California bans trans fats in restaurants

[Tipsy]

Trans fats are indeed hydrogenised oils and they are very popular among fast food chains and restaurants, because they can be fried and fried and fried, again and again and again. They can also be found in processed butters (like margarine), dairy products and snacks. Their only value is the profit for those who sell them.

So if an individual values cheaper less-healthy food and the restaurant can offer cheaper less-healthy food through the use of trans fats they have no value to that individual who values them? I don't see how offering something someone values only benefits the person selling it; by the very nature of a mutually voluntary transaction it benefits them both in the maximization of their wants.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I don't really eat in restaurants..

But pretty much what i consume is my choice.. It kinda sucks that its getting to the point where our government can control our bodies but whatever.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Macdonalds and KFC and a others have already removed trans fats, as have companies like Crisco.

There are already alternatives to it that aren't more expensive. There is no reason to still be using trans fats. IT isn't even about choice. There is no reason for anyone to use trans fats.

 

[Tipsy]

Macdonalds and KFC and a others have already removed trans fats, as have companies like Crisco.

There are already alternatives to it that aren't more expensive. There is no reason to still be using trans fats. IT isn't even about choice. There is no reason for anyone to use trans fats.

How isn't it about choice? If two things are the same and I choose the less healthy one, why isn't that a choice?

 

[Galatia]

Eating expired food or hydrogenised oils or **** is certainly a personal choice, but this doesn't mean that it should be legal to serve those things in restaurants.

 

[x42bn6]

Trans fats are indeed hydrogenised oils and they are very popular among fast food chains and restaurants, because they can be fried and fried and fried, again and again and again. They can also be found in processed butters (like margarine), dairy products and snacks. Their only value is the profit for those who sell them.

No, trans fats are one product of these oils. Under specific conditions, one can change the percentage of trans and cis fats to more acceptable fractions - under standard conditions, I think it's roughly slightly biased to trans fats, but if you change the pressure and temperature, you can get trace amounts of trans fats. These are also hydrogenised oils, but much "healthier".*

 

[Tipsy]

Eating expired food or hydrogenised oils or **** is certainly a personal choice, but this doesn't mean that it should be legal to serve those things in restaurants.

What is your justification for using coercive government force to restrict a voluntary exchange between two individuals?

 

[Galatia]

I will use another example, mr. Tipsy. Some of us might like to eat filthy stuff in filthy places, but If places like these are legal, how would you justify the enforcement of public health rules everywhere else?

 

[Tipsy]

I will use another example, mr. Tipsy. Some of us might like to eat filthy stuff in filthy places, but If places like these are legal, how would you justify the enforcement of public health rules everywhere else?

Public health rules are justified if the voluntary exchange has externalities, that is, if they effect a third party. This is not present in the case of eating trans fats in a restaurant.

 

[Galatia]

As far as food is concerned, externalities are not needed in order to justify public health rules. Expired food doesn't affect anyone other than the person who eats it, yet it's illegal. And if that person gets sick, he has the right to sue the restaurant for using expired food. Given that we are talking about California, I can see the relatives of some guy who liked to eat deep fried stuff at fast food restaurants and eventually died of blocked arteries, suing the whole state of California and Arnold himself

 

[Jenny]

Fastfood restaurants should be banned nationwide, IMO.

 

[Tipsy]

As far as food is concerned, externalities are not needed in order to justify public health rules. Expired food doesn't affect anyone other than the person who eats it, yet it's illegal. And if that person gets sick, he has the right to sue the restaurant for using expired food. Given that we are talking about California, I can see the relatives of some guy who liked to eat deep fried stuff at fast food restaurants and eventually died of blocked arteries, suing the whole state of California and Arnold himself

You asked how do I justify public health rules and I stated why; I feel ones that do not deal with externalities use 'coercive government force to restrict a voluntary exchange between two individuals' and because of this should not be on the books. Just because a law is on the books does not make it justified, it just makes it enforced.

I repeat my original question: "What is your justification for using coercive government force to restrict a voluntary exchange between two individuals?"

 

[Emperor Pan I]

You are in the minority who thinks he needs the choice to have trans fats, and since restaurants are not required to list ingredients or nutritional facts, and they won't tell you if they use trans fats, I the conscious customer can't go to any restaurants because you seem to think trans fats is some sort of choice you have. no, no **** that.

