New York Act Against Trans Fats In Order To Secure The Right To Health And Life
New York City moves to ban trans fats. Which being a significant market will cause nationwide restaurants like McDonalds to reduce trans fats in their product nation wide in order not to loose the customers in New York City unless it is more economical to resolve the issue in another way. One cost to the consumer will be the taste of the product will change and so the choice of the consumer will be limited. The government’s concern in this area is the health or general welfare of the people and is well within their jurisdiction since it is part of their obligation to ensure the natural right to health and life of each person. The question though is whether or not trans fats are a significant risk to the general welfare of those people who eat the produce of restraints to overweigh other concerns such as limiting taste and loss of income.
Being overweight is most likely a significant risk factor but trans fats are only a fraction of why people are overweight and removing them from a persons diet may not significantly alter their life span or chance of continue good health. Portion control would seem to be a more effective method of ensuring the good health of the general populace.
I have seen the abstracts of two studies concluded what different things to me.
The First Concluded:
The Second Concluded:
I find apparent contradiction interesting as it indicates that other factors as well as an increased consumption of trans fats are most likely found in the higher incidence of coronary heart disease death in the first study that were not controlled for. Two possible factors are age and sex. The first study did mention dietary cholesterol as a risk factor and it may have been calculated with the level of trans fats and so may be more responsible for the findings than the trans fats were.
The bottom line though is that whether trans fats is a significant risk to the health of the people is something that needs to be decided by the legislative process.
If the law is passed and McDonalds can prove their costs significantly increased because of it in more than New York City then McDonalds or any other restaurant that stretches over two states can petition the federal government to intervene as the clause in Article 1 Section 8 which grants the federal government jurisdiction over interstate trade gives the federal government the authority to do so. If we actually went according to the U.S. Constitution the interstate organization, otherwise known as an artificial person, could not take the case to court as the Eleventh Amendment took away the federal judicial power to try suits in law or equity between citizens of another state or foreign citizens and according to Article 3 Section 2 it never gave the authority to settle a case between a state and a citizen of that same state. The sad thing is the federal courts choose to ignore the Constitution and make up legal fictions to steal the power from the people, the states, and the local governments. On the other hand at the state level McDonalds may be allowed to sue for much the same reasons unless state law forbids it. McDonalds can also petition the state government to hear their complaint.
The citizens are limited to using there choice of where to purchase their food and what to buy to influence McDonalds. The also have free speech, free press, freedom to assemble and petition, and as a last option the power of the vote.
Source 1 is article about New York City banning trans fats.
Source 2 is the study of dietary trans fats and dietary cholesterol.
Source 3 is the study of trans fats in postmenopausal women.
Being overweight is most likely a significant risk factor but trans fats are only a fraction of why people are overweight and removing them from a persons diet may not significantly alter their life span or chance of continue good health. Portion control would seem to be a more effective method of ensuring the good health of the general populace.
I have seen the abstracts of two studies concluded what different things to me.
The First Concluded:
Interpreted in the light of experimental and clinical studies, the results of these cross-cultural analyses suggest that dietary saturated and trans fatty acids and dietary cholesterol are important determinants of differences in population rates of coronary heart disease death.
The Second Concluded:
Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of coronary heart disease , stroke, or cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on cardiovascular disease risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce cardiovascular disease risk.
I find apparent contradiction interesting as it indicates that other factors as well as an increased consumption of trans fats are most likely found in the higher incidence of coronary heart disease death in the first study that were not controlled for. Two possible factors are age and sex. The first study did mention dietary cholesterol as a risk factor and it may have been calculated with the level of trans fats and so may be more responsible for the findings than the trans fats were.
The bottom line though is that whether trans fats is a significant risk to the health of the people is something that needs to be decided by the legislative process.
If the law is passed and McDonalds can prove their costs significantly increased because of it in more than New York City then McDonalds or any other restaurant that stretches over two states can petition the federal government to intervene as the clause in Article 1 Section 8 which grants the federal government jurisdiction over interstate trade gives the federal government the authority to do so. If we actually went according to the U.S. Constitution the interstate organization, otherwise known as an artificial person, could not take the case to court as the Eleventh Amendment took away the federal judicial power to try suits in law or equity between citizens of another state or foreign citizens and according to Article 3 Section 2 it never gave the authority to settle a case between a state and a citizen of that same state. The sad thing is the federal courts choose to ignore the Constitution and make up legal fictions to steal the power from the people, the states, and the local governments. On the other hand at the state level McDonalds may be allowed to sue for much the same reasons unless state law forbids it. McDonalds can also petition the state government to hear their complaint.
The citizens are limited to using there choice of where to purchase their food and what to buy to influence McDonalds. The also have free speech, free press, freedom to assemble and petition, and as a last option the power of the vote.
Source 1 is article about New York City banning trans fats.
Source 2 is the study of dietary trans fats and dietary cholesterol.
Source 3 is the study of trans fats in postmenopausal women.
posted by Kerwin | 6:04 PM
2 Comments:
And supposedly we live in a free economy.
Highboy,
We consider the United States Founders advocated a free trade country when they wrote “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. All New York is doing is regulating commerce within the City of New York. They are also acting in what they claim is to secure the Right to life and health of the people. My problem is I do not feel they are going to make a significant difference with the law and that their case of the harm of trans fats is not very strong. The questions is will it effect people outside of New York City and will the people of New York City be convinced to favor it or tolerate it.
Post a Comment
<< Home