You can't sue because you eat the stuff, so what's the point? Are we now being ordered to not eat junk if we want? I hope fast food frachises sue. This is ridiculus. No fat in NYC and no goose liver in Chicago. Geez.
2006-09-27 08:14:31 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I My kids and grand kids think I'm weird because I don't eat fast foods, pizza, cold cereal and very little candy. However, since we now know the health risks involved with eating certain foods, I do see this as another restriction of our daily lives. You guys and girls are really giving me some really great answers.
2006-09-27 10:03:53 · update #1
Well you see time and time again we have been told what's bad for us but since we didn't really care all that much. The do gooders in the government agencies have decided it's much easier to just take away the things they don't think is proper for us.
Now you will have folks on here saying its for your own good yada yada yada but it's a very slippery slope that will soon see the good ole USA as a socialist / communist state.
2006-09-27 08:23:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, its a law that is being proposed, it hasn't yet passed or anything yet. This ban is also not on all fats, not even on all trans fat as it can be a naturally occuring substance. The problem is the artificial kind of trans fat. This fat is known to cause high cholesteral and heart attacks.
I personally agree with it. Trans Fat is not necessary in foods (McDonalds is banned from using it in Denmark and they still can make fries, they just have to use better types of oil to do it) and it is a dangerous substance. Because it is a health hazard and is optional, I personally see it as part of the government's job to protect its citizens. It is no different that putting pollution standards into effect or anything else.
Trans fat is actually very regulated throughout the world (see my mention of Denmark's law). The real problem is that the FDA is in the back pockets of these big businesses and has done nothing to regulate it at all, thus local governments are required to do something.
2006-09-27 08:32:48 · answer #2 · answered by John J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i changed into wondering to ask the same question on condition that they were speaking about it on the radio this morning. They reported that the Mayor changed into wondering about making some regulations on salt next. it truly is merely insane. what's happening in this u . s . even as this happens is that we are drifting remote from democracy. we are dropping our freedom. that is totally un-American, this ban on trans fat, no longer that I recommend ingesting that garbage yet I do experience that human beings must have the right to settle on what is going into their bellies. time-honored now i trust like that is more and more like 1984. it truly is a daunting time to be alive.
2016-12-02 04:42:05 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's overreaction and may be a political stunt. If it goes through I don't think it will be enforced that well. Can't see NYC spending money on trans fat patrols when the city is about #1 on terror threat.
2006-09-27 14:33:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Chicago tried to do the same thing but the mayor said no. I agree if I want to eat it, then I should be able to without the government controlling it.
2006-09-27 08:18:04 · answer #5 · answered by kksay 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are trying to keep the citizens healthy. Besides, someone could sue the city because they didn't ban Transfats. Sue on, punks.........
2006-09-27 08:22:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
NYC, a.k.a, the Big Apple is a world class city!
Yeah for them!
2006-09-27 08:17:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is that a fat man who dresses as a woman?
2006-09-27 08:50:52 · answer #8 · answered by composertype 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