Calgary's new trans fat rules kick in on Tuesday

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Hey, we're not as bad as Los Angeles, where their City Council is considering a full-on ban on fast food.

In reality that is probably a good idea. But I do have a problem with the goverment telling people what they can and can't eat. That is a huge infringment on freedom if you ask me. People obviously need to be responsable for their own actions. Unfourtunatly, most people don't care or are not responsable enough to make good choices.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Hey, we're not as bad as Los Angeles, where their City Council is considering a full-on ban on fast food.

They wont be able to get away with it.

NYC is a special case because of the taxation laws, no other city in the US has a leg to stand on in the court.

Canadian cities I assume would be in the same position.

Next we wont be able to eat red meat - this is a big joke.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

Intelligent remarks.

A good percentage of items you can buy at the supermarket which are supposed to be healthy, are in fact, very deceiving. It's doubly so for the fast food industry. Marketing things as being healthy when they actually contain as much fat, calories and carbs as the "unhealthy" choices.

Not just grocery stores. Go take a look at the nutritional content of a place like Subway that's supposedly uber healthy. The sodium content is through the roof. Recommended daily sodium intake is abot 500 mg with max intake at 2000 mg. The 6" veggie sub alone has something ridiculous like 450 mg. At that rate, I'd rather just go with a Wendy's super value meal heh.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

In reality that is probably a good idea. But I do have a problem with the goverment telling people what they can and can't eat. That is a huge infringment on freedom if you ask me. People obviously need to be responsable for their own actions. Unfourtunatly, most people don't care or are not responsable enough to make good choices.

I don't really consider the ban on transfats to be the same as telling you what you can and can not eat.

They are not banning the actual food products made with oils. The same foods will still be out there so you will still be able to eat your fries, your doughnuts and cakes, whatever. You just will not be allowed to buy them prepared in oils containing transfats. The new rule does not say you can not use oils, it just says no oils with transfats. It is the process of hydrogenation of oils that is the culprit, that is how transfats are produced. In other words, it is the byproduct of hydrogenation that is the culprit.

That really is not much different that banning some chemical that would allow produce to stay fresh longer but is proven to be bad for the health.

You will still be able to eat these food products in moderation or you will be able to overindulge in these food products. The products containing oils just won't be allowed to have transfats in them. So what you eat and how much you eat of it is still your choice. On that note, people will also be able to overindulge in foods that are healthy for them too. The quantity is not being controlled.

I think you are going to see more of this in the future. The links between some of these products with cancer, high blood pressure and other health ailments are being exposed on a regular basis now.

Surely we should not complain when products or chemicals that have been proven to be bad for our health get banned. And in the long run, I think you are going to see the food industry going back to a more natural approach with an emphasis on fresh, natural products.

Hallelujiah. I cringe sometimes when I see what people have in their shopping carts.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by redforever

I don't really consider the ban on transfats to be the same as telling you what you can and can not eat.

They are not banning the actual food products made with oils. The same foods will still be out there so you will still be able to eat your fries, your doughnuts and cakes, whatever. You just will not be allowed to buy them prepared in oils containing transfats. The new rule does not say you can not use oils, it just says no oils with transfats. It is the process of hydrogenation of oils that is the culprit, that is how transfats are produced. In other words, it is the byproduct of hydrogenation that is the culprit.

That really is not much different that banning some chemical that would allow produce to stay fresh longer but is proven to be bad for the health.

You will still be able to eat these food products in moderation or you will be able to overindulge in these food products. The products containing oils just won't be allowed to have transfats in them. So what you eat and how much you eat of it is still your choice. On that note, people will also be able to overindulge in foods that are healthy for them too. The quantity is not being controlled.

I think you are going to see more of this in the future. The links between some of these products with cancer, high blood pressure and other health ailments are being exposed on a regular basis now.

Surely we should not complain when products or chemicals that have been proven to be bad for our health get banned. And in the long run, I think you are going to see the food industry going back to a more natural approach with an emphasis on fresh, natural products.

Hallelujiah. I cringe sometimes when I see what people have in their shopping carts.

I totally agree. I was responding to banning fast food alltogther. That is an infringement on personal choice if you ask me. Personally I like to eat healthy. But a guilty pleasure is having a cheese burger every once in a while. Since I work out and eat healthy 90% of the time a burger or two a month isn't going to kill me. But sadly alot of people eat fast food consistanly or exclusively. That is where the problem lies.

[Thunderball]

Normally I hate when the Government sticks their noses into the private lives of their citizens, but this case has two exceptions:

1. This isn't banning food, this is banning a chemical. To me, its no different than banning DDT. Trans fats have been repeatedly proven to be harmful, so they are banned, with other products being used in their place with little to no difference to the consumer.

