say, their primary targeted clientele were people who enjoyed fine cigars with their meals (or more accurately, after their meals). But thanks to the ban in Florida, they had to cut out the cigars. Oddly enough, those who proposed the ban were quick to point out that they didn't frequent these types of establishments to begin with!
    Now, I DO enjoy a fine cigar, but I don't care to smoke around food. I prefer to sit on my back porch and enjoy 'em. Going to that restaurant was more of a novelty for me (due to the historic value, as well as the fact that Cigars are what made Ybor city to begin with). If I were a business owner, and I was being told I could no longer target my preferred clientele, I'd be very insulted -after all, its the business owner and nobody else, who has the most to gain or lose based on their business decisions.
    AS someone else said earlier, whats next? Are we to be told that no salt shall be added to our meals (lord knows, most food is too heavily salted according to the RDA anyway -and too much salt etc etc etc. )

    It was asked if any of us are New Yorkers. No. Thank heavens. I've been to New York city more times than I care to admit, and only once by personal choice. Doesn't mean we can't have an opinion though -especially since it has to start somewhere, and then the "pleasure police" or "diet police" (use your own terms) will use THAT as an example as to why the rest of us should follow suit. Its not the first time that something like this has started as a springboard for others to try to spread the policy elsewhere.
  7. by   epiphany
    This is not a the riot act. This is regulation on FOOD and we have an epidemic of obesity and heart diseases costing us billions. We regulate cleanliness in restaurants because of infectious diseases, how different is this? Trans fat is a legal form of poisoning I fail to see the source of concern that this is turning into a police state because food in restaurants are required to remove an item that causes early death. Millions of people who work is the city depend of restaurant food. My daughter had to avoid her cafeteria food because of how unhealthy its, and she was left with few options outside of her school as well. Who was protecting her rights?
  8. by   Gromit
    Hmm... Since I presume she was not being force-fed the cafeteria food in the first place (or was she forced to consume it? Did she receive threats insinuating bodily harm or other repercussions if she chose NOT to eat the cafeteria food? ) I'm kind of failing to see what RIGHTS of hers were actually being violated.
    Perhaps you can enlighten us?

    The word 'rights' is tossed around rather frivolously these days. But as far as I'm aware, "we the people" do not have any 'right' that guarantees us to have others do things 'our way' just because we don't like the options before us. I mean if you're going to go down this route, you had better legislate out ALL of the unhealthy foods -start with the fast-food chains and work your way on down. No more steaks cooked rare -thats not healthy in the least Absolutely NO frenchfries -no part of THAT food is healthy in any respect of the word. (and lets not even bother going into 'desert foods' like iced cream and cakes, etc etc. ). Our obesity has NOTHING to do with the restaurants which cook the meals in a way that appeals to the paying customer. It has EVERYTHING to do with OUR choices and eating habits. These things should NOT be regulated by the government -just as it is no fault of McDonalds that some "heavy hitter" is weighing in at 400 lbs and staring at a multiple bypass. Nobody forced them to make 'burgers and fries' a daily diet.
    Regulating cleanliness to combat infectious diseases is a far cry in difference to telling the restaurants what they can and cannot cook with.
    I cannot speak for you, but I certainly do not want a government that is eager to dictate what I can and cannot eat as part of a 'cradle to grave' care system.
  9. by   epiphany
    Quote from Gromit
    Hmm... Since I presume she was not being force-fed the cafeteria food in the first place (or was she forced to consume it? Did she receive threats insinuating bodily harm or other repercussions if she chose NOT to eat the cafeteria food? ) I'm kind of failing to see what RIGHTS of hers were actually being violated.
    Perhaps you can enlighten us?

