Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True. Though I would say companies don't have to add trans fats to the products they are selling the public, and the food industry should examine what they are putting in food they sell people. I think when people bought food containing trans fats, that they weren't buying those foods FOR the trans fats.
But with that said, you're quite correct about the dangers of the nanny state. Bloomberg wanted to levy special taxes on sugary drinks, and that's going a bit too far.
However what Bloomberg did with trans fats is constitutional. States have the right to regulate business within their borders and he did this in NYC. Mississippi can choose not to regulate trans fats if they so choose, and people can live within whatever state that best suits their values.
I've not read the entire NY Constitution so I'm not sure if they have an enumerated authority to regulate what people eat. I know in the State I live in, no such enumeration exists, and to try to hide it under something like the Commerce Clause would likely not pass State SCOTUS muster.
I do know the NY Constitution has an enumerated power which permits agents of the government to take people against their will to protect them from themselves. Again, something my State fortunately does not have.
Oh, please. I just got rid of two electricians because of their dangerous cost-cutting measures and borderline extortion. My husband and I have to babysit the crew like they're drunken goats apt to wander off and eat a car.
I've seen the consequences of crap building, lack of regulation and an unethical business practices. It's like in your non-statist world, everyone is on their scout's honor and that water coming out of the pipe is as clean as whistle. Cross my heart.
But, but... with all that regulation... how is it you're not protected from unscrupulous businesses? Wait a minute... I remember the remedy allowed for by the US Constitution and every State Constitution. That remedy is to be able to use the common law court in all disputes over $20.
Regulations and malum prohibitum laws do not protect people. They protect businesses because that business can harm then proclaim, "We followed all applicable laws and regulations." Follow the money when an ordinance, law or regulation is passed. The politicians will all line up proclaiming they are helping the little guy as their war chests get fatter and fatter with lobby money if not outright bribe money.
This is the problem with america we are always comparing fat states and fat cities to fatter cities and fatter states, nyc obesity is terrible from fatty pizza to delis and tons of crap. Over half the adult residents of nyc are either obese or overweight
"In New York City, obesity is epidemic: more than half of adult New Yorkers are overweight (34%) or obese (22%)"
Obesity rates in the so called "healthiest" states and cities in America are usually in the 20-25% range, those numbers are hideous. We pay an enormous amount of tax money and health care costs for obesity.
We should be looking at healthier nations and cities like asian cities in japan, korea, singapore, obesity is in the single digits,3.6% for japan , much healthier diets
But, but... with all that regulation... how is it you're not protected from unscrupulous businesses? Wait a minute... I remember the remedy allowed for by the US Constitution and every State Constitution. That remedy is to be able to use the common law court in all disputes over $20.
Regulations and malum prohibitum laws do not protect people. They protect businesses because that business can harm then proclaim, "We followed all applicable laws and regulations." Follow the money when an ordinance, law or regulation is passed. The politicians will all line up proclaiming they are helping the little guy as their war chests get fatter and fatter with lobby money if not outright bribe money.
My issue is not unscrupulous businesses. Unlike conservatives, I don't think corporations (or contractors in this case) sit at the right hand of God and I expect them to be shady as hell, especially when solely driven by profit. Why do think I'm watching them?
But if it were not for the state that very specifically detailed exactly how electricity should flow through a residential house and holds everyone accountable if it's not done to code, I would not have prepped myself with the knowledge. And that #*&#^ would have let dry wall guys come in a cover up the violations, two of which were fire hazards. It was the state and its regulations that looked out for me and my property, not either of those hires.
Anyway, the point is you guys start to foam at the mouth at the mere mention of regulations. And strictly believe that government's only role is border patrol. So if you want to remove regulations and play Russian roulette with every company that sells food, drugs, power, cars and countless other consumer goods, that's on you. Look at the crap they try to get with now.
Sometimes the nanny state does some good. Another example: When Ireland greatly restricted smoking, the heart death rate dropped enough to be statistically significant after just 1 year.
My issue is not unscrupulous businesses. Unlike conservatives, I don't think corporations (or contractors in this case) sit at the right hand of God and I expect them to be shady as hell, especially when solely driven by profit. Why do think I'm watching them?
But if it were not for the state that very specifically detailed exactly how electricity should flow through a residential house and holds everyone accountable if it's not done to code, I would not have prepped myself with the knowledge. And that #*&#^ would have let dry wall guys come in a cover up the violations, two of which were fire hazards. It was the state and its regulations that looked out for me and my property, not either of those hires.