2. Public healthcare system = limitation to libertarian views. If my taxes/healthcare premiums are propping up the beleaguered system, I shouldn't have to prop up some fat slob whose poor eating/fitness habits are a significantly greater strain on the system. If they were paying for themselves, it would be different. But they aren't. This is, to me, the main reason why Canada should also follow France and become a smoke-free country. Smoking is a proven health strain and source of carcinogens, despite the non-empirical anecdote about old Uncle Harold who lived to be 100 years old and smoked a pack a day and drank like a fish BS.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Smoking is a proven health strain and source of carcinogens, despite the non-empirical anecdote about old Uncle Harold who lived to be 100 years old and smoked a pack a day and drank like a fish BS.

I always laugh at that. Ignore the Millions who have died prematurely because of smoking. Cling to the one person in a million who smoked like a chimney and lived to be 100 as proof that smoking isn't harmful to your health.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I always laugh at that. Ignore the Millions who have died prematurely because of smoking. Cling to the one person in a million who smoked like a chimney and lived to be 100 as proof that smoking isn't harmful to your health.

I laugh too... until I realize those people are serious. The scariest is when someone smokes during pregnancy, their kid (thankfully) isn't born with a serious illness/defect, and then claim that because they lucked out, its totally safe despite tons of studies, papers and research to the contrary.

Problem with the public health system is we all pay for the people who make poor choices like that.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Azure

But should the government start regulating stuff like this?

short answer: no it shouldn't.
more complex answer: if they're paying the health care bill for the damage caused by such things... why not?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I laugh too... until I realize those people are serious. The scariest is when someone smokes during pregnancy, their kid (thankfully) isn't born with a serious illness/defect, and then claim that because they lucked out, its totally safe despite tons of studies, papers and research to the contrary.

Problem with the public health system is we all pay for the people who make poor choices like that.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Dion

Now THAT is scary.

As cold as it sounds, at least that's in the States where she and her HMO are on the hook for her stupid decisions, not the whole of society.

[4X4]

Jackhammers, cigarettes and being born on Bullitt avenue? This kid doesn't have a hope in hell.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Now THAT is scary.

As cold as it sounds, at least that's in the States where she and her HMO are on the hook for her stupid decisions, not the whole of society.

I'm not sure that is true.

I think the US system is great for people who can afford a good plan, but how about the rest who can only afford the bare-bones plans, or who can't afford a plan. How much does that end up costing US society in the long run?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Now THAT is scary.

As cold as it sounds, at least that's in the States where she and her HMO are on the hook for her stupid decisions, not the whole of society.

Oh, I think the whole of society might be on the hook for her stupid decisions.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Hey, we're not as bad as Los Angeles, where their City Council is considering a full-on ban on fast food.

That's misleading, though. They're not considering banning fast food entirely just a ban on any new fast food restaurants opening within a two-year time period.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I laugh too... until I realize those people are serious. The scariest is when someone smokes during pregnancy, their kid (thankfully) isn't born with a serious illness/defect, and then claim that because they lucked out, its totally safe despite tons of studies, papers and research to the contrary.

Problem with the public health system is we all pay for the people who make poor choices like that.

Its a sad fact. The people that pay the least amount of tax. Use the overwelming majority of the services. Health care, police, ect. ect.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Now THAT is scary.

As cold as it sounds, at least that's in the States where she and her HMO are on the hook for her stupid decisions, not the whole of society.

That isn't true. People that can't afford health insurance in the States get a free ride. My brother lives in Montana and it drives him up the wall. According to him, the costs of health care for working class people like him, are extra high to subsidize the people who can't afford it. So a alcoholic bum with no job gets a free ride from the working class (and the upper classes as well) who live pay cheque to pay cheque themselves.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

That isn't true. People that can't afford health insurance in the States get a free ride. My brother lives in Montana and it drives him up the wall. According to him, the costs of health care for working class people like him, are extra high to subsidize the people who can't afford it. So a alcoholic bum with no job gets a free ride from the working class (and the upper classes as well) who live pay cheque to pay cheque themselves.

I don't get it. If the poor and uninsured have such a great deal, why not just forget insurance and get the Poor People Treatment?

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't get it. If the poor and uninsured have such a great deal, why not just forget insurance and get the Poor People Treatment?

Like I said I am going by what he said. But if the IRS knows you make a certain income. How could you say you are too poor to afford insurance?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

short answer: no it shouldn't.
more complex answer: if they're paying the health care bill for the damage caused by such things... why not?

Because you'll have idiots thinking that eating poutine everyday is 'healthy' for you because it doesn't contain trans fats anymore.