I remember a nice, polite little discussion on this topic some time ago when NYC decided to ban trans fats. Now California has become the first state to ban them (ya know, the Governator has actually done a few things in office that has endeared me to the man). I'm sure some will think this means the end is nigh and that when the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse come Barak Obama will be leading the charge yielding a lofty sabre that eliminates trans fats with one swipe of its blade but a little corporate responsibility is exactly what we need. Especially when you consider Coronary Heart Disease is the #1 killer in California. I'll let you know if California falls off the face of the Earth once the law goes in to effect.
About this entry
Youre currently reading Trans Fats No More!.
- Published:
- at 4:30 PM on Friday, July 25, 2008
- Previous:
- Older Post
- Next:
- Newer Post
-
6:13 PM
I believe what is truly needed is personal not corporate responsibility. If someone doesn't want to eat McDonald's fries cooked in trans fat ,don't eat them. No laws passed, no personal choice taken away, no trans fat consumed. Simple!! But then we wouldn't have anyone but ourselves for being overweight and out of shape would we?
-
8:23 PM
Easy for someone of middle class economic means to say, but for someone who is uneducated, poor, and working their life away at a minimum-wage job (often AT said fast food joints) the choice isn't that simple. But then we would actually have to be concerned about poor folk wouldn't we?
Besides your example of McDonald's fries is an uneducated one as they have already stopped using trans fats because of consumer demand. -
3:13 AM
I am concerned about poor people, we just have different ideas as to who is responsible for taking take of them.
I am completely aware that McDonald's no longer uses trans fat. I was simply using it in a generic way to make a point. And see, we didn't need government intervention to get them to do it, the free market (consumer demand) took care of for us. -
6:21 AM
So who is responsible for taking care of them? I'm particularly concerned with the children of the poor who eat junk food for most of their diet. Carrie and I live in one of the poorest neighborhoods in LA yet many of her students are fat. Why is that? Junk food is cheap and easy for poor families but as a result the kids suffer. A couple of years ago one of Carrie's obese 11-year-old students died of undiagnosed diabetes. It wasn't his personal choice to be brought up with that diet. If fast food places are going to inundate poor neighborhoods why not make their food a little healthier?
Besides, do you know what trans fats are? They have nothing to do with taste, you're never going to see Emeril Lagasse suggest using trans fats in a recipe of his. They are used merely to prolong shelf life that is why Hostess and Little Debbies are loaded with them. As far as restaurant food is concerned there is no taste difference unless of course you want to eat hour-old food and not know it. -
10:00 AM
wah wah wah,Don; sorry but its true: big business has been allowed to sell whatever it wishes without regard to anything but the profit margin and its time for a little control.
God, I feel so mean. Must be time for more percocet. sorry.
I mean, using your logic, we should be able to purchase heroin and marijuana at Target---its up to us to set the limit, right? Exercise some restraint, that kind of stuff?
Have ya'll ever noticed that when you try to reduce your food budget that your family starts eating less fresh food, more processed food, more high fats? Like following an ADA calorie/fat restricted diet can increase a household's food expenses by more than 25%?
Oh these Capitalists! They think supply/demand will solve everything, cure every ill. Its just not so. Capitalism as embraced in this Country is more of a problem than a solution.
Love the image of Obama leading the Apocalypse, Lyman. The summer SuperHero movies are showing through in your writing! -
10:00 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
-
3:26 PM
Jezz, it's good thing I'm such a cold-hearted old bastard or I would take offense and get my feelings hurt.
I have never said that big business/capitalism were perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better at just about everything than the government. If you disagree, site me examples of what you think the government does well. Education, no our test scores are the worst in the world; FEMA (remember Katrina); war on poverty, no you continually point how poor the entire country is and getting worse every day; war on drugs... yet no matter the problem, you think government is the answer. - 4:53 PM
- 5:10 PM
- 6:12 PM
-
9:29 PM
You know Lyman, you are right. I went back to the previous trans fat discussion and it was a very good exchange of opinions. I think this one is following suite.
Now, I bet people never thought that they would see this, but... Actually Dad you are wrong. *gasp* Okay, technically so is Lyman, but we know I’ll say that. ;-) The free market had nothing to do with McDonald's (and others) changing to be trans fat free. When NYC decided to bring to our attention something that none of us, even our resident health professional, had on our radar that trans fats were bad, the McDonald's, Kelloggs, Little Debbie's of the world had to make a choice of whether to have two separate menus (or sets of ingredients) for NYC and the rest of us or the more logical one set of ingredients for everybody. It was an easy choice. We all lost our trans fats because of the decision in a major market. Chalk one up for Big Government.
