Governor Lynch: Make New Hampshire the 2nd state to ban trans-fats

A couple things:

1. I can't stand it when people jump all over people's opinions and interject their political views on absolutely everything. I merely called on Governor Lynch to do it because he is in office. No matter what party the person in office was I would do the same. Your blog on here revolves heavily on politics, while mine doesn't. Anyone can find a way to slip in their political views when talking about anything.

2. "Over the last 20 years, eating healthy has taken a huge turn for the better." In what aspects? The number of people that are obese in this country is staggering, as is the number of people that have Type 2 Diabetes or are dying from heart disease. But things are "getting better"? Come on.
3. I find it funny that you bash Moore for what he didn't put in his documentary, but don't applaud him for the information he DID. Shocking. Is it because Moore has many Democratic views? Hmmmm, I wonder.
4. Why bring Hodes into this? Again, I mentioned nothing about him at all, and looking at your blog you bashed him there. But somehow you find a way to bring that garbage into here. Keep it in your own blog.

Dan,

I am sorry that you were offended but I think your reply was a bit of an overreaction.

You stated in your original piece: "But we control who is elected. We are the ones that vote. We are the ones that make the overall difference. If you don't like it, vote and support someone else."

1) You can't interject Michael Moore into any discussion without being political. This subject is a political view by people on the Left that they want to do good and dictate to others the way that they should live. I answered your blog based on your points and they are political, like it or not. I am sorry if you think I brought "garbage" onto your blog. In the spirit of free speech that was my assessment but I will steer clear of comments if you are not looking for discourse or discussion or honesty.

2) The quality and safety of our food has improved over the past 20 years. Restaurants now practice food safety and handling and food handlers have to be certified. More people eat fruit and vegetables as a percentage of the population than in 1980, up almost 34%. There is more focus on type 2 diabetes than 20 years ago and diagnosis is more common today. Life expectancy is longer than in 1980 by almost 5 years.

Education is critical in letting people know how to live healthy but in a FREE society, we do not LEGISLATE to protect people against perceived ills and causes. Yes, obesity is up but trans fats existed in almost everything 20-30 years ago. However, obesity statistics and figures on health were not tracked with such precision as today. My grandmother cooked with lard and she lived to 85.....we are more analytical today than ever before, but we need to view those statistics in perspective. Beyond that, people are more sedentary today and life is more stressful which adds to the problem.

Should we legislate the amount of exercise that a person should get or require them to go to stress management classes? You can't legislate everything to meet your beliefs, causes or feelings on any subject. When you do, however, it turns into political agenda!

3) My assessment about Michael Moore was just that, an assessment of his points. Just because someone makes a film that is considered a 'documentary', that does not necessarily mean that what is documented is fact. He stated that in Europe, health care is "FREE". That was in the film, it was a lie. He claimed that health care in Cuba was FREE and superior to that in the USA....that has been proven by real journalists to be untrue. That was in the film. Some of the information in the film was sensationalized and I agree that insurance companies are a pain in the a**. I don't like a lot about our health care system but Moore filmed a dog and pony show.

It has nothing to do with my political leanings right or left and although you might think that you have them figured out....believe me......you don't and you might be surprised!

4) As far as Hodes (the #1 supporter of single payer health insurance) supports cradle to grave health care and you did write: "But we control who is elected. We are the ones that vote. We are the ones that make the overall difference. If you don't like it, vote and support someone else." I was answering your statement and pointing to one person as well as others on both sides of the aisle who do not have out best interest at heart.

If anyone thinks that to ban trans fats will stop people from personal eating behaviors, they are naive. But, to legislate behavior by one's own personal belief and doctrine IS POLITICAL!!!!

You say that you are not political but to address state work weeks and comment on how they are cutting back and it is wrong or passing laws controlling behavior is a discussion of political agenda.

If you want to read a little about nutrition and health, read my last post to the Starbucks blog that I posted here. In fact, read the whole post and you will understand that people are concerned about influencing nutrition and getting the information out with free speech and education. It is a dangerous thing to start passing laws to control behavior that others do not like. That is not a free society.

To begin dictating values and doctrine means more restriction on freedom, self reliance, self responsibility and choice. Maybe that is the way you view the world but it is not the view of many.

To address trans fats, once again, companies are voluntarily, through an educated consumer base, getting rid of trans fats....that is a fact.  Educated consumers...that is the answer. 

Sorry if you were offended but I re-read my post and felt that it addressed your point. I believe that goal of a blog is exchange of ideas. I get posts that I don't like or agree with, but, at the end of the day defend my points and often the discourse provides information and views that I never thought of. To me, that is what it is all about.

Strangely enough, I just received a weekly briefing from the NRA (National Restaurant Association) and it had an LA Times story about the trans fat debate.  I found several points that were really pertinent to the debate and why it could be a moot point at this stage for NH to do the same.

