« Arabian Wal-Mart in Michigan | Main | Revealed by Moonbats: Spitzer Framed to Hide Truth About 9/11 »
March 16, 2008
Banned in Boston: Trans Fats
A little more of your freedom to decide for yourself what to eat has been taken away:
Boston has joined others cities in banning artery-clogging trans fats from food served in restaurants and grocery stores. Businesses, as well as schools and hospitals, will have to stop using oils and spreads that contain trans fats. Prepackaged foods such as a bag of chips or cookies won't be included.
The city Public Health Commission approved the ban unanimously Thursday. Fines would be up to $1,000 per violation.
New York and Philadelphia already have trans fat bans. Once a national ban is in place, nanny staters can set to work banning sugar, or caffeine, or red meat, or whatever else strikes their fancy. When they've reduced us to living off plain oatmeal, they'll pass regulations ensuring that we don't eat it too hot and burn our mouths.
On a tip from Byron.
Posted by Van Helsing at March 16, 2008 9:30 PM
Comments
Remember when margerine was supposed to be a healthy substitute for butter? Now it's supposedly so bad it needs to be outlawed. Whatever.
And Philadelphia banning a class of food because it's unsafe is just too much.
They have much bigger problems to deal with, which is probably why they're "dealing with" trans-fats instead.
Posted by: forest at March 16, 2008 9:51 PM
liberalsim is bad for one's health
Posted by: JamesB at March 17, 2008 4:41 AM
I hear humans taste like pork. New restaurant chain needs to be opened in major cities. "Donners". The hell with political civil war, let's just start eating the libs.
Posted by: Corona at March 17, 2008 6:17 AM
Yep, Corona, all that will be left when they have banned all that is unhealthy is soylent green
Posted by: mandy at March 17, 2008 6:59 AM
Meanwhile, back on Airstrip One: Big Brother wants children screened for 'pre-criminal tendencies' so that their DNA can be added to the UK's criminal database before they actually commit any crimes. So, now, any kid who runs afoul of some educrat is likely to be tagged for life as a 'potential criminal.'
Posted by: V the K at March 17, 2008 7:03 AM
Soylent green is people.
Posted by: Joe Mama at March 17, 2008 7:36 AM
V the K,
That's a chilling idea - even for the authoritarian nannyists in Europe. Some of the suggestions made in the article sound familiar to me, and where they come from is something I don't want to see re-created.
Posted by: forest at March 17, 2008 8:43 AM
Someone should go back, dig up the remains of the famous people who contributed great services to our country and see if they have any "potental criminal DNA". I bet you they would find plenty. But then trying to get the moonbats to buy into "factual data complete with empirical evidence and a properly done study" would be like getting a baby to eat beets or spinich!!
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at March 17, 2008 10:22 AM
A good site here, and this about trans fat:
*Speaking up*
Sample - "The FDA, after spending years reviewing all available evidence on trans fats, said in its July 9, 2003, 260-page ruling (Docket No. 94P-0036), that any fears of a public health concern from the small amounts of trans fats in our diets were not supported by the evidence. These fatty acids haven’t been shown to be better or worse than any other dietary fat. The FDA expert panel specifically stated that trans fats needn’t be eliminated from the diet and they refused to establish a daily recommended intake due to lack of evidence. They agreed to add trans fats to food labels, but only after explaining it was only in response to a relentless, decade-long activist campaign. But those labels are being used by certain interests as proof that trans fats hold some health danger that’s imperative to control."
Posted by: teqjack at March 17, 2008 12:09 PM
Ban trans fats but abort babies. Twisted.
Posted by: Jim Meidinger at March 17, 2008 6:37 PM
OK, I have a question that perhaps someone more familiar with the folks in Mass can answer. How is that the people in "Taxachutsess" tolerate paying some of the highest taxes, on just about everything, are pretty much forced to use the "social healthcare" (I may be wrong on that point, as I can't actually remember if it is forced or optional)and now they are being forced to lower cholesterol by having their "trans fats" banned... so they no longer get to choose. Why do they tolerate this stuff when government seems to be pulling so much of their earnings out of their households and not giving that much in return??? The only time I considered doing a contract in MA, I was advised that unless I was making a $200 hr rate with per diem, I couldn't afford to live there! Anyway, I don't understand why the put up with it?
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at March 18, 2008 7:58 AM
HAM
are pretty much forced to use the "social healthcare" (I may be wrong on that point,
You are wrong on that point - you're only forced to join if you lack private insurance
was advised that unless I was making a $200 hr rate with per diem, I couldn't afford to live there That's an exageration
Eastern MA is expensive - certainly not as expensive as NYC or SF.
Except for the high cost, weather and that it's a 1 party state MA is a great place to live :-)Actually libs are less of a problem than the Dem party machine in MA - it's a HRC state not a BO state. I worked on a contract at MassHealth a couple of years back and it was the worst. Working for the state gov't im MA is barely more respectable than collecting welfare.
Posted by: Bandit at March 18, 2008 8:44 AM
Thanks Bandit. I didn't have much to go on except what I had "heard" and we all know how that is. I just don't know anyone who lives or has lived there. I appreciate the info, as I have wondered about that for some time.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at March 18, 2008 2:33 PM
