Oh I wish I could post my old journals online. I know I have an entry from ten years ago bemoaning that fact that some day fat would be taxed or fast food would be banned or restricted on a wide scale. New York proved my point.
You may think this is a good thing. When you read the article there are even things I agree with. I for one would like to have nutritional content displayed for my edifice, it makes tracking it in TrainingPeaks easier.
This is exactly why however, that I opposed smoking bans. See you folks out there may not like smoking or cigarette smoke so you voted against it but now that your favorite fries and secret pizza dough recipes might be forever changed whose crying now? I for one.
Look. Yes there are terrible things you can put in your body that are harmful to your health. Why do you think people go vegan for a while after witnessesing a cow being slaughtered. Who wants to see the additives and perservatives that keep their favorite desert the same consistancy for four hours sitting on the table?
But the sad fact is that trans-fats will not kill you. No they will not. Eating to much will kill you. Not being able to flip the switch in your mind that says "you can stop now". Lack of exercise will kill you. Millions of people have had worse diets than you and lived long lives.
Be prepared for the fat tax. And the tax man will cometh.
Be prepared for your favorite guilty pleasure foods to coast more and taste differently.
Where is my sandwich board. I need to find a curb.
You may think this is a good thing. When you read the article there are even things I agree with. I for one would like to have nutritional content displayed for my edifice, it makes tracking it in TrainingPeaks easier.
This is exactly why however, that I opposed smoking bans. See you folks out there may not like smoking or cigarette smoke so you voted against it but now that your favorite fries and secret pizza dough recipes might be forever changed whose crying now? I for one.
Look. Yes there are terrible things you can put in your body that are harmful to your health. Why do you think people go vegan for a while after witnessesing a cow being slaughtered. Who wants to see the additives and perservatives that keep their favorite desert the same consistancy for four hours sitting on the table?
But the sad fact is that trans-fats will not kill you. No they will not. Eating to much will kill you. Not being able to flip the switch in your mind that says "you can stop now". Lack of exercise will kill you. Millions of people have had worse diets than you and lived long lives.
Be prepared for the fat tax. And the tax man will cometh.
Be prepared for your favorite guilty pleasure foods to coast more and taste differently.
Where is my sandwich board. I need to find a curb.
14 comments:
Your analogies aren't good ones. There are perfectly acceptable alternatives to trans fats that don't alter the taste - so why not promote a switch to fats that don't have the same effect of fostering coronary heart disease?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fats
First, I'm less than confident in the "alternatives" theory. The industries are working on options, but aren't sure how long it will take to get them on line. Some are working on new recipes, but figure it will take years. Perhaps NYC knows the truth of that as they put something like 2 years worth of non-enforcement in the ordinance (that, and they know lawsuits are coming).
But Comm is right. If we are going to tackle trans fats, there are certainly a great many other things that have greater impact on mortality with more direct causal links.
Alcohol leads to thousands upon thousands of deaths and serious health issues every year. Many of the lives lost are innocent.
When we banned smoking in public places, we abandoned hundreds of thousands of children who are forced to live their lives in smoke filled environments. If we're "protecting" lives, shouldn't theirs be the first protected? No smoking in houses or cars (I see this one coming).
We all have choices to make, and must live with the consequences of our choices. B-Boy is three and we're already teaching him that. Do we need the government to police our every action?
Sorry, Comm opened up my alter ego. The one that has a political science degree.
if i can quote kanye, because really, besides Sherman's Lagoon, where else can you get life lessons better than from Kanye: 'most of all, we are at war with ourselves'.
taxing governments, institutions, organizations, advocacies, societies..., they can all help, but it all boils down to the decisions we make every day -- the 'war with ourselves'.
good thought provoking piece my brothah!
Your comments are interesting and thought provoking. However, I do believe there is a significant difference between limiting trans fat usage vs. smoking bans.
You can sit next to me and chomp away on trans fat based foods all day and it has absolutely no impact on me.
However, the moment you light up a cigarette, I am now affected by your smoking via your second hand smoke.
In addition to what Al said, second hand smoke in public is also an issue in providing safe/healthy places of work.
On trans fatty acids, coincidentally there was a nutritionist on the noon news here today emphasizing the distinction between naturally occurring trans fats (which are a small component of dairy and meats of ruminants) and hydrogenated oils.