One point that was not discussed was the impact on the little guy, not the large chains.  How does a single unit operator manage the monumental task of ensuring that they stay  trans fat free.  Anyhow here are some facts from that article.

The legislation was vigorously opposed by the California Restaurant Assn., which argued that it would not substantially affect public health because people eat 75% of their meals at home.

"The decision on what restaurants use in cooking should be based on the desires of customers, not government officials, said California Restaurant Association spokesman Daniel Conway."

Even so, he said, "given the fact that our industry is already phasing out trans fat in response to customers and that there is a delayed timeline for implementation, we are confident our members will be able to meet the mandate of the law."

Indeed, the law follows steps already taken by such institutions as McDonald's and Spago Beverly Hills to meet customer demand.

"I am completely in support of it," chef and Spago owner Wolfgang Puck said in an e-mail. "My companies stopped using trans fats years ago."

The fats can be found in vegetable shortenings, margarines, crackers, candies, cookies, snack foods, fried foods, baked goods and other processed foods made with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The Carl's Jr. chain plans to stop cooking with trans fats by the beginning of the year, said company spokeswoman Beth Mansfield.

"We saw where the industry was going," she said.

Other chains that have fully or partly eliminated trans fat or had previously committed to doing so include Wendy's, El Pollo Loco, Mimis Cafe, KFC, Burger King, IHOP, Applebee's, Starbucks, Subway, Taco Bell, Denny's, Panera Bread, Red Lobster and the Olive Garden, according to the restaurant association.

The group said ethnic restaurants and bakeries would be hardest hit by the ban, because many ethnic dishes are more difficult to prepare with trans fat-free substitutes.

Rod White, the owner of Bertha's Soul Food in Los Angeles, estimated that it would cost him $30 more a week to buy cooking oil without trans fat, and he was angry.

"The government is infringing too much on the rights of people to even eat what they want," he said. "Are they going to outlaw salt next because it causes hypertension?"

Compliance will be checked by state health inspectors on their periodic restaurant visits.

Of course, this was a ban on trans fat oils used in cooking but many food items contain trans fat.  That is where the small entrepreneur will feel the squeeze.  Next I imagine they will start to phase out other ingredients.

Well said, Judy. 

Of course, this is not a 'political' issue............ 

TOUCHE' Scott!!!!

"Freedom is scary...it comes with the responsibility to make decisions; some good, some not so much, but still they are mine to make. I do not trust you or any government that believes it has the right or worse the responsibility for making this type of a decision. Trust freedom and you will never regret the decision!"

That says it all.  My question is, what is next, watching out for our sugar intake or our salt intake or restricting our intake of coffee or tea.

I heard on the news today that over 80 establishments in New York City are being fined for not posting calories on their menu and menu boards.  McDonalds happens to be one of them....are you telling me that people have no idea that eating at McDonalds is not healthy and that the food is high in calories.  Well, maybe if you live under a rock....

Cradle to grave.......cradle to grave........these folks just don't get it. 

As usual are both entertaining and insightful. The only thing offensive here is the inability of some to respectfully disagree. On this issue it is clear to me that yet another government regulation will not change peoples choices it will simply add another category of crime and turn over weight people who use these products into criminals. Wow, can you imagine...so what are you in for? Two all beef patties, special sauce, cheese, lettuce, pickles, on a sesame seed bun!

Thanks again,

Scott

Stop right there, Danny boy! This is the freedom police! Now gently put down your trans-fat-infused cake, step back with your hands in the air where we can see them, place them against your hydrocarbon-burning-internal-combustion motor vehicle with your legs spread, and wipe that mess from your face.

Now that we have safely disarmed you, let's calmly discuss the topic(s) you brought up in this still open forum.

There is much information from a variety of scientists - not "documentarians", political hacks, poly-ticks, Carbo gurus, etc. - that certain fats are not fattening or bad for you. In fact, many fats are downright necessary to function optimally. Looking for evidence? Try examining the diets of various indigenous peoples still eating "old school". Much of it is rift with fat - be it butter, fish oils, blubber, lard - and yet they don't look anything like obese Americans. Part of them not having fat fannies is they do get up off their ass to do real work (physics: Force X Distance = Work) daily, and not sitting around the computer blogging all day. Darn! But an amazingly important element, and seemingly paradoxical to those steeped in religious beliefs promulgated and preached heavily starting in the '70's: eating fat can make you look phat. Now how's that? Suggested reading to support this scientific view point: Ultra-Metabolism, Eat Fat, Loose Fat, and a variety of publications by Dr. "Zone". By the way, as my bio' states, I'm 6' 1, and I'm tons of fun, and I eat fat every day. But add an infusion of daily crackers and even lean ol' me starts puttin' on the puppy belly. And no one wants to see a puppy belly, and certainly nothing larger - a pear or apple, perhaps something larger?

And yes, all the folks writing these corrections to the USDA food pyramid also write trans-fats are bad, yes, the very fats your buddy(?) Ralph Nader, Superhero to the massive asses, was pushing some decades ago upon an unsuspecting and therefore easily duped populace. Don't believe me? Look it up. So let me get this straight. First, your government and its minions foisted this terrible substance upon us brain-enfeebled serfs, and once hooked, now wants to take it away from the resulting hydrogen-infused-oil addicts? Now that doesn't sound very magnanimous, does it? Remember, fat kids love cake! And now you want to take it away from them. Think of the children. Don't they deserve a treat now and then?

(I wonder if trans-fat oil is related to that other oil "our" government had a hand in making us dependent upon? hmmmm.)

And what is it with the conservative domination of the Monitor Blog-a-dome? First, we have liberal blog personas who have a blogo-drama meltdown when they receive honest, critical rebuffs from conservatives regarding obvious liberal agenda pieces. Then we have bully liberal weeny divas like Mikey Evans who try to execute their drive-by character assassinations without being called to task for doing so, then go undercover when they and their tired, trite ideas are soundly and resoundingly ridiculed. Sooo Danny Boy, who are you? Are you just another Mikey who can't take a little heat - and believe me, it doesn't get much more tepid than Mr. Bunker's replies - or are you going to support your original assertions, and/or God forbid you publicly correct a mistaken view you may hold from time to time?

So be the bigger boy, Danny, and admit that in a "live free or die" state, it's a contradiction to have the state force people not to sell and/or buy trans-fat. Beware the slippery slope you would then proceed down ... it ends up in liberty! And Nanny McFanny State wouldn't like that, would she? It doesn't fill office space up on Hazen Drive.

By the way, given your employment history, dare I say we (not just me) are not surprised by your expansive government views and ideas. I don't recall one blog entry of yours that called for an actual contraction of government corpulence. Therefore, implement your idea where it will do the most good: the ever more morbidly obese Government. You may recall from your earlier blog topic ("Governor Lynch Should Consider 4-Day Work Week") I provided quite a starting list for removing trans-fat from your government by playing the highly entertaining game of PuNoPo - NH (Purge Non-essential Positions from New Hampshire Government). So get with the NH spirit and get your head in this game. Is there one agency, division, department, even one stinkin' seat for a trans-fat-infused fanny hidden in some nondescript cubicle in a big-box building residing somewhere on Hazen Drive that you would get rid of? Dare you go on record, Danny boy?

- Conjuring no-fat phat campaign slogans I can get behind to unleash the svelte fanny within us all, be they bouncing on bikes or jiggling to Irish jigs.
C. dog e. doG

As usual, a reply with insight and humorous as well.  All of us have tried to solicit a response from Daniel so that we can discuss this openly with back and forth.  My guess is that will not happen, but, we can keep on trying on this blog.  I often do not understand why people with opposite viewpoints do not respond but I had an acquaintance tell me once:

"People don't like your views and they find it a waste of time to disagree".  Another liberal told me:  "you are not going to change your mind so what is the point".

To me, discourse is healthy and that is what a blog is all about.  But now we are on to kitty cats and this post is conveniently off of the front page.  However, Dog, as they say...."there is more than one way to skin a cat".  So we continue to fight with facts and ideas and maybe, just maybe, we will get some stimulating debate.

My fear is that those who say things like:  "what is the point.....you are not going to change your views" are also unwilling to listen to reasoned debate and change theirs.  In that case our posts are and will always be considered "garbage".

Hey....stop with that obsession of bouncing butts on bikes........you are really out there pal! 

Bill -
Thanks for the wink of an eye, the nod of the head, the tip of your hat - you inspire me. I do find a good many of these topics of interest, but am disappointed by the lack of participation by liberals. If the liberati consider discussion pointless with those with whom they disagree, then what do they think about sitting around the electronic water cooler reciting DNC talking points with others from the same flock. Up here in the mountains we call that mental masturbation, and what's taking place down in the dales from my vantage point looks a lot like a bible thumpin' religious revival. I thought liberals were against that sort of thing?

Now I'm not attacking religion here, but I do believe in calling a quacking, waddling duck a duck. I thought these blogs were meant for more than ceremonial psalm recitations at a religious rally. That's why I like posting on your blog - whether we agree or not, I can expect an engaged mind replying at wits end, especially when we disagree!

Sooo, what does a brother have to do around here to have a debate with a liberal? I feel like breakin' out in song: Where have all the liberals gone, long time passing ... Do we have to go underground to recruit some blacksheep Bolsheviks? Have they all retreated to the holy ground - DNC blog sites - where non-socialism heresy is banned? I've often heard conservatives comment that once liberals are cornered, they either flee or throw personal attack grenades because either they are insufficiently capable of presenting a coherent argument, or the ideas they espouse are empty rhetoric. I previously thought such comments to be partisan sour grapes, but at this juncture I'm not so sure; the evidence is building, blog by blog.

Now, I'm just as much a fan of kitty kats as the next straight guy (after all, I am C. dog e. doG), but isn't that the job, nay, the calling of the Concord SPCA to find the lost ones? Noble intention, but I too wonder about the timing to take it off the front pages as you did. That's why I check hot topics instead, they're so hot. Riddle me this, Riddler: Is a cat in the hat worth two in the bush? hmmmm.

- Thinkin' of kitty cats while watching beautacious butts bouncing on bikes high in the White Mtns,
C. dog e. doG

Dog,

I think the issue is that the potential respondents are sure that their positions are fact and are beyond the point of discussion viewing their opinion as "settled".  

That way, they are able to just push their agenda without the distraction of dissent.  Like when they say that global warming is "settled" science or gas prices are "settled" and will never go down no matter how much we drill.

The trans-fat issue on this blog was "settled" with no room for discussion.  That, in a nut shell is it....Dog.....thanks for your support of free speech and discussion and keep the responses to the blogs coming.....as far as this one is concerned.....I once again hear crickets.........

Scott,

The question begs....does that cake on Daniels face contain "trans fat"????

Just a little funny comment to lighten up the anxiety of the day.

B 

Bill -

I'm old school that way, I think it's the ultimate American Right (don't confuse with ultra-Right Americans) and obligation to dissent. Otherwise, we're just serfs surfin' our way to the finish line. And as far as settled, nothing is "settled" in science, even when the trans-fat lady sings. Go ask Newton, and now maybe Einstein with string-cheese theory.

Global Warming? Last I heard from scientists (not Al Gore zombies, wanna-bees, and butt buddies) delta Tº has been nearly zippo the last 8 years or so, with the exception of last year which may have dropped ~ .5 Cº, about what it rose the prior 100 years. It's surprising what the readings can be when you remove thermometers off airport tarmacs, away from AC exhaust ports, and out of our asses. Yet I think we all should burn less T-Rex fuel because it pollutes beyond each of our property lines with real pollution (SO2, NO's, particulates), not imaginary pollution (CO2).

Drilling? Again, not a big fan of the burning more stuff, but I had to admit that it would bring price down despite the incantations from the Left that it would have no affect because it would take too long - 5 to 10 years - to implement. Seems they don't understand how commodity markets work - Bush repeals the anti-constitutional Presidential Order to ban off-shore drilling, and presto, crude oil prices start to fall. Just imagine what would happen when USG (Uncle Sam Gob'mint) actually starts to sell property rights on things they don't own to oil companies so they can prepare to drill. Can you say free-fall?

By the way, my original posting was infused with references to Danny Boy's cake on face possibly containing dangerous trans-fat, irony that is steep and deep. Cricket anyone?

- Wiping donut crumbs from the corners of my mouth before Uncle Lynch shows up with his possy,

C. dog e. doG

Dog,

We did our best to get the discussion and debate going, to no avail.......I think this string is dead at this point. 

We will continue the quest for discussion and reasoned debate if there are any takers or if there are those who can intelligently discuss issues without belief that they have it all figured out.  My thought is that many are dismissive.

In any event, over the last couple of months, YOU, Judy, Scott and a couple of others have added a little life to BlogsNH so let's keep plugging to try to get discussion going. 

We also have some new and interesting bloggers here as well and kudos to them for their work....it is all about discussing ideas, debate and sharing opinions, knowledge and thoughts.  Pieces like Terri's this week were really thoughtful and you should give some of the others an "ata boy" once in a while....this is a good place, with or without willingness to discuss topics rationally at times.

You can count on me calling out anything political or controversial as well as discussion of other mundane topics and  I will not let others go unchecked.  In the end, only discourse and discussion leading to compromise will accomplish anything.

See you on the other side and until then, watch out for those dreaded trans fats and for at least one of the vessels that seems to carry them, the HMS Michael Moore.

Keep an eye out for the next "blog"...."Dog"! 

Thank you all for helping me exercise my thinking muscles! I enjoy the humor the intellect and the mental sparing, I hope our left leaning friends will pitch in and rise to the challenge. If not I will continue to thoroughly enjoy all of your posts each and everyone of you.

Scott

Scott,

Thanks and look at my latest post.  Mr Evans, my progressive friend and email buddy has posted some talking points there.   I answered them the best I could but you surely must have something to add.

B 

I am also ending the comments for this post. Again, folks here have crossed the lines of civility.

Please note and remember the user agreement for blogsNH. Thank you.