By now, all of the big companies in Cali should be trans fat free because they have made the change as a result of the NYC ban. So what the Cali ban does now is affect all of the little, local, companies in Cali who, to this point, were able to not have to change their menus/ingredients. So in looking out for the health of the people of the state, it will probably put a lot of local businesses out of business. I’m sure, though, that the loss of jobs will be attributed to the price of oil.
Lyman, do you think that it could be possible that it isn't entirely the trans fat that is making today's youth obese, but the fact that when they aren't in school, they spend the majority of their time on their backside in front of a computer, tv, or video game? Plus, I have seen what my parent's eat and their middle class economic means aren't helping their cause any. In fact, it may be hurting them. I think they eat out three or four times a week and have probably just as many of the "junk food" items in their house as someone in your "uneducated, poor" scenario.
I also think it's funny that your "Republican" governor has done some things to endear him to you (who I assume would fall under a Democrat category) all while frustrating me (who we can all agree is Republican leaning). I can’t swear to it, but didn’t he take charge of a fiscally responsible state and now the state is horribly in the red. He tried to enact several social programs only to find that it caused the state to operate in the red unless he raised taxes. Not wanting to do that, he then tried to reduce those programs to get the state’s finances back in order, and he took grief because he was reducing the programs (including by you I believe). He wants me to take global warming seriously when everyday, twice a day, he flies in his private jet from L.A. to San Bernardino. As the governor of 12% of the United State’s population, he has a hard job in front of him and he is showing us firsthand the difficulties of enacting many of the social programs that people would like to see nationwide without raising taxes.
I know I’m a little long-winded here, but I have one last comment. Kathy, I don’t believe that capitalism in and of itself is necessarily a problem. As you have said, unchecked capitalism is a problem, but it goes deeper than that too. Unchecked capitalism without personal responsibility is a problem. We can’t keep letting people spend their way into bankruptcy without some kind of penalty. We can’t let people buy houses they can’t afford without some kind of penalty. But there isn’t any kind of personal (or corporate) responsibility anymore to be financially stable. The collective “we” have apparently decided that we can, and should, bail out everyone no matter what kind of dumb financial decisions they make. We bailout banks, we bailout airlines, we bailout people’s mortgages, there was talk of bailing out the Big Three car manufacturer’s, etc. To me, that is where capitalism goes wrong. If we want Chevy and Ford to be around, they should stop making inferior cars. We shouldn’t keep propping them up when things are rough because then they have no incentive to stop making shitty cars. -
9:41 PM
Actually the USPS does quite well. They've managed to turn a profit in Q1 of this year larger than last year's profit. And though I can't find any other figures from after 2000, I did find an article from 2000 that said it'd turned a profit for "the past five years" (1995-1999, I assume.)
And have you ever mailed a simple letter with UPS or FedEx? They charge dollars for the same thing the USPS charges forty-two cents for. It honestly baffles me when people get up in arms about the USPS raising a stamp a few pennies. - 9:42 PM
-
3:23 AM
The USPS is not a good example because the postal service is a self-supporting government corporation. As I understand it, that means the USPS is basically a private corporation with special privileges granted to it (Postal Reorganization Act, August 12, 1970.
Jeffool, I am confused by your last comment.
About the only thing I can really see the government doing well is the military and taxing us into bankruptcy then pissing away the money. -
1:19 PM
Let's see, I'm just going to respond to folks by name as I didn't expect so many responses. Good stuff though.
Don-You always come back to your steadfast "the government doesn't do anything right, so why do you want them to have more control?" The beauty of our country is the fact that we can CHANGE the way our government acts through voting. I hate most everything Bush has done but am confident that Obama will do a much better job. So the short answer to your question is, democracy. Government is NOT the answer but Government CAN BE the answer.
But if you want a list of stuff; I love our local parks, libraries, even our congested roads get the proper attention. And there's a Children's Museum opening down the street that I'm very excited about. Tax dollars hard at work!
And its too bad you didn't respond to anything in my last post or Drew's.
Drew-I never said Trans Fats were solely to blame, don't think I implied it either. Lazy after school habits play a huge role in why kids are out of shape. But I don't want government to raise kids, only make corporations responsible in their marketing to them.
Your point about small business is a good one. I'm a huge small business advocate and I doubt this law will cause any of them to go bankrupt. If you hear of such an example, I'd like to know about it.
Kathy-Preach on sistah!!
Jeff-Preach on brotha!! -
5:25 PM
Why are you so confident Obama will do much better? In his tenure as a Senator he hasn't done much, if anything. It is my understanding that when he was an Illinois State Senator, all he really did was vote present rather than take a stand on an issue. Do your really believe that Obama will be able to do anything different if we have a repeat of Katrina. The problems with FEMA were not due to President Bush, the problems lie with the bureaucracy that is government, particularly the federal government. It is so huge it cannot respond quickly to anything. Personally I think Obama, especially with a Democrat controlled Congress, will be awful for our country, but that aside, I don't think there is much he can change. The beast, federal government, is too big to be changed. As an example; most everyone admits that the Social Security is program will be broke financially, yet Congress refuses to fix it. In a few years, they will have to cut benefits and/or increase taxes, yet they continue to put off doing anything. President Bush tried, President Obama will be no different.
