New York City to Ban Trans Fats at Restaurants

Posted on December 5, 2006

Is there some kind of group that can protect our freedoms to eat what we want? This is insane! The politically correct steal more freedom from Americans.

The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the nation’s first city to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants – from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries.
The board, which passed the ban unanimously, did give restaurants a slight break by relaxing what had been considered a tight deadline for compliance. Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008.

But restaurant industry representatives called the ban burdensome and unnecessary.

“We don’t think that a municipal health agency has any business banning a product the Food and Drug Administration has already approved,” said Dan Fleshler, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association.

Hat tip to Goodwill Hinton who adds:

While I am sensitive to the public health considerations involved, I am more disturbed by another blow to freedom in this country. I’m sure that some will take that as being hyperbolic, but could you have imagined such a thing twenty years ago.

I’d love to get thoughts from all across the political spectrum on this one.

I’m not so sensitive to this kind of freedom killing either. I’m not much of a fan for the nanny state. Personally I think this kind of stuff should be left to the responsibility of the individuals. Thanks for the concern, but I like my pizza with a little grease. Sorry to hear your bad luck New York. I’ll make sure to pack my own lunch if I ever decide to visit. Ace sums all this up with two words. Food Nazis! Whats next, chocolate?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under Uncategorized

Trackback URL

Comments

4 Responses to “New York City to Ban Trans Fats at Restaurants”

kerwin_brown on December 5th, 2006 9:08 pm

The city does have a public health reason for doing it and that does trump the right to liberty.

My question is, will this action increase the public health to such an extent that it overweighs the cost of implementing it? I do not believe it will.

I would also like to know if the Board of Health is an elected legislative body because it seems to be acting like one. If it is unelected then it is a violation of the U.S. Constitutions guarantee of a representative form of government to the states.
Red Five on December 6th, 2006 8:53 am

Sorta reminds me of the movie Demolition Man, where everything that wasn’t good for you was bad, and everything bad was illegal. Where’s John Spartan when you need him?
Paul Yanna on December 6th, 2006 10:08 pm

Just remember this outrage the next time you scream for a ban on something else related to human health — elective termination of pregnancy, for example.
kerwin_brown on December 7th, 2006 6:49 am

Paul Yana,

It sounds like you are stating that a woman is significantly endangered by carrying a child? I have my doubts about that claim. What risk there is is well worth continuing the human race.