Anyway, the point is you guys start to foam at the mouth at the mere mention of regulations. And strictly believe that government's only role is border patrol. So if you want to remove regulations and play Russian roulette with every company that sells food, drugs, power, cars and countless other consumer goods, that's on you. Look at the crap they try to get with now.
I'm glad you mentioned greed from corporations and businesses. What you refer to as greed, I see as pursuing one's own best interests. I do not condone people stealing as a form of greed and a contractor who knowingly takes shortcuts that could harm someone is stealing. But let me ask you this. When you had your house rewired, did you contact several electric contractors to get bids? After they put in their bids, did you go with the highest bid? Surely the highest bidder would have done the best work, or not. The point is most likely you chose the lowest bidder among them. The one who said, "I will do this job properly for this amount."
So why, if not out of greed, did you not take the highest bid and more likely went with the lowest bidder? Was it because you were trying to get the most work for your money at the least cost? This is known as pursuing one's own self interests. ALL businesses and corporations operate on that model. It is what creates profit. You, by choosing the lowest bidder, sought profit. Money which was left over so you could spend it elsewhere pursuing your own self interest.
It is true that very few businesses and corporations exist solely for the sake of being benevolent. If they did, they would lose money much less make a profit. Just like you and your greed when you go to a potential employer and require them to pay you for working. Isn't that just you being greedy... or is it you pursuing your own best self interest? But let's take this a step further.
You hired a professional contractor AND there existed building and electrical codes yet greedy you (again pursuing your own best interests) studied up and learned what is acceptable as far as the wiring goes. Why did you do that if there already existed regulations and code that requires the wiring to be done a certain way? Again, you did it because it was in your own best interest. You were greedy, expecting the job to be done right yet not paying the top bidder's price. My question becomes, if the codes and regulations already existed, then why weren't you protected by them? Isn't that what you're claiming these codes, laws and regulations are suppose to do? They obviously did nothing to assure your wiring would be safe, so my question is, why have the regulations if they don't protect you like the politicians claimed they would? Could you and your family have been harmed by the contractor not following the laws, code and regulations? You better believe you could have been, so what is the difference between having these costly laws, codes and regulations if you can still be harmed yet have the very same remedy you had before the laws, codes and regulations were put in place. That remedy would be to sue in common law court. The very same remedy that exists in the US and every State Constitution.
The point I am making is these laws, codes, regulations, ordinances, etc., do NOT protect people from harm as they are being sold to you in order to have you nod your head in approval of them. They are more of a "feel good" measure. Due diligence is still required, and the main thing that drives due diligence is pursuing one's own best self interests... commonly known as greed. However, all that was just a side track from the OP's post because you brought it up and I really wanted to address it.
This thread is in regards to some people thinking they have a right to dictate what others cannot eat. They want to remove a person's free will, their choice to eat whatever they choose, simply because they don't approve. It would be like telling you that you are prohibited from choosing the electrical contractor you went with if they weren't the highest bidder. It removes your ability to choose. Not only that, but that you are prohibited from checking their work, because they are professionals and who are you? You and I recognize this wouldn't be in your best self interests and we would balk at such nonsense, but isn't that what NYC is doing via trans fats? Aren't they merely prohibiting a person from choosing, for whatever reason, what they deem to be in their own best self interests? Maybe the oils used that are low trans fat cost more so it drives the price up $0.50 or even $1.00 per meal. Is it in your best interest to have some government officials dictating to you that you MUST choose the highest bidder on the electrical work? If not then why is it in your best interest to have those same government officials dictating that you must pay a higher price for your meals because the high in trans fat oils cost less?
One could argue that those oils high in trans fat harm people. I would argue that people could likely eat foods occasionally even if they were high in trans fat because I cannot recall a single news story where someone died as a result of eating a single meal which was high in trans fat.
In conclusion I have these questions. What other choices do you think people should be prohibited from making because that choice could harm them? Should we ban everything that could possibly cause harm if a person makes that choice? At what point will you finally say, that's too much? This nanny state, where people are protected from their own choices, must stop.
Thanks for your patience assuming you read all of that.
Causation vs correlation.
Root cause vs mere happen chance.
Once again, let's just spew anything we can, calling it science, to justify our statism where we banned something because we "don't like" it, all the while claiming we are doing this to you for your benefit... your health... because we care.
Horse poo!
oh OP is just playing the game that some of our other friends on this board play.
I've not read the entire NY Constitution so I'm not sure if they have an enumerated authority to regulate what people eat. I know in the State I live in, no such enumeration exists, and to try to hide it under something like the Commerce Clause would likely not pass State SCOTUS muster.
I do know the NY Constitution has an enumerated power which permits agents of the government to take people against their will to protect them from themselves. Again, something my State fortunately does not have.
Have the fat tax in NY. Protects you from soda, chips, fast food...
Have the safe act combined with being a may issue state and no state reciprocity to protect you from guns.
Have state safety and emission inspections to protect you from evil polluting vehicles and unsafe vehicles (yet consumers who don't maintain their vehicles think mechanics are out to get rich off of them)
Seat belt laws.
Helmet laws.
Anti front window tint because police need to be protected from guns (null and void see safe act and may issue)
Sin tax, tobacco and alcohol.
I love Florida. Hate the heat and humidity. Love riding my Harley with just Oakley sunglasses on.
Guns aren't regulated nor require state registration.
No state income taxes.
Cheap to drink at bars I go out every weekend instead of once a month.
Property taxes are a third of what they are in NY...
Thanks Democrats! Banning trans fats in New York led to fewer heart attacks, strokes
"New York City was the first major urban area in the U.S. to introduce a trans fat ban at restaurants, bakeries, caterers, cafeterias, soup kitchens and street booths, starting in July 2007. A number of state counties also followed suit.
In a study published Wednesday in JAMA Cardiology, Dr. Eric Brandt and his team compared hospitalizations for heart attack or stroke in 11 New York counties that adopted bans, and 25 counties that did not, between 2002 and 2013.
"When we looked at what happened [three years] after bans were implemented, there was a 6.2 per cent decline in heart attacks and strokes," said Brandt, with Yale University's School of Medicine.
That translates to 43 fewer heart attacks and strokes per 100,000
I assume people were restricted to eating only in their home county.
So many variables not considered makes this weaponized science for political agenda.
Even without poly sci involved, heart disease studies have been generating studies that eventually are found to be flawed. NYT "This week, cardiologists learned that a new online calculator meant to help them determine a patient’s suitability for cholesterol treatment was flawed, doubling the estimated risk of heart attack or stroke for the average patient. But fixing it would not be easy, because it is based on older data, and heart attack and stroke rates today are much lower than in decades past, meaning that people are at less risk than might be expected from historical extrapolations."
"at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association. Two Harvard researchers, Dr. Paul M. Ridker and Dr. Nancy Cook, revealed that the new calculator released with fanfare last week exaggerated the true risk of a heart attack or stroke by an average of 100 percent. Moreover, they said, the committee that developed the calculator knew that the online tool was inaccurate yet told doctors to use it in deciding whom to treat."
another study
"The research, which looked at dietary habits in 42 European countries over 16 years, conflicts with current government nutrition guidance and has led to calls for new advice to be issued.[LEFT][LEFT][CENTER]–– ADVERTISEMENT ––[/CENTER]
The journal Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a paper suggesting there is no evidence supporting the longstanding recommendation to limit saturated fat consumption. Media reporting on the paper included headlines such as “No link found between saturated fat and heart disease” and articles saying “Saturated fat shouldn’t be demonized” springing up on social media.The journal Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a paper suggesting there is no evidence supporting the longstanding recommendation to limit saturated fat consumption. Media reporting on the paper included headlines such as “No link found between saturated fat and heart disease” and articles saying “Saturated fat shouldn’t be demonized” springing up on social media.
[LEFT][/LEFT] [/LEFT]
[/LEFT]
The work, published in the journal of Food and Nutrition Research, examined food consumption, heart disease and cholesterol levels in the most up-to-date international statistics and raised questions about the reliability of traditional data, much of which was carried out decades ago."
and still another....
"The journal Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a paper suggesting there is no evidence supporting the longstanding recommendation to limit saturated fat consumption. Media reporting on the paper included headlines such as “No link found between saturated fat and heart disease” and articles saying “Saturated fat shouldn’t be demonized” springing up on social media."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[CENTER]–– ADVERTISEMENT ––[/CENTER]
[/LEFT]
