Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

I support the ban, because the ban is in the spirit of those rules saying restaurants have to clean up occasionally and that employees need to wash their hands. I support a ban that says, "Restaurants and bakeries must avoid using dangerous unhealthy chemicals just to save a couple of pennies on the cost of preparation." It's not that they're banning something that's tasty that people are clamoring for. They're banning something unhealthy and cheap for which there are healthier, tastier alternatives.

OK. This thread has devolved from from good discussion to personal attacks. I'm closing it. The thing that's welcoming about Serious Eats is exactly what LoCo points to two comments up. Let's keep things civil here without resorting to personal attacks. Thanks.

@simon...

You have been participating on this site for what? about three months now? Since the outset, almost everything you've posted has been argumentative, complaining, and/or involves insults, personal attacks, name-calling, etc.

This is classic TROLL behavior. Please note the site's policy on the posting of comments:

1. We welcome hearty debate and dissent, but the key to maintaining Serious Eats as an inviting space is focusing on intelligent, insightful and passionate discussion of issues.

2. Please respect other people's views and beliefs. We understand that people often feel strongly about things, but we will consider removing any content that other members might find extremely offensive or threatening. We actively discourage obscenity and mindless abuse. Personal attacks on other members have no place in an intelligent discussion.

In short, if you act with maturity and consideration for other members, you should have no problems.

Remember that by registering for Serious Eats you have also agreed to our terms of use. These guidelines may change - so please bookmark this page and check back frequently.

Speaking of the aforementioned Terms of Use...

Do not post threatening, harassing, defamatory, or libelous material.

On the other hand, simon, if you are here because you genuinely enjoy participating in the Serious Eats Talk feature, please be so kind as to modify your tone and play more nicely.

Thanks.

To further indulge the idiocy of your argument: should there have been a referendum on the banning of asbestos in construction? It's a very similar thing. A toxic substance, invisible to the public. Why do you feel like voters should decide on this? We elect officials to make decisions on public health issues.

This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. It's not like people are indulging in trans fats. No one says, "mmm, I want to go get me some trans fats today, I don't care if they are bad for me." They are purely and simply poisonous and unnecessary. You are conflating two completely different issues.

As for you, FastFoodCritic, stick a sock in it. I find the admonishments of a passive aggressive spineless weasel such as yourself, someone who takes pride in touting their affinity for eating garbage no less, to be laughable.

I'm sitting here quite befuddled.

Let me get this straight.... Everyone knows that transfats are terrible, but some of you are upset that the city imposed a ban on it?

Of all things we have to complain about, you guys are upset bc the govt. did something to promote the welfare of its people instead of letting the people fight for it. OOooookaaaay.

I don't think it's great that it took a multimillion dollar lawsuit for Kraft to remove transfats from Oreos and other products. I'm glad Kraft has removed all transfats from their products, but it took a lawsuit and not to mention the bad publicity associated with what amounted to poisoning our kids.

Failing voluntary removal of all transfats, I'm thinking a transfat ban is a good thing.

@CookiePie: But artificial trans fats are not healthy in moderation, like drinking alcohol can be. Anything's bad for you when you eat/drink too much of it, even water - and that's where personal responsibility comes in.

Artificial trans fats are poisonous substances that should not be used in food. We have no idea what their long-term effects on the human body are, and what we do know about their short-term effects is harrowing.

Would anyone argue that, years ago, when one of the FD&C Red dyes was proven carcinogenic, it ought to have remained on the market because when people eat maraschino cherries, they know what they're in for? No, because it's a toxic substance that can be easily replaced with a non-toxic (okay in the case of dyes, less-toxic) substitute.

Partially hydrogenated oils are cheap and convenient, but restaurants can replace them with non-toxic substitutes. Artificial trans fats are poisonous. Consumers should not be forced to subsidze higher restaurant profit margins with their health.