Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Diet And Fitness
  4. / Diet
  5. / Dieting

by Mrs.mezzo is a Wagnerian soprano on December 5th, 2006

Mrs.mezzo is a Wagnerian soprano

Question

Help answer this question below.

Trans fat was recently banned in NYC restaurants. Do you think this is something the government should be allowed to decide for the people? Don't we as Americans have the right to make ourselves as fat and unhealthy as we want to be?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 18 helpful answers below.

  • by ...... on February 12th, 2008

    ......

    From a small seed does an apple grow. Meaning as long as the people stand by and do nothing about the ban's they are going to do everything they can get away with. Personally I feel that if the government is going to tell us what we can and can not do with our health they should be the ones paying all medical and drugs.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Will on February 12th, 2008

    Will

    The government has no right to interfere with what people want to eat, smoke or drink. Don't people see where this is leading? Ever heard of a revolution.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on May 17th, 2007

    Anonymous

      I think this is a very clear example of Big Brother sticking his nose where it has no business being.  In this case, we're not even talking about a substance, such as tobacco or alcohol, that is inherently harmful.  We're talking about a category of food that is entirely fine and healthy, if taken in moderation.  I just do not see any valid excuse at all for any level of government to step in at this point to dictate what anyone may or may not eat.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by wjomlex on July 9th, 2008

    wjomlex

    For the sake of health care, it's reasonable to ban substances that are deemed unhealthy. It's been done with many things before like saccharin, or wormwood. If banning trans fats increases the available funds for health care, then I think it's a worthwhile cause.

    I mean, you can eat it outside of restaurants if you want. They aren't making it *illegal*, they just don't want it in restaurant food. In the same fashion, you can eat glue if you *want*, but you'd probably sue a restaurant for putting it in your dinner.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by DiSTurBiA on March 8th, 2008

    DiSTurBiA

    I am very against the govnt really banning anything. If somone wishes to have mercury on a bun, then it is their right to do it.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on March 8th, 2008

    Anonymous

    Well it depends how you look at it. they're not allowed to put arsenic in burgers either, do you "as Americans" (obviously non-Americans have different rights ;¬))have the right to go out and buy a suicide burger if you want?

    I think the problem is that a lot of people are unaware of the dangers of transfats and what they can actually do. Research is still being carried out into how exactly they affect the body - many products are not marked up as containing them, and a lot of people wouldn't even know they were eating them.

    On a personal level with something that does little to improve the taste of a product, I would rather be protected from it's health-damaging effects until more research has been carried out into exactly what it does.
    A full grown adult might be able to take the choice to expose themselves to that risk, but should they be allowed to expose their children to it.

    I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with a blanket ban (although I do think anyone who eats that stuff is out of their mind) but I can see the logic behind it.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by gazzob666 on February 12th, 2008

    gazzob666

    its wrong to do that. maybe its the governments new form of encouraging people to eat healthy and maintain a healthy body and diet

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Galeanda on February 12th, 2008

    Galeanda

    If they really wanted to stop something unhealthy why don't they ban all smoking, public and private? It doesn't make sense. Let people do what doesn't affect other people. If they want to eat things that are unhealthy, let them.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Tempter on February 12th, 2008

    Tempter

    We are approaching a fascist police state. Personal responsibility and freedom are fallacies.

    • Like
    • Report

    5 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Kitt-tastrophy on February 12th, 2008

    Kitt-tastrophy

    It's seriously a big load of BS! I'm sick of over weight people that blame the fact that they are over weight on the places that they eat. Have some freaking self control!! Ordering 2 big mac's, a super size fry, and a DIET coke.......seriously?!?!?! Why are we making everyone else change because some over weight people would rather continue to shove food in their faces than do something about it themselves?!?!

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by KuPoReaLSorrY on February 12th, 2008

    KuPoReaLSorrY

    You have to look why it was banned in the first place? People not being able to "control" themselves. Letting "trans fat" get out of hand in their lifestyle? It is only to "help" us. It is real sad that the "government" has to take control of situations like these. This should never happen.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Sweet T on February 12th, 2008

    Sweet T

    Obesity is a national epidemic, that doesnt mean I want the government telling me what I can eat. Do they seriously believe that taking away Trans fat from a restaurant, is going to cure the problem??? When do you think the government will see that we are big enough to make our own decisions on what is or is not good for ourselves?

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Kokomojeezus on May 16th, 2007

    Kokomojeezus

    It depends. Don't people have the right to eat a pound of sugar if they have diabetes? Don't they have the right to play soccer if they're blind, deaf, dumb and have no limbs?

    Sometimes if you put the question the right way, the answer comes all by it's own self.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Mini_kilt on May 16th, 2007

    Mini_kilt

    No, you don't have the right to eat whatever you want. You can't eat speed, halucinagens and other dangerous substances.


    Your question implies "We as Americans" should be able to live without any rules what-so-ever. Maybe you should read up on Chaos and Anarchy, it might intrigue you.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by tigueron on December 5th, 2006

    tigueron

    I think that government can intervene if it threatens to become a matter of public health and thus of national security, it is not exaggeration to think that if X% of the population will get sick and shorten their life expectancy by Y number of years that would affect economy, government spending and general well being.

    Now, where we put X and Y and thus where we set the threshold for government intervention, that's the question for me.

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on May 17th, 2007

    Anonymous

    I think the government should regulate it, as people's health care is contributed to by taxpayers, meaning many people pay for some people's bad health choices when they are very obese and need care. If people could eat bad food in moderation this would not be an issue, but since many people cannot eat in moderation it is an issue.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by jimmywx11 on March 8th, 2011

    jimmywx11

    jeez some people are dumb.... "they can't stop meee eati'n I'm a mirkin I caan eat all I want n more besides" gulp gulp.

    Your government is (kinda) stopping manufactures of cheap food, bulking it out with a harmful substance that makes more profit..... and you are outraged!?!?! OMG funny as FUVK.

    The question that need to be asked is why is it taking so long? other countries have done it and all will eventually.

    Personally I don't think we could feed everyone without the bulking of foods so they let the dumb and the poor eat that shit. you can bet your sweet ass that rich people don't eat ANY trans fat. FACT

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by VenusRising on February 12th, 2008

    VenusRising

    I agree with the freedom to eat whatever you choose......as long as you can support yourself with any medical bills that come because of it.

    The taxpayer shouldnt have to pick up the bill for 20 years of supersizing it.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Trans fat was recently banned in NYC restaurants. Do you think this is something the government should be allowed to decide for the people? Don't we as Americans have the right to make ourselves as fat and unhealthy as we want to be?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Chevy 454 backfire
The people to blame for trans fatty acids
Trans fats conspiracy
Trans fat conspiracy
Catigorie ass fatty trans

Answerbag

a Demand Media company