California Governor Arnold (I can't spell it but you know who he is dammit) has signed into law a ban on all trans fats from foods in resturants and retail products made in the state. Resturants are to have trans fats excised by 2010 and retail products by 2011. The following foods will be affected:

Cakes, cookies, crackers, pies, bread, etc.

Animal products

Margarine

Fried potatoes

Potato chips, corn chips, popcorn

So discuss. (Removed second part).

You CANNOT be serious. He has really banned Trans-fats? What the hell happened to People's Choice? If you want to diet or starve yourself or only eat vegetables, that should be your choice. Banning food is pushing an unwanted lifestyle onto another person, and that behavior should have ended with the Spanish Inquisition.

It really makes me think twice about wanting to move there, but you can't start an acting career where I am now. It's damn near impossible.

Meh, I make efforts to minimize my trans-fat intake anyway. Plus, I live on the opposite side of the country.

Everyday I become less patriotic because it appears that the "land of the free" is becoming less and less true. Censorship is getting worse and consumer choices are becoming more limited due to regulations. Arnold is nowhere near as good a politician as he was an actor.

Um. Trans-fats are bad, mmmkay. It's not like he outlawed fast food.

Maybe bad health (in California) could be solved if all food and drink (in California) is required to be organic? Might go well with all the orange juice...

Next thing you know, they'll ban lark's vomit from Whizzo Chocolates.

Seriously though, why would anyone have a problem with this? No one in their right mind would eat a trans fat when they could eat mono or poly unsaturated fat. Heck, you can still fry in saturated fat like BACON GREASE!

The state not allowing corporations to use a harmful product that no consumer has a desire for is not a nanny state. It is a state where the people are free to eat deep-fried food cooked in fats that taste just as good but are more healthy, which to me sounds a lot like freedom. If there is anyone in any way bothered by the fact that they have to eat things cooked in LARD rather than partially hydrogenated plant oils, let me know, but I've never met such a person (who wasn't keeping Kosher).

If you're going to ask for a discussion you really shouldn't start it with a post as one-sided as this. It's just plain irresponsible. There may be an angle here that trans fats are cheaper and consumers should have that choice available to them/corporations should be free to pursue those profits, but, that's a whole different discussion.

California would be the state to ban trans fats.

meatloaf231:
California would be the state to ban trans fats.

Actually, Philadelphia has already banned trans fats. You know--the home of the cheese steak: thin sliced fried beef smothered in fried onions and melted cheese.

Who knew liberal fascism could be so...delicioussss.

Trans fats have been linked to a number of circulatory conditions.
Of course, conservative that you are, you say "So what if some people want to die earlier? It's their choice." The problem with that is that when they get rushed to Emergency, it causes an increase in the backlog, delaying people with similarly urgent medical conditions that aren't self-inflicted. Also, when they recieve service, the costs either go to their insurance carrier (raising costs for everyone else) or are footed by the state (reducing the funding available for other projects).
"So what," you ask. "One person doesn't cost that much or take that much time to treat." That is true. One person doesn't have that much effect on the line in Emergency or on the cost of the basic Blue Cross (or any other health insurance carrier) package, and definitely doesn't have much impact on the state budget. But the trans-fats act as a kind of contaigon vector.
To use an analogy, consider an illness that can only be transmitted if an infected animal is eaten (such as vCJD). Consider also that it contaminates all of the meat in a particular resturant's kitchen. That one resturant would in this example serve 100-500 people per day. In other words, it could infect 700-3500 people per week, or 2800-17000 per month. Even accounting for repeat customers (which would reduce the number by about one-third), treating this many would significantly raise costs. Moving out of the realm of analogy and back to the original situation, such a large increase in costs ($280 thousand to 1.7 million at $100 per patient, which is probabally an underestimate) would be problematic. And when you multiply the cost by the number of resturants in the state (even removing 75% of them for customer overlap), the costs become astronomical.

Seriously... Really?