    The word 'rights' is tossed around rather frivolously these days. But as far as I'm aware, "we the people" do not have any 'right' that guarantees us to have others do things 'our way' just because we don't like the options before us. I mean if you're going to go down this route, you had better legislate out ALL of the unhealthy foods -start with the fast-food chains and work your way on down. No more steaks cooked rare -thats not healthy in the least Absolutely NO frenchfries -no part of THAT food is healthy in any respect of the word. (and lets not even bother going into 'desert foods' like iced cream and cakes, etc etc. ). Our obesity has NOTHING to do with the restaurants which cook the meals in a way that appeals to the paying customer. It has EVERYTHING to do with OUR choices and eating habits. These things should NOT be regulated by the government -just as it is no fault of McDonalds that some "heavy hitter" is weighing in at 400 lbs and staring at a multiple bypass. Nobody forced them to make 'burgers and fries' a daily diet.
    Regulating cleanliness to combat infectious diseases is a far cry in difference to telling the restaurants what they can and cannot cook with.
    I cannot speak for you, but I certainly do not want a government that is eager to dictate what I can and cannot eat as part of a 'cradle to grave' care system.
    Yes, you are absolute right. The government is gunning for our rights and it's only a matter of time before we will all be shot on sight if we caught with butter in our bags.
  10. by   epiphany
    Oh, and one more thing - no one else should be allowed to have a different opinion from the masses, especially anyone actually affected by the regulation. Sorry that I made you feel violated and angry.
  11. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from Gromit
    Hmm... Since I presume she was not being force-fed the cafeteria food in the first place (or was she forced to consume it? Did she receive threats insinuating bodily harm or other repercussions if she chose NOT to eat the cafeteria food? ) I'm kind of failing to see what RIGHTS of hers were actually being violated.
    Perhaps you can enlighten us?

    The word 'rights' is tossed around rather frivolously these days. But as far as I'm aware, "we the people" do not have any 'right' that guarantees us to have others do things 'our way' just because we don't like the options before us. I mean if you're going to go down this route, you had better legislate out ALL of the unhealthy foods -start with the fast-food chains and work your way on down. No more steaks cooked rare -thats not healthy in the least Absolutely NO frenchfries -no part of THAT food is healthy in any respect of the word. (and lets not even bother going into 'desert foods' like iced cream and cakes, etc etc. ). Our obesity has NOTHING to do with the restaurants which cook the meals in a way that appeals to the paying customer. It has EVERYTHING to do with OUR choices and eating habits. These things should NOT be regulated by the government -just as it is no fault of McDonalds that some "heavy hitter" is weighing in at 400 lbs and staring at a multiple bypass. Nobody forced them to make 'burgers and fries' a daily diet.
    Regulating cleanliness to combat infectious diseases is a far cry in difference to telling the restaurants what they can and cannot cook with.
    I cannot speak for you, but I certainly do not want a government that is eager to dictate what I can and cannot eat as part of a 'cradle to grave' care system.
    Not surprisingly I feel that same as you.

    As to New Yorkers being ok with this, I would doubt that. You've got all manner of folks in NY . . .from the people who want to eat a greasy hot dog from a street peddler to high end restaurants. I have friends who have been through The Culinary Institute and let me say that the way they are taught to cook "gourmet" is not low-fat . . . just the sauces would boggle your mind. And French food? Please . .. .

    steph
  12. by   epiphany
    Well, since I don't harbor any resentment towards anyone for where they live, and I am unable to confuse a personal political view point with illogical prejudices, I guess I'm done here.
  13. by   Gromit
    Well epiphany, I'm sorry your feelings are hurt. But where you're concerned, all I did was ask you to justify your comment about your daughters' rights being violated. THAT had nothing whatsoever to do with having 'a different opinion'. If you aren't able to see how our rights have steadily been eroded by the folks in the government, justified by their intent to save us from ourselves, then I guess there really isn't anything left to say. Not much point in getting sarcastic about it, though.

    -Stevielynn. Before I was a nurse, I was a long-haul truck driver (two years cross country, and several more as a local driver while I went back to school for pre-reqs and RN) and the only states I didn't travel to, through, and eat in, were Alaska and Hawaii. In some of the cases, I tried to sample the 'signature foods' that a place was known for. Say, Philadelphia cheese steak sandwiches in Philadelphia. Truly, this did forever ruin cheese-steak sandwiches for me, since I've never tased one that could compare with the 'real' thing. Heaven was found in a bun. A New York City sidewalk hotdog stand hotdog -need I really elaborate? For a semi-truck, getting around New York City is such a royal pain that you just plain dread having to go there -but while waiting to be unloaded, I could usually count on a dog stand to be relatively close by, and I must say there isn't much "healthy" about 'em, but dang what a good dog!
    I hope to be a travel-nurse eventually, and re-sample some of my old favorites
    To say the least, I'm a big old biker and ex-trucker -I'm not the picture of "trim and healthy" by any stretch of the imagination. I love to cook, and I love to eat foods that taste good. I do start to get defensive when the government decides to do something that they deem to be 'best' for me, yet again. I'm a grown man, and I can make my own decisions (and I'll be responsible for 'em) thank you very much!
    Well, its been a long night (got off shift a few hours ago) so I'm gonna crash. Take care to all of you!

close