Jon, I have to guess that you had a confrontation with a mechanical cowsnatcher planned for a while. but I'm really curious--what was going to be in the cookies prior to last week's NYC Health Department vote?

My money is on puppy tears and orphan hopes & dreams.

It seemed like a good, topical insertion into the plot to me. Plus, it's such a stupid, stupid idea for a ban that it's guaranteed to be comedy gold.

It seemed like a good, topical insertion into the plot to me.

I agree with you on that--great topical insertion. I'm just curious waht it was going to be before that topic burst into the headlines! Or clogged its way into the arteries of journalism.

You assume that I had thought about the filling of the oreos before that moment? You have a lot of faith in me.

For the record, I don't think a ban on trans-fats is such a bad idea. These molecules don't occur in nature, there's no reason for folks to be ingesting them, especially in a) restaurants where the ingredients are not readily available and b) fast-food establishments where many people on low incomes are forced to eat.

And anyone who whines that it will take more than 18 months to switch to something else is lying.

I'm pretty much a live-and-let-live sort of guy, but I don't know of any good argument to keep trans-fats.

Does the government really even have the right to ban something like this? This is mostly why I feel it's a stupid ban. It's kind of like the smoking ban in my book, which while of great convenience for me as smoke irritates the hell out of me, just seems off. I suppose if that can pass on grounds of public health though, that I could be talking a moot point.

I'm probably missing some worldly experience on this one, but are people really forced to eat in those places? I remember when we (ie: my wife and me) were on a ridiculously tight budget, we just didn't eat out. Though if by 'forced' you mean 'suckered into it because those places are there and cheap,' I'd have to agree.

But I guess if there were a way to change people's mindset towards harmful and potentially harmful substances without outright banning them, I'd choose that option.

McDonald's food is cheaper than a comparable quantity (disregarding quality entirely) of food purchased at the supermarket. It requires no cooking, and therefore no kitchen supplies - and no time invested into making the food.

For someone on minimum wage working multiple jobs, McDonald's is actually a more affordable eating choice than most of the other options, and more convenient as well. Scary, but true.

The main duty of any government is to protect you from things you are not otherwise capable of protecting yourself from. This is in order to make sure that you are available to pay taxes.

This includes your neighbors, the enemies of your nation, and in an enlightened government, the government itself.

I am not otherwise able to prevent the food industry from making purely economic decisions that cause them to put unhealthy substances into food ingredients - and then by virtue of the rules of supply and demand, forcing all of the restaurants I attend from buying those ingredients over ingredients that don't have the unhealthy substances in them.

And I bet that even when your wife and you were on a ridiculously tight budget, you still weren't working two full time jobs each and trying to raise children, and had less than an hour a day to spend on meals for all of you.

Hear hear to what sakuruth said. Also keep in mind that some folks commute an hour or more to work, and some jobs give you a lot more space to bring lunch or dinner. I mean, I've had nice conveniences like a desk and a shared fridge at work, but that's not the rule.

I don't see any reason to keep trans fats either. And I do think that its fully within the rights of a government to regulate the casual use of dangerous substances in food sold to the public. Unlike cigarettes, people don't attach cultural significance to trans-fats, nor do they develop physical addictions to them. So I don't see much prob.

(Though to be clear, I also support the smoking ban--one shouldn't be exposed to strong, easily avoidable carcinogens at work.)

You're talking about restaurants putting molecules in food that do not occur in nature and are inherently harmful to your body as you cannot process them properly. It may taste good but essentially these restaurants are slowly poisoning their customers.

If the option is to use some other ingredient, I don't think that's such a terrible thing.

Fair enough (to everyone's points). I hadn't really fully considered the idea of preparation time, I'm just worried about the potential for bans of less-worthwhile nature, which is really a slippery slope argument and I should stop right here.

I won't miss trans-fats in either case, since I already try to avoid any.

I honestly don't have a good sense of what contains them, ad I suppose that I should. In an old house where one of my housemates was a doctor, we had a tub of some kind of margarine, as I recall, with a big note on it that said something to the effect of

"WARNING! Contains trans-fats. Do not even give to your enemies."

It sat in the fridge for a long time. Not sure why we didn't toss it out, though I'm guessing that someone ultimately did.

It's a ban that makes perfect sense to me, especially since it's relatively easy to avoid these trans-fats. Too bad it only applies to NYC.

Weird thing about it is that, once one locale decides to ban something, it's more of a pain in the ass to track what's going where than to change your recipe enterprise-wide.

In other words, since NYC has banned Chemical X, many purveyors will likely stop using Chemical X entirely, since it's a bigger pain to maintain two separate production lines than just get rid of it.

I'd call that a good thing.

I'd call that a good post, and the kind of thing we need more of around here.

it's strange how posts with some thought behind them catch me off guard on these forums most of the time.

if i hadn't already posted, mr black would have gotten at least one mod point from me.

The fallout is growing already - Loews Hotels are dropping them chainwide, KFC (the F is for Fried!), Denny's, even Dunkin' Donuts is getting them out for all stores, as soon as they figure out how.

Maybe this is one of those things where there has to be that first flick to start all the dominoes falling.

Next step, high fructose corn syrup...

That's right, if it wasn't for New York, the rest of the world would not even know that trans fats were bad.

I'm not saying that, but where we had a few pebbles rolling down the hill before, maybe this is that first big boulder that really starts a landslide...

Sort of, yes.

No national chain can really afford not to ship to NY. As mentioned, this kind of commercial pressure (the same kind that encourages marking your baked goods as registered with the PA Dept. of Agriculture, or as being free of treif and mixed meat/dairy - and possibly, depending on the mark, as being observed during the creation to ensure its kosher status) is going to create a major change where some scientists saying 'trans fats are bad!' did not. Scientists are not a major market force.

Essentially, instead of having Whos down in Whoville shouting without being heard, we now have a rampaging elephant stampeding for dietary progress.

I feel torn on this one.

On the one hand, I think people should be able to make their own mistakes (but also, should be able to know that they're making this mistake, which might be the real problem).

On the other hand, I always love to see the Center for Consumer Freedom [consumerfreedom.com] cry.

I say if we have to give up donuts just to make that organization's president cry himself to sleep every night, it's worth it.

Also, the government seems to feel it's alright to enforce a lot of other things right now, and recently some members of the government think that things like habeus corpus and freedom of speech aren't that important anymore, so I don't think anyone should get their panties all in a bunch just because one city is banning a food product that kills you.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, with added brains.

But can I have my rampaging elephant stampede THROUGH Whoville?

It'll probably just be on Whoville - the whole thing fits on a speck of dust, remember?

What I never understood about Horton Hears A Who is why that kid felt compelled to shout the name of a yogurt drink.