Jump to content

Banning Trans Fats?


Recommended Posts

The province I live in announced this week that they will eliminate all trans fats sold in restraunts by 2010. I am personnally disgusted with this decision. I am all for labeling such foods but to outright ban them is too big brotherish. I find extremely hypocritical that the same government makes more than $2 a pack in tax on cigarettes a product that it is proven that half its users die a slow painful death and are extremely addictive. For christ sakes we are adults and can make are own decsions on what we eat. Though I dont eat at KFC people I know who do say that when they eliminated trans fats the taste of the product suffered. Even if they wanted to put some sort of tax on trans fat I wt would be better than saying you cant have them at all. Sorry for venting but I like me some trans fats.Edit: I am a retard, someone please move this to OT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The province I live in announced this week that they will eliminate all trans fats sold in restraunts by 2010. I am personnally disgusted with this decision. I am all for labeling such foods but to outright ban them is too big brotherish. I find extremely hypocritical that the same government makes more than $2 a pack in tax on cigarettes a product that it is proven that half its users die a slow painful death and are extremely addictive. For christ sakes we are adults and can make are own decsions on what we eat. Though I dont eat at KFC people I know who do say that when they eliminated trans fats the taste of the product suffered. Even if they wanted to put some sort of tax on trans fat I wt would be better than saying you cant have them at all. Sorry for venting but I like me some trans fats.Edit: I am a retard, someone please move this to OT.
wow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully they will get around to helping you not piss away your money online playing poker.Then they will help you not to break your legs skiing by shutting down the lifts.Then they will go to work on your other sports.But hey, they are here to help protect you from yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, that's terrible. your government is trying to help you. how awful. move this to bad beats...
Makes no sense to sell cigarettes then but they do. Makes no sense to sell liqour then but they do. Makes no sense to sell many of the pharmemeuciticals but they do. My guess is in long run more peoples life will be cut short from pollution from carbons but they will never try and take are cars away. But if I want a burger and fries that taste good every once and awhile no I cant because it might kill me 40 years down the road.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't noticed even the slightest difference in NYC. I understand if you have a theoretical reason to be against it, but practically it will make no difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't noticed even the slightest difference in NYC. I understand if you have a theoretical reason to be against it, but practically it will make no difference.
Do you eat types of foods that were effected(had to change the recipes, ect). My understanding is there is pretty much no getting around trans fats when it comes to some pastrys. I also heard McDonalds cant find a recipe that works for there fries. Have you eaten there since the ban?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you eat types of foods that were effected(had to change the recipes, ect). My understanding is there is pretty much no getting around trans fats when it comes to some pastrys. I also heard McDonalds cant find a recipe that works for there fries. Have you eaten there since the ban?
I eat at McD's but I don't get the fries because they're so darn unhealthy. Hope that helps, though I know it doesn't.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find extremely hypocritical that the same government makes more than $2 a pack in tax on cigarettes a product that it is proven that half its users die a slow painful death and are extremely addictive.That can't be true, can it? A smoker has a 50% chance of not contracting cancer/emphysema? It's gotta be much higher than that, yes? Someone help me out here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I find extremely hypocritical that the same government makes more than $2 a pack in tax on cigarettes a product that it is proven that half its users die a slow painful death and are extremely addictive.That can't be true, can it? A smoker has a 50% chance of not contracting cancer/emphysema? It's gotta be much higher than that, yes? Someone help me out here.
The warning labels on cigarettes up here state that 50% of smokers die from smoking related illnesses.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speedz, you've seen a King of the Hill episode that relates to everything. Weird. As to this topic, I don't know whether I agree with the OP, or whether I think people are so stupid as to need people telling them what to do, or whether I am indifferent altogether. I'll pick one of those options at random if I'm forced to make a play on the subject later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I find extremely hypocritical that the same government makes more than $2 a pack in tax on cigarettes a product that it is proven that half its users die a slow painful death and are extremely addictive.That can't be true, can it? A smoker has a 50% chance of not contracting cancer/emphysema? It's gotta be much higher than that, yes? Someone help me out here.
http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfmI did the test...a 60 year old that has been smoking 20 cigarettes a day for 40 years has a 6% chance of developing lung cancer in the next ten years. I know lung cancer is just one of the possible killers that can be partially caused by smoking, but if it's that low of a percentage it can't be even close to 50% overall.Not that anyone should take a 6% chance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Speedz, you've seen a King of the Hill episode that relates to everything.
It just that good of a show.
The warning labels on cigarettes up here state that 50% of smokers die from smoking related illnesses.
I guess I was wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
As to this topic, I don't know whether I agree with the OP, or whether I think people are so stupid as to need people telling them what to do, or whether I am indifferent altogether. I'll pick one of those options at random if I'm forced to make a play on the subject later.
This is almost exactly how I feel. Except I could never have said it so efficiently.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The warning labels on cigarettes up here state that 50% of smokers die from smoking related illnesses.
You all have some pretty pics on your cigarette packs too.
http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfmI did the test...a 60 year old that has been smoking 20 cigarettes a day for 40 years has a 6% chance of developing lung cancer in the next ten years. I know lung cancer is just one of the possible killers that can be partially caused by smoking, but if it's that low of a percentage it can't be even close to 50% overall.Not that anyone should take a 6% chance.
There's nothing good about smoking but pretty much everyone gets some kind of cancer if they live long enough. I obviously pulled that statement out of my cancer ridden colon. 6% of smokers get lung cancer? Again, I would expect that to be much higher.
Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago McD's was cooking there fries in animal fat. When vegetarians freaked out, they switched and they fries tasted a bit different.Not really sure how that applies, but this thread made me think of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...