If this is the case maybe my thought of expatriation isn't nearly as far off as I thought.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Next thing you know, they'll ban lark's vomit from Whizzo Chocolates.

Seriously though, why would anyone have a problem with this? No one in their right mind would eat a trans fat when they could eat mono or poly unsaturated fat. Heck, you can still fry in saturated fat like BACON GREASE!

The state not allowing corporations to use a harmful product that no consumer has a desire for is not a nanny state. It is a state where the people are free to eat deep-fried food cooked in fats that taste just as good but are more healthy, which to me sounds a lot like freedom. If there is anyone in any way bothered by the fact that they have to eat things cooked in LARD rather than partially hydrogenated plant oils, let me know, but I've never met such a person.

If you're going to ask for a discussion you really shouldn't start it with a post as one-sided as this. It's just plain irresponsible. There may be an angle here that trans fats are cheaper and consumers should have that choice available to them/corporations should be free to pursue those profits, but, that's a whole different discussion.

I apologize. Its just when I read the headline it just fired me up for some reason and I didn't think it out enough and for that I'm sorry. I understand your point and I do agree with it in theory. My problem is I don't think it will stop with just trans fats. Why not ban all fats? Certain kinds of sugars are bad for you. Should we ban them as well? Heck almost all candy is bad for you. Lets get rid of all of them! I just see this as a slippery slope where any and all things bad for you are illegal and nobody is able to define what is and isn't good for them.

Oh Arnold, don't go changing on me. [/not sarcasm]

Cheeze_Pavilion:

meatloaf231:
California would be the state to ban trans fats.

Actually, Philadelphia has already banned trans fats. You know--the home of the cheese steak: thin sliced fried beef smothered in fried onions and melted cheese.

Who knew liberal fascism could be so...deliciousness.

As far as I have studied a year or two ago, many states (or parts of states) in America have already banned Trans fats. So the real discussion should not be "CA would be the state to ban them" but instead "What took CA so long?" Michigan and New York are two others I can confirm without a doubt.

Banning trans fats is old news. It was removed because it had no ounce of good in it. The reason all fats cannot be banned is because it's impossible to do that. People will buy meat. Trans fats, however, are a different story.

As far as I read a year ago, some fast food companies have also stopped using it. Popular companies like Mc Donald and Burger King are trying to get past the new laws by importing their meats that were pre-cooked in trans fats from other areas that have not been banned.

All in all I cannot understand why anyone would complain.

EmperorDude:

I apologize. Its just when I read the headline it just fired me up for some reason and I didn't think it out enough and for that I'm sorry. I understand your point and I do agree with it in theory.

No worries--the headline you read was probably itself slanted and designed to get you to do that.

My problem is I don't think it will stop with just trans fats. Why not ban all fats? Certain kinds of sugars are bad for you. Should we ban them as well? Heck almost all candy is bad for you. Lets get rid of all of them! I just see this as a slippery slope where any and all things bad for you are illegal and nobody is able to define what is and isn't good for them.

Let me give you what I think is a backstop on that slippery slope: trans fats are not being banned because they are "bad for you"; they are being banned because no rational consumer would choose them if they had a choice. People do have their reasons for choosing other fats.

I mean, KFC doesn't fry their chicken in trans fats anymore and I don't taste a difference. I think the freedom to have a bucket of friend chicken taste as good as it always has is a pretty decent backstop on that slippery slope, don't you?

Well, there is no difference between transfats and normal fats in terms of taste. It's VERY bad for you, though.

Having transfat in one's diet statistically increases your chances for coronary heart disease. It's not uncommon to pass a law for the benefit of everyone's health. Transfat, Pennsylvania just banned smoking in bars and restaurants (something that smokers say is discrimination, I say it's a breath of fresh air - har har).

It's not facism, it's sort of like taking care of Americans -- who never know when to say no.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Let me give you what I think is a backstop on that slippery slope: trans fats are not being banned because they are "bad for you"; they are being banned because no rational consumer would choose them if they had a choice. People do have their reasons for choosing other fats.

I mean, KFC doesn't fry their chicken in trans fats anymore and I don't taste a difference. I think the freedom to have a bucket of friend chicken taste as good as it always has is a pretty decent backstop on that slippery slope, don't you?

Transfat has no nutritional value whatsoever, and can be easily removed from recipes. THAT's why it's banned. Why did they ban the use of animal fats to make french fries? Same reason. Normal people do need fat in their diet, though. I mean NORMAL people (those who eat healthily most of the time), not people who are 350 pounds and consume nothing but fats.

Roflcopter!

ATTENTION ALL AMERICANS
If you have an employable skill (ie no welfare bums or "artists"), move to Canada. We are still free to make bad decisions or live how we choose.

The day some bureaucratic geriatric-tard tries to tell me what I can and cannot eat, I will find the sonofabitch and force feed him a mixture of draino and feces.

Oh dear, California strikes again.

That shit won't fly here in SC. We do it old school.

Alright. To everyone who's saying that trans fats are bad for you and using that as support for this idea: go watch Demolition Man. Seriously. I'll wait.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

meatloaf231:
California would be the state to ban trans fats.

Actually, Philadelphia has already banned trans fats. You know--the home of the cheese steak: thin sliced fried beef smothered in fried onions and melted cheese.

Who knew liberal fascism could be so...delicioussss.

That sibilant hiss is a little disturbing.

I can't believe that the Terminator would have a hand in creating the Nanny State.

Canada did it awhile ago, our food tastes better now.

Khell_Sennet:
Roflcopter!

ATTENTION ALL AMERICANS
If you have an employable skill (ie no welfare bums or "artists"), move to Canada. We are still free to make bad decisions or live how we choose.

The day some bureaucratic geriatric-tard tries to tell me what I can and cannot eat, I will find the sonofabitch and force feed him a mixture of draino and feces.

For fuck's sake, can we have ONE post where you don't show up and act like a total asshat with your nationalistic bullshit?

I mean, don't you feel completely stupid considering trans fats were banned in Calgary?

I realize that I'm just an ignorant American, but, Calgary is in Canada, right?

Have fun feeding the members of the Calgary Health Region that "mixture of draino and feces"!

jackass...

whitemidget:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

trans fats are not being banned because they are "bad for you"; they are being banned because no rational consumer would choose them if they had a choice. People do have their reasons for choosing other fats.

Transfat has no nutritional value whatsoever, and can be easily removed from recipes. THAT's why it's banned.

Umm, yeah--that's basically what I said.

Copter400:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

meatloaf231:
California would be the state to ban trans fats.

Actually, Philadelphia has already banned trans fats. You know--the home of the cheese steak: thin sliced fried beef smothered in fried onions and melted cheese.

Who knew liberal fascism could be so...delicioussss.

That sibilant hiss is a little disturbing.

I can't believe that the Terminator would have a hand in creating the Nanny State.

I was thinking of Cartman when they see the calf farm and he calls them baby veals.

Also, why do you think this is a Nanny State? How can you call this a Nanny State law when it bans one type of fat but leaves lard and bacon grease alone (in fact, it will probably result in an increase in the use of lard)? If KFC can do it and still get me as delicious a bucket of chicken as ever, well, who isn't ready for the military dictatorship of Colonel Sanders?

Meh, wrong side of the country for me to care. Besides, the only thing I'll be eating is whatever the Navy gives me. Long as there's no peanuts, I'm set.

I live in california, and when I read this story earlier today, I almost passed out. Didn't he see the King of the Hill episode about this? First it's cell phones, now this. The Govenator is starting to become a real thorn in my side.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Khell_Sennet:
Roflcopter!

ATTENTION ALL AMERICANS
If you have an employable skill (ie no welfare bums or "artists"), move to Canada. We are still free to make bad decisions or live how we choose.

The day some bureaucratic geriatric-tard tries to tell me what I can and cannot eat, I will find the sonofabitch and force feed him a mixture of draino and feces.

