Trans-fat ban in Calgary restaurants

[the_only_turek_fan]

I am listening to the radio right now and they have this guy on from the Calgary Health Region who is trying to ban trans fats from all Calgary restaurants.

Are we going to have any freedoms left in a few years?

[trew]

Trans fat is nasty, nasty stuff. This is one freedom we can all do without.

[mykalberta]

I dont like it here, but I understand the reasoning. I dont understand the reasoning in a place like NYC where health care is paid by directly by the consumer.

Also, can someone post any health studies as per trans fats. Thanks.

MYK

[CaramonLS]

I agree with the ban to be quite honest, I don't mind paying slightly more for normally greasy foods which are better for me.

[the_only_turek_fan]

^ I just have a problem with the Calgary Health Region deciding what I can and can't eat.

The way I see it is that people are educated enough, and should know they should control the amount of fat they intake.

[worth]

I agree with you Turek fan.

I will equate this to the smoking bans going on all over North America

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006299855

I'm not a smoker, but I believe that if a bar or resturant owner wants to allow smoking in their place, it's none of the governments business to tell them they can't do that. And if someone wants to smoke in their house, the government shouldn't restrict that either.

[Robbob]

I'm with the posters that believe although this is a good idea to eliminate transfats its a slippery slope when you tell be don't don't have a choice. I'm getting a little leary when governements start telling me what I can and can't do when it doesn't concern the law.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by worth

I agree with you Turek fan.

I will equate this to the smoking bans going on all over North America

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006299855

I'm not a smoker, but I believe that if a bar or resturant owner wants to allow smoking in their place, it's none of the governments business to tell them they can't do that. And if someone wants to smoke in their house, the government shouldn't restrict that either.

Smoking ban is a completely seperate issue with much different health risks (2nd hand smoke), lets not derail the thread with it please.

[Bobblehead]

What difference will I notice when I walk into the restaurant?

Will this alter the taste of food?
What is the cost difference?

If both those things are negligible then the only real difference is one is healthier than the other.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by worth

I agree with you Turek fan.

I will equate this to the smoking bans going on all over North America

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006299855

I'm not a smoker, but I believe that if a bar or resturant owner wants to allow smoking in their place, it's none of the governments business to tell them they can't do that. And if someone wants to smoke in their house, the government shouldn't restrict that either.

Well said. Calf and I were having a beer on the weekend and this very topic came up. What you said is exactly the way I feel about this and the smoking bans. If you don't want to get second hand smoke, stay out of that particular bar.

Back to the trans fat issue, there are people that are healthy that do enjoy going out for greesey food once in a while and they should have that right.

[worth]

I was equating the government telling bar/resturant owners what they can or can not do in their own business. Has nothing to do with the "health risks". Smoking, trans fats, grease whatever it is, that's not the point. The point is restrictions on what people can and can't do.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Back to the trans fat issue, there are people that are healthy that do enjoy going out for greesey food once in a while and they should have that right.

From what little I know, this won't ban any food - only the grease it is fried in. A different grease in the deep friers.

[trew]

The problem with Trans Fat in restaurants is that they don't have to tell you they use it, nor do they give you an option not to consume it. I like to eat out, but have no idea how much transfat I might be ingesting.

When the government forced grocery labels to list trans fat in all products, there was a radical change in food processing. Companies are minimizing and looking for ways to completely eliminate the stuff. People don't want to eat it, and are looking for alternatives whenever they have the chance.

You mention smoking bylaws, which I agree do have parallels. Like smoking, most people would prefer not to ingest trans fats, but many (most?) business owners would prefer to allow it, because it marginally improves profitability. (The cheapest fried goods, cooking oils, margarines, and pre-prepared dishes all include trans-fat, it lengthens shelf life, and allows basically any oil to be used as a butter replacement). It wouldn't surprise me if the trans-fat content has gone up in restaurant food, because I bet the oil prices have reduced with the shift in policy from grocery food wholesalers. There's probably a glut of the stuff in the wholesale restaurant food market.

Because of this, there exists no consumer choice, and the stuff is forced on us. You either abstain from eating out (or in the case of smoking going to pubs), or put up with a non-consented risk to your health.

Like smoking, the government is acting from an outcry of consumer support, and is acting perhaps even later than they should have. Trans Fat has been food enemy number one for many years now. The stuff should be illegal, it serves no essential purpose.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by worth

I agree with you Turek fan.

I will equate this to the smoking bans going on all over North America

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006299855

I'm not a smoker, but I believe that if a bar or resturant owner wants to allow smoking in their place, it's none of the governments business to tell them they can't do that. And if someone wants to smoke in their house, the government shouldn't restrict that either.

I agree with you and others on the principle, keep the gov out of my buisness.

The problem is in a publically funded health care system, obese people and chain smokers are more likely to be more of a strain on the public health system and therefore cost more than someone who doesnt smoke or the like.

MYK

[Winsor_Pilates]

I would like it if they had to advertise they are using trans fats. That way people would know and could make the choice.
The smoking thing is very different since it effects the health of people beyond the user.

[Bobblehead]

McDonalds selects a trans-fat free oil.

McDonald's had been under pressure for moving more slowly than smaller rivals Wendy's International Inc. and Yum Brands Inc.'s KFC and Taco Bell to rid its oil of the artery-clogging trans fats.

[Burninator]

This hardly infringes on your rights. This is looking out for your safety. The trans fats that are looking to be banned are artifical ones. Trans fat is cheap oil that is added to foods to prolong shelf life. This can either be replaced by something less harmful or the fat can be removed entirely. This isn't going to prevent you from eating any foods you want, but it will make those foods less harmful to you. Most of the trans are in fast food, snack food, fried food and baked goods.

When people say "The way I see it is that people are educated enough, and should know they should control the amount of fat they intake." Well you would think that would stop people from smoking, but it hasn't. So comparing this to smoking doesn't work in this case. Obsiety rates are on the rise, this isn't a problem that people are going to sort out on their own.

[Agamemnon]

Cops can give you a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt... where's the outrage about your freedom to drive unbuckled?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Cops can give you a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt... where's the outrage about your freedom to drive unbuckled?

Meh, that outrage is so 1980's in Alberta.

[badnarik]

if the government funds your health care, why shouldn't they be allowed to tell you what to do regarding your health? after all, the government is so much smarter than the common man.