Since March 2003, New York City has banned smoking in nearly all of its restaurants, bars and other workplaces. Next month, the city’s board of health will vote on whether or not to ban restaurants from serving foods that contain more than a minimal amount of trans fats.
The ban is intended to save lives by reducing the public’s risk of heart disease. Trans fats are often found in baked goods such as cakes, doughnuts and breads, and salad dressing.
Should other cities follow suit? To read more about the issue, visit the New York City Board of Health’s Web page at http://home2.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cardio/cardio-transfat.shtml.
(Jorge Sosa is a staff writer for the Hutchinson Leader. He can be reached at sosa@hutchinsonleader.com)


Should cities ban fatty...
Back to page topShould cities ban fatty foods? As America's number one killer is Heart Disease, I can understand the logic of banning smoking in public locations as those who dont smoke shouldn't be subjected to the affects of second hand smoke. Other factors which contribute to Heart Disease include excessive alcohol consumption and obesity. If cities were to entertain the idea of banning restaurants of serving certain foods, should grocery stores be banned from selling those foods as well? As excessive alcohol consumption is a factor in heart disease, should the local stores only be allowed to serve a thimbleful of whiskey a day per person? FYI - A thimbleful of alcohol per day is what is recommended as a preventative for reduction in heart disease. This thimbleful reduces heart disease by 12% in men and 60% in women. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-01-08-heart-nine-factors_x.htm
If you ever wondered how grandma lived to be 106, Jack Daniels may have had a little something to do with that.
I hope those we elect dont make choices for us. Until the day comes where I am dining out and Joe Obesity's triple fat burger squirts some transfat across the restaurant onto my celery stick, I think we are ok. I think people should be able to make their own choices. Education instead of banning is a much better avenue for people to make educated decisions.
Government banning of legal...
Back to page topGovernment banning of legal products is a slippery slope that should not be tolerated. First: alcohol (prohibition), now: smoking (workplace smoking ban), next: trans-fats(AMA recommendations), fire-arms will be next(then we won't be able to defend ourselves), then the clothes that we wear (Acrylic fabrics contribute to global warming...fur and leather are cruel) and then the books that we read and were we can live until the very thoughts in our heads are banned(when technology gets there). If you think this Orwellian nighmare is farfetched, look at it logically. If our Government is allowed to keep protecting us from ourselves (because they know better then we do) the ultimate way to stop us from harming ourselves is to stop us from thinking those thoughts. Just like an avalance, it only takes a few rocks falling down to start the whole rush.
Butt out of MY life! Let ME make the decisions in my life. Let ME decide if I want to spend my money bringing my family into a smoky restaurant, Let ME decide if I wish to have a triple-fat burger with a side of grease. Let ME decide if I wish to continue working in an office that smells like a ashtray. That's the way a free-market captalist society is supposed to work. Prohibition didn't work in the twenties and thirties because in that era, American's were made of sterner stuff and wouldn't stand for an Imposed Morality as we ashamedly do today.