There is a news story on tv now that is making my head explode. An Alderman in Chicago is trying to make TransFats... Illegal. Thereby taking the choice away from you.
Do you think it's right for the government to legislate your diet?
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/06/30/news/doc44a41b206b837636617823.txt
I do think that restaraunts should be a little more responsible in using transfats, but isn't it really up to you? Isn't it YOUR RIGHT to decide to eat healthy or not?
2006-08-16 12:36:49 · 27 answers · asked by asterisk_dot_asterisk 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
wazwandering. You have a good point and I agree. But when you go to McDonald's do you expect the food to be healthy? Or do you expect it to be McDonald's?
2006-08-16 13:34:42 · update #1
Buck. You won't believe this... He's a democrat. Who saw that coming? Let's see.. government intervention verses personal choice... Yep democrat. He knows better for you than you do. He can make government make your decisions for you.
2006-08-16 13:37:30 · update #2
mamadukes64: Do I think that will happen? Well they banned smoking in bars didn't they? They made it illegal in D.C. to have the means to defend yourself. yeah, I think they can make it happen.
2006-08-16 13:39:28 · update #3
sway_ii. By giving the government the right to decide for "those people" your giving them the right to decide for you too. The laws will apply to you as well. We can't just say, "This law will only apply to people predisposed to heart disease and people more than 30lbs overweight."
2006-08-16 13:43:29 · update #4
What we eat is a personal choice and having the government regulate what we can and cannot eat is insane.
If we want to eat healty then we will do so but if we prefer to ingest transfats, so be it.
2006-08-16 12:40:22 · answer #1 · answered by Minina 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are certain chemical additives or processes that create trans fats, or hydrogenated oils. I think there should be some mechanism to discourage people from doing these things. Making something a crime is usually not the best solution though. And it's supposed to be the people that make the decisions in society, not the government. That's what democracy is supposed to be about. But we are not really in true democracy, so the point is kind of moot.
2006-08-16 19:43:50 · answer #2 · answered by martin h 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the government has a right to legislate your diet... to a point. For example, the health department has TONS of rules and regulations about how restaurants are cleaned, because the government doesn't want the people who eat there to be poisoned. The government has an interest in protecting the population (more voters, more taxpayers, etc.).
There are already regulations in place that prevent restaurants from serving real Cesar dressing because it contains raw eggs. But that doesn't mean you can't gulp down a few raw eggs at home like Rocky Balboa did, right?
The regulation of certain food, or the manner in which it is prepared is necessary to protect our health and general well being. Some of those regulations go over-board a bit and your example might be one of those situations. However, most of the time, I am happy to know that the chances of getting sick from Salmonella poisoning at the local pub is is rather remote because of the current regulations.
While I truly respect your desire to choose your own destiny, the problem comes in when we want to eat healthy and avoid trans fat, but can't because restaurants aren't good at telling us what is in their food.
On the other hand, I don't think they can ever stop you from eating whatever you want at home.
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR ADDITIONAL DETAILS:
I didn't really have McDonald's in mind, more like Roberto's Taco Shop. We have so many regulations already; it is difficult to imagine anything that needs additional regulation. The Alderman may be going overboard, but he is doing a good job of attacting attention to himself. It will be easier for him to get reelected that way.
Speaking of McDonald's... they have an excellent website that lays out all of the nutritional information for all of their food. I had lunch there the other day, a double quarter pounder w/ cheese, small fries, small coke and two apple pies; 1630 calories, 38 g of saturated fat (143% of the recommended daily limit), and 15.5 g of trans fat. I think it would be good if other restaurants would be more forthcoming with that type of information. I bet McDonaolds would pay a lot to lobby against the Alderman's efforts.
2006-08-16 19:39:54 · answer #3 · answered by www.lvtrafficticketguy.com 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think a restaurant can serve what they like as long as it passes the health inspector, not a nutritionist. This BS in Chicago is ridiculous. They have already outlawed Pate De foi gras. How controlling is that? What's next? This is your far left at work. This is what it really looks like when freedom of choice is taken away. Get a good look, If you let the left control, this will be a very common occurrence. And it won't be just food.
2006-08-16 19:45:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Even the mayor in Chicago believes that the City Council is going too far.
No, the government has no right to legislate your diet. The FDA is there to make sure that foods produced are not harmful in the acute sense (as in, eat it today and die tomorrow), but they do not have the right to ban something because it might be bad for you if you eat it every day for every meal.
2006-08-16 19:44:20 · answer #5 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the government has the right to decide what a person can eat. But doesn't it make sense for them to at least regulate the amounts of poisonous additives that are being served up to innocent/ignorant people? It should not be legal to serve poisons to people and tell them it's safe, just for the sake of higher profits.
2006-08-16 19:46:28 · answer #6 · answered by DJ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since when is eating trans-fats a right? Do you consider eating trans-fats to be a pursuit of happiness?
The government regulates much or the food industry. This is nothing new.
Sometimes the government must step up and protect people from themselves, especially children.
2006-08-16 19:40:56 · answer #7 · answered by Plasmapuppy 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i agree with you. unless there is something in the food to make your dangerous to others like some kind of drug, you should be able to eat what you want. restaurants should be able to serve the foods they want, but maybe have to inform their customers about how much transfat is in everything or at least inform upon request. like how that person wanted to sue mcdonalds for getting the person fat? um she didnt have to eat their food. that was her choice. people should know, i mean isnt it common sense that fast food isnt all that healthy? the person shouldnt have eaten fast food. its not mcdonalds fault. some people amaze me.
2006-08-16 19:43:26 · answer #8 · answered by um yea hi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Judging by the fact that there are so many tubs of lard walking around in size 65 pants, I think that's a good idea. Trans fats are very dangerous like many drugs. At least some people might lose some weight.
2006-08-16 19:40:35 · answer #9 · answered by Wocka wocka 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO!NO!NO!NO! They have no right to tell us what we can or cannot eat. But as far as I'm concern they have no right to tell us that we have to wear seatbelts. I understand them saying children need to but we should beable to choose if we want to or not. They act like we are not smart enough to make our own decisions in our life. Plus everytime they take a choice away people should be affended by it.Why? Because in a indirect way they are saying we are incompetent. Each year that goes by more and more of our rights are taken from us.When are people going to say no more????????????????
2006-08-16 20:00:41 · answer #10 · answered by sweet_thing_kay04 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