 

[Tipsy]

You are in the minority who thinks he needs the choice to have trans fats, and since restaurants are not required to list ingredients or nutritional facts, and they won't tell you if they use trans fats, I the conscious customer can't go to any restaurants because you seem to think trans fats is some sort of choice you have. no, no **** that.

I'm in the minority that thinks people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Personally, I just happen to like owning my life and it's not something I want to give away to people who think they know what is 'best for me'.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

I'm in the minority that thinks people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Personally, I just happen to like owning my life and it's not something I want to give away to people who think they know what is 'best for me'.

It harms everyone who unknowingly consumes really bad trans fats because you think banning a public health problem is somehow a slight against you.

 

[Galatia]

Public health in public places is not a matter of choice, mr. Tipsy. The rules must be the same for everyone, without any legal *windows* that might leave room for things worse than trans fats. After all, we are free to break almost every public health rule in our homes.

 

[Tipsy]

It harms everyone who unknowingly consumes really bad trans fats because you think banning a public health problem is somehow a slight against you.

So then shouldn't you be pushing for restaurants to openly state their ingredients so that consumers can make informed decisions rather than pushing your opinion upon all of them?

Public health in public places is not a matter of choice, mr. Tipsy. The rules must be the same for everyone, without any legal *windows* that might leave room for things worse than trans fats. After all, we are free to break almost every public health rule in our homes.

Then why can't the rules be the same in saying 'you can take any action you wish as long as it does not effect a third party'? If I take particular pleasure in doing something that is extremely unhealthy for me, why shouldn't I be able to (assuming it does not effect a third party)?

 

[N[U]TS]

It comes down to, do you believe it is the responsibility of the government to curve all unhealthy activities?

Nope, I have the right to do whatever I want to my body. Our government is slowly taking away more and more rights that we enjoy. Whats next? I cant eat a damn twinkie because it will increase my risk of becoming obese... America get off your ass and exercise. Don't be like Hollywood and go to the bathroom after each meal and throw it up.


Hell as someone else mention everything starts in Cali and spreads.... didn't the ban of cigaret smoking in restaurants and other public places start there as well?

I'm in the minority that thinks people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

that would be what some define as a libertarian. Plus I don't believe it is a minority either. I have the same reasoning.... If im smoking a cigarret of course im going to move to a place where others who dont smoke will not get second hand. I have a different word for it, I say its considerate.

 

[Galatia]

Then why can't the rules be the same in saying 'you can take any action you wish as long as it does not effect a third party'?

The problem with your argument is the fact that restaurants are not *individuals*. They are businesses with a sole purpose: Profit. It is obvious that the rules must protect the customers from the profit-hungry businesses. On the other hand, it is perfectly legal to cook a trans-fat filled dinner for your family.

My health is not - and should never be - the responsibility of the Government. It's mine. Making sure that businesses are not violating public health rules, though, is the Government's job. Not mine.

 

[Tipsy]

The problem with your argument is the fact that restaurants are not *individuals*. They are businesses with a sole purpose: Profit. It is obvious that the rules must protect the customers from the profit-hungry businesses.

They are both individuals; in economics, the consumer and the firm are both considered individual agents. The consumer and the firm are profit-hungry as is every individual on this earth. That is, each individual wishes to maximize his or her happiness, it is the motivating factor behind human action. The government should not prevent a transaction that does not effect a third party and maximizes the happiness of both individual agents, the firm and the consumer, in a voluntary transaction. I do not see why anyone should be protected from maximizing their happiness in a voluntary transaction when a third party is not effected.

On the other hand, it is perfectly legal to cook a trans-fat filled dinner for your family.

And I hope it stays that way.

My health is not - and should never be - the responsibility of the Government. It's mine.

Yet the government banning restaurants from selling products with trans fats completely contradicts this statement.

Making sure that businesses are not violating public health rules, though, is the Government's job. Not mine.

I'm not saying it isn't their place to enforce their laws - I'm saying it isn't their place to step into voluntary transactions that maximize the happiness of both parties; that is, legislate this specific public health regulation.