For fuck's sake, can we have ONE post where you don't show up and act like a total asshat with your nationalistic bullshit?

I mean, don't you feel completely stupid considering trans fats were banned in Calgary?

I realize that I'm just an ignorant American, but, Calgary is in Canada, right?

Have fun feeding the members of the Calgary Health Region that "mixture of draino and feces"!

jackass...

And Edmonton, where I am, it is not banned. Call me crazy, but Edmonton is ALSO part of Canada. Now Calgary is the only Canadian city that has banned trans-fat, and it's not a total ban. It's only restricted in restaurants and fast food joints, no more than 2% of total fat content. So before you start spouting high and mighty bullshit, check your facts. California is an entire state, Calgary is one city.

Khell_Sennet:

And Edmonton, where I am, it is not banned. Call me crazy, but Edmonton is ALSO part of Canada. Now Calgary is the only Canadian city that has banned trans-fat, and it's not a total ban. It's only restricted in restaurants and fast food joints, no more than 2% of total fat content. So before you start spouting high and mighty bullshit, check your facts. California is an entire state, Calgary is one city.

So why would someone need to move to Canada? There are 49 other U.S. states. Call ME crazy, but those 49 other states? Not only are they NOT part of Canada, they ARE part of America.

Maybe you should check a map before making yourself look like an even bigger jackass while attempting a dishonest backpedal from what you said.

This doesn't impress me much. Trans fats are worse than saturated fats, but not enough for me to find legislation as making a major difference in Americans' health.

Now, a ban on high-fructose corn syrup, that would be impressive. The body tends to take in HFCS and do some very odd things with this distilled alien substance. I want cane sugar in every soft drink.

And, FYI, this isn't "nanny liberal" stuff. Though Cali is typically a blue state, Ah-nold is a conservative Republican candidate. (Though it is very trendy for them to act bi-partisan lately, to distance themselves from a certain president who isn't doing well in popularity.)

geldonyetich:
This doesn't impress me much. Trans fats are worse than saturated fats, but not enough for me to find legislation as making a major difference in Americans' health.

This I think is what people keep misunderstanding: it's not that trans fats are so much worse than saturated fats, it's that trans fats can be substituted for in a way that saturated fats can't--kind of like what you're saying about replacing HFCS with natural sugars. There's no way you can replace the taste and mouthfeel of butter with anything healthier, while the only time there's no substitute for Crisco is when you need to get your hand up someone's ass.

man. i hope they outlaw every type of fat in america as well as canada, just so i can see the amount of whine that will be posted in that time force the internets to explode. the world would be a better place.

using arnolds own words, STOP WHINING

theklng:
man. i hope they outlaw every type of fat in america as well as canada, just so i can see the amount of whine that will be posted in that time force the internets to explode. the world would be a better place.

using arnolds own words, STOP WHINING

Use mine own words: Fuck you, you talentless moronic dick. When people cease to complainabout goverment, that is the condition known as 'Dictatorship'. But of course, being an Austrian, he has a tradition of autocratic goverment....

You know what this means? The government of California thinks you are not smart enough to decide what you put into your mouth.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Khell_Sennet:

And Edmonton, where I am, it is not banned. Call me crazy, but Edmonton is ALSO part of Canada. Now Calgary is the only Canadian city that has banned trans-fat, and it's not a total ban. It's only restricted in restaurants and fast food joints, no more than 2% of total fat content. So before you start spouting high and mighty bullshit, check your facts. California is an entire state, Calgary is one city.

So why would someone need to move to Canada? There are 49 other U.S. states. Call ME crazy, but those 49 other states? Not only are they NOT part of Canada, they ARE part of America.

Maybe you should check a map before making yourself look like an even bigger jackass while attempting a dishonest backpedal from what you said.

Oh calm down a bit. Waving the patriot flag a bit high there. Khell made a joke. I don't think he actually wants anymore Americans in Canad