I will give you the parks and the libraries but you might want to check on the Children's Museum. The Indianapolis Children's Museum is a [501 (C) (3)], non-profit corporation. As to the roads, if your read the technical magazines that come to where Drew and I work, you might have a different opinion on our infrastructure. It is crumbling around us.
As to not responding to your post: I did. I said I too am concerned about the poor, we disagree on who should do be responsible. I don't believe it should be the federal government. I also would disagree to some extent who we define as poor. I have said that many times in the past. Do you want me to respond to your implication that I am ignorant or uneducated and do not know or understand what trans fats are? Ok, I do know and understand what trans fats are, at least from a layman's point of view. Anything else you want me to specifically respond to, let me know.
I would still like to know what Jeffool meant in his last comment. Anyone want to help me out? -
3:51 AM
Yikes; sorry. I misread "drew," and "Don," and thought that it was you, Don, posting at 9:29pm (just prior to my two comments.) Sorry about the confusion, sir! Regardless, I think "Unchecked capitalism without personal responsibility is a problem." is an excellent statement.
Sorry my second comment was so indecipherable and mis-aimed.
But you said "If you disagree, site me examples of what you think the government does well."
I think the Post Office being self-sustaining, equally all-serving, and cost-efficient for customers in an area of business that's still viable for private corporations is an example of a government agency does extremly well. In fact, it's nearly a model agency in that regard. - 4:39 AM
-
7:08 AM
Not to get off topic here but Katrina was primarily Bush's fault. Had he appointed somebody qualified as director of FEMA instead of his good ol' boy Michael Brown their response would've been more efficient. Not to mention he waited too long to declare the are a federal disaster zone. I trust that Obama would be more responsible.
With a Democratic Congress there is every reason to think that more can get done with Obama.
Back to the topic I was wanting to know how you think the poor should be taken care of? If we're not going to control what kind of crap is marketed towards them and their children then what can we do?
And just so you know what 'poor' is the poverty threshold in the US is currently $10,400 for one person (it goes up about $3,600 for each additional family member). And when Obama and others refer to the wealthy they are referring to people making over $250,000. -
9:44 AM
Chicgo Tribune "He (Obama) has endorsed Daley, endorsed Daley's hapless stooge Todd Stroger for president of the Cook County Board. These are not the acts of a reformer, but of a guy who, as we say in Chicago, won't make no waves and won't back no losers.
Obama the reformer is backed by Mayor Richard M. Daley and the Daley boys. He is spoken for by Daley's own spokesman, David Axelrod. He was launched into his U.S. Senate by machine power broker and state Senate President Emil Jones". Yeah President Obama would never appoint one of his buddies.
I know the federal governments definition of poor. I also know that it doesn't take into account things like food stamps, "free" lunch programs, etc.
This is from the Heritage Foundations web page:
"In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year— nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.
Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.
While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to require work and encourage marriage, poverty among children would drop substantially." -
9:54 AM
Anybody else notice that when we have discussions about trans fats, we always talk about other stuff too, but they seem to be more civil? Maybe it’s the idea of cookies and doughnuts floating around in the subconscious that keeps us calm. Anyway, lots to discuss but I’ll try to not hijack again.
Prepare yourself for the end of the world, because what I’m about to say could be a sign of it. Dad, you are wrong, and Lyman, you are right. Everybody still here? ;-) I totally agree with Lyman that with a Democratic Congress, Obama would be able to get a lot more accomplished than we might expect. The difference is that Lyman will feel that what he would accomplish will be good and I’m not so sure.
Kathy/Lyman, I think our fundamental difference is that “government done better” for you means more government, whereas I (and Don) think it often means less government. In a lot of ways, I don’t think we are all that different in what we want to get accomplished, I think we just have different ways to get there.
Don, I think Indy is unique from other cities in that the zoo and the Children’s Museum are not funded by tax dollars. They probably are in Lyman’s neck of the woods.
Lyman, Don is right in that our infrastructure (streets, bridges, sewers, electrical transmission lines, dams, etc.) is in a mess (See the American Society of Civil Engineer’s Report Card).