This reminds me of several movies I have seen set in the future where things that were deemed bad for you have been outlawed. Big Brother strikes again.
okay... you know how i feel about this. my argument still stands as this: someone being fat around me doesn't affect my health. someone drinking and driving can. someone smoking around me, does. that's when government should get involved. i support smoking bans the same way i support drinking and driving laws.
however... the ban on the restaurants is a whole separate issue. this is not affecting anyone else's health other than the person eating the food. the government shouldn't have crossed that line.
Spokane Al, you always jump out to me with interesting comments and I wish I was able to respond to your comments off line to continue this thread. Same with you Wendy, always jumping out at me with interesting and thought provoking comments.
That being said, Lance understands my point better than anyone. I am no advocate for those that smoke in front of me or 'second hand' smoke. I not an advocate for people killing themselves with food. However the govt. at any level enforcing a law on a private business that abridges legal commerce and activity is inappropriate.
To throw some more support behind Comm's last comment, disagreeing with a given ban isn't akin to supporting the action. I am a sarcoidosis patient, and smoke (first or second hand) can lead to pulmonary fibrosis (pronounced "not good") of the lungs. Even so, I oppose smoking bans. I just patronize restaurants that voluntarily limit smoking (or provide proper ventilation).
When we use the argument, "I support this ban, but not that one," we open ourselves up to others saying, "If your's, why not mine." Certainly, an argument can be made that high cholesterol and heart disease have a huge impact on us, financially.
Some of these comments suggest that people are not well-informed about what trans fats actually are. This has nothing to do with "making people fat". They may wish to review: http://www.bantransfats.com/abouttransfat.html
Trans fats are no more tasty than non-hydrogenated fats - unless you prefer the taste of margarine to real butter. They have the same caloric content.
They are primarily used in foods as a matter of economics (ingredient expense and shelf life), not because of formulation problems. http://www.bantransfats.com/eateriesnews.html
From http://www.bantransfats.com/abouttransfat.html: Top nutritionists at Harvard have stated as follows: "By our most conservative estimate, replacement of partially hydrogenated fat in the U.S. diet with natural unhydrogenated vegetable oils would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,000 premature deaths annually."
No, not everything that possibly could be regulated in the interests of public health currently IS regulated. But that doesn't mean that steps shouldn't be taken in a positive direction in those area in which change is definitely in the interests of public health in areas in which progress is possible.
so, then i must ask (because i'm young and stupid from time to time): do you support the restrictions placed on alcohol level and driving?
From my perspective, after reading all the other comments, the main thing I see here is not only the "fat tax" but a restriction on our freedom. Everyone has choices to make, whether to eat or not eat, do or not do, something that may be harmful to our health. I do not want the government interferring with my right to do that. The smoking ban is just another example. Much as I detest cigarette smoke, each restaurant owner should be able to make a choice as to whether they want to go smokeless or not in their own restaurant, just as we then can choose whether to support those establishments or not. If NYC is thinking they are protecting people from themselves, they are wrong. Eating healthy away from home does not change eating habits the rest of the time for those people who are inclined to overindulge anyway.
Another comment is the misinformation people have on fats: butter and margarine are two different things, with butter being the "natural" choice, with there being no trans fat in butter. Its the processed stuff that usually contains the trans fats, although I will say lately I am seeing lower and lower numbers when I check ingredients. Most packaging now days gives the breakdown, so it is easy to make your own choices. Its education and information that is more important than imposed bans. Until we knew what trans fats were or what they could potentially do to our bodies, we could not make informed choices. These types of bans will, of course, protect the ignorant, but then maybe they should all be put in some sort of commune together?
I opposed the smoking ban because I don't think it's the government's job to make us make good choices. (But I secretly LOVE IT!)
I think a ban on transfats is good because it will trickle down to mean fewer uninsured people in the ER with heart conditions. Just for fun, next time you are in the ER, ask for a show of hands who has insurance. It's probably just you. And since we don't turn away people who need health services in the US, those of us who are insured actually pay for the services of the uninsured via our high premiums and ever-rising copays. Nobody goes with healthcare, some just go without health insurance.
But back to the transfats issue: I read about a study very recently involving two sets of monkeys. the control group was fed a diet of "healthy" (olive et al) fat, protein and carbs. The test group was fed the same calories and grams of protein, carbs and "trans" fat. The control group maintained healthy weight, but the test group that had the trans fats all got fat.
To help keep healthcare costs down for myself and the others that actually pay for it all, I support the trans fat ban.
p.s. - now you all know why I am an "Inde-publi-crat" - I can't fully commit to the stance of any one political party!
Post a Comment