“I trust that Obama would be more responsible.” I think that FEMA learned a valuable lesson with Katrina the hard way, which is why the flooding in Iowa was thought to be handled much better. It was still slow, but generally better, because they realized that they have to act faster and be more proactive and work with the local communities who are better prepared to help than others. They were also more proactive in having their staff there instead of in Washington. Obama or McCain or whoever follows learned a valuable lesson with Katrina and I would expect all future disasters to be handled better, regardless of political affiliation. Of course, Kanye might disagree with me and say it was only because it was a bunch of white folk that needed saved this time…
Finally, thanks Jeff. I thought it was an excellent statement too. -
9:55 AM
Two very opinionated responses. I could look for an article from some talking head saying Obama would be the best thing for our gov't right now but it would be no more valid than whoever's writings you just posted. You can say Obama is going to do it but there is not much factual evidence to back it up (not to mention all your article noted was who is supporting Obama, I ask you directly, WHO can run for president without backing of established political figures?). I can sit here and say McCain will certainly lead us to WW3 complete with sarcastic comments like "Yeah, McCain would never kill more innocent people" but it doesn't help my argument or lead people to see anything in a different light. Nobody can predict the future, best to look at the past to make an informed decision about the present.
The hypocrisy in the second article is my favorite. It says parents need to work more than says that fathers aren't around enough. This type if mis-understanding of the poor is exactly why they are in such a mess. -
10:47 AM
All I am saying is that Obama is not change. He is a typical politician. He is beholding to whoever helped get them into their position of power. Obama just happens to come from an area, Chicago, that is known for it's corruption and influence peddling, so don't expect Obama to do "the right thing", expect him to repay whoever needs repaying, just like every other politician. Just like he is changing, or refining, his position on issues. He is not change, he is status-quo with a very liberal bent.
-
11:42 AM
There you go predicting with no factual basis once again.
Sure every politician appoints those have helped them along the way, I never said otherwise. Its the appointment of UNQUALIFIED cronies like Michael Brown that sets Bush apart from past presidents. So many of Bush's cronies have failed horribly I can't even begin to mention them; this is different from recent past presidents like it or not.
Obama is calling for troop withdrawl (with int'l support already) cutting tax breaks to the wealthy off the top of my head. If you think thats not change from what we've experienced the past 8 years I don't know what to say. - 11:53 AM
- 11:54 AM
-
1:38 PM
"WHO can run for president without backing of established political figures" I would think that someone who is basing their entire campaign on "Hope and Change" and "doing things differently than the way they are currently done in Washington" could do that. Maybe that's not part of the "change" though.
"best to look at the past to make an informed decision about the present." Obama has very little past to make an informed decision, but I have also had the impression that his voting record includes a lot of "present" when it should have included "ayes" or "nays".
Who ISN'T calling for troop withdrawal? I think the only difference is creating a set timeframe for the withdrawal or one that allows for an increase in violence again. -
1:51 PM
While Obama is running on a playform of 'change' that doesn't mean he's not still in the business of politics. Rich Rodriguez is going to change the entire offensive and defensive game plan at Michigan introducing a system into a tradition Big Ten school that cannot be described as anything but change. It doesn't mean he's not still playing football.
As far as your guy's assumption of Obama's voting record I don't think there as bad as you or Faux news would make them out to be. One thing you can say about Obama for certain is that he's an intelligent man who can move people and communicate with others in an effective manner. That in an of itself is enough for me. I'm tired of our country being represented by a moron who doesn't have a complete grasp of the English language.
And Don, how do I know Obama won't fall victim to cronyism? Bush's case is an extreme one that was worse than any other president's in recent history. Odds are in his favor. - 1:52 PM
- 1:59 PM
- 2:01 PM
- 6:51 PM
-
6:57 PM
Again, I think it is interesting that you keep mentioning McCain to two people who have willing said that he is not their favorite candidate. Neither (in my opinion) is great.
John McCain has missed 63% of the votes for the current Congress and voted down party lines 88% of the time, while Obama has missed 44% of the votes and votes down party lines 96% of the time. Not exactly the guys to walk across the aisle and work together to get things done.
See here and here for McCain's and Obama's voting records, respectively.
Interesting football analogy so I'll use the same one the way I see it. Rodriguez says "I really want to be a coach of UM, but I don't like the way they play football. I think the fans are ready for a change, so I'm going to show them that football can be played a different way with a new style." Obama in this scenario is closer to saying "I really want to be President but I don't like the way things are done in Washington. I think the voters are ready to make a change and I'm going to show them that we can change, but first I have to play the political game to get elected." Especially now, as the presumptive nominee, if he really felt that Washington needs changed, he would stand his ground and not have to ride the endorsements of others, who presumably are part of the problem. That would be the same game, but with a different style. That is not what Obama, who has been recently "moving toward the center" is doing. It's the same game, same style.
How far has this thread gone? Trans fats to government to personal responsibility to Bush to Obama to UM football. This is a nice, varied, discussion.
33 comments: