ChefTalk.com › ChefTalk Cooking Forums › Professional Food Service Forums › Professional Chefs Forum › Foi Gras in Chicago..Trans Fats in NYC...whats next?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Foi Gras in Chicago..Trans Fats in NYC...whats next?

post #1 of 16
12/5/06 at 2:35pm
Thread Starter 
Refined sugar in Miami?
Does anyone see this as an affront to our freedoms? I understand the whole...people are too stupid to take proper care of themselves and therefore they cause health insurance which in some cases is subsidized by the government and its costing us as a whole billions. I also understand that our kids are fatter than they have ever been in history (I think this has less to do with diet and more to do with the onslaught of electronic stimulation and lack of playing hard and sweating, kind of like exercise) but to start banning ingredients that we are free as humans to eat is really pissing me off. I am telling you...I feel it will only get worse down the line.

Their just ripping off our freedoms and selling it as it’s what is good for us. Yeah like I am too stupid to know what is good for me on my own. And you know what some of us are too stupid to know what is good for us, but that doesn’t mean that government should be banning things or restricting things that are legal....For instance...anyone tried to buy cold medicine lately?
Incase your wondering I am a registered voter, have been since I was 18 and vote regularly.
Vexed,
Frizbee
Reply
post #2 of 16
12/5/06 at 2:39pm
This has been discussed about several times and of course I disagree with the rulings in Chicago (I live there too) and New York.

Of course, this being a forum for chefs, I think the majority vote from us here would be disagreement.

Bring this arguement up on an animal rights or dietician's forum and I think you will get very different results.
Reply
post #3 of 16
12/5/06 at 2:39pm
Thread Starter 

See what I get for being so upset

Forgot to check my typing/spelling...sorry for the misspelled Foie Gras in the title...
No longer vexed,
now I just feeliing like a ninny...
Frizbee
:blush:
Reply
post #4 of 16
12/5/06 at 2:58pm
Sorry to butt in, but I can't resist... is this similar to requiring that milk be pasteurized? Off in search of old newspapers from the time that pasteurization became law. ;)
Reply
post #5 of 16
12/5/06 at 2:59pm
Thread Starter 
Would be interested in reading the info.
Frizbee
Reply
post #6 of 16
12/5/06 at 3:05pm
I have found a few articles in the historical New York Times. Nov 21, 1906, for example. Headline: Pasteurization of milk demanded by doctors. Talks about how a doctors' convention considered the need for a pure milk supply for the City of New York... to decrease the infant death rate. They started the ball rolling for legislation making pasteurization compulsory.

Off to look for the chefs' response.
Reply
post #7 of 16
12/5/06 at 3:13pm
February 23, 1907, also New York Times, headline: Pasteurized Milk, A Physician Protests against its General Use and Prophesies Trouble. Talks about the limited diseases prevented somewhat by pasteurization and how some people, including himself "prefer to run the risk of typhoid, scarlet fever, diptheria, and tuberculosis rather than the evils I believe would follow the systematic and prolonged use of pasteurized milk."
Reply
post #8 of 16
12/5/06 at 3:17pm
Looks like a man named Straus was mostly responsible for required pasteurization even in the face of evidence that it took away some of the nutritive value of milk. Looks like it was quite a fight that ended in December 1908. If you're interested in more, I can post more tomorrow. As you can tell, I have the archived NYT at my fingertips... all the way back to 1851.
Reply
post #9 of 16
12/5/06 at 5:08pm
This is just the beginning of it all. Before long, the size of hamburger you eat at any restaurant will be the official size of the United States Government.

Get used to it. It's sad that it's all come to this. But this is how bad things have gotten for bored legislatures who know nothing about food.

Screw them. Maybe they should all go through a 7-day culinary course to see what food is all about! We'll call it the "Eat My Legislature" program! (heehhehehehe).

Eric
http://www.restaurantedge.com
Reply
post #10 of 16
12/5/06 at 5:32pm
Thread Starter 
No Kidding...lol
Just ribbing you Freerider, it’s all very interesting. I would very much like to see the full article...I love History!
Frizbee
Reply
post #11 of 16
12/5/06 at 10:51pm

Would Escoffier use Trans Fats

As a younger person hear I have no promblem banning trans fats. To me food should be from nature. If you can tell me were margerine comes from in nature I'll back down. The bottam line is Escoffier wouldn't use it. I under stand that costs need to be cut somewere but realy butter is just better, bottom line.
As for the foie gras if were going to kill the duck/goose any way whats the point? Just don't fatten it up with trans fats. LOL
Just my two cents
Chef's Apprenice James A. MacInnis
Reply
post #12 of 16
12/6/06 at 7:44am
I agree that trans fats are unhealthy and I personally choose not consume them if I can help it. I must say though that with many of the freedoms we have always enjoyed now being threatened, I can't really agree with giving up another one. It seems like everything I am in to is being regulated. I wish they would spend the time and money educating the public about health instead of doing things like taking away our right/need to think for ourselves.


Bork <><
Reply
post #13 of 16
12/6/06 at 8:17am
How old is the German beer purity law?

Tony
Reply
post #14 of 16
12/6/06 at 8:41am
It was established in 1516 and is, it is said, the oldest consumer protection law.

It was mentioned in a couple of the pasteurization of milk articles. Btw, with pasteurization of milk, they wanted to stop the spread of tuberculosis. That was the main idea at the time.
Reply
post #15 of 16
12/6/06 at 2:29pm
Way back in August of 1991, Time Magazine had a cover story written about the state of things. The story was titled "Crybabies and Busybodies" I kept that magazine because of the article. I have to apologize for not providing more of the actual article (it's quite good) but we are in the middle of relocating to the Richmond VA area and I don't have magazine with me. I did, however, find a referance to it on line. IMVHPO it was truly amazing how accurate a portayal was made about "what we have become". It is also erie how things have gotten so much worse since then.

The following is taken from the article "Litigation is destroying American companies" written by Glenn W. Bailey as it appeared in a January 1994 issue of USA Today.
"Now look at Americans. They all ought to be proud of their individual rights, but, somewhere over the past decade or two, one's responsibility for his or her actions has been forgotten. People now look at power and perceive it as immoral. Americans say power works against the average person. How did that attitude come about? It's partly because we are becoming a nation of crybabies and busybodies, as an August, 1991, article in Time magazine stated.

Individuals forget their responsibilities, demand rights and entitlements, blame others for their problems, and don't want to pay for what happens to them as a result of their own actions. Lawyers exploit these trends and become rich. A number of them are obscenely greedy. As a result, the American civil justice system is breaking down, businesses are becoming less competitive, and jobs are disappearing.
What exists today is a lawsuit lottery that leads to legalized extortion. Lawyers feed on the "entitlement generation" to create panic over asbestos and other products. Attorneys blame the suppliers of the products despite the fact that warnings on packages were ignored by workers, their unions, and their employers. Lawyers wrongly claim that suppliers were concerned about profits over people. They preach that they are taking from rich companies and giving to the poor, yet two-thirds of the money goes to attorneys."

Could be considered the "Nostradamus" of all articles.

Oh, the tangled web we weave.
Reply
post #16 of 16
12/6/06 at 5:51pm
It seems to me that the various governments are doing exactly what we do, catering to the needs of their guests. In our restaurants if the majority of our guests said that we should not serve foie gras, wouldn't we listen to them? What happened is that the environmental lobby got a loud enough voice in Chicago and created change. The same happened in New York. The same happened 60 years ago when the government starting mandating iodine be put in salt and Florine be put in water. It is the same with smoking bans in public places. It was the same with prohibition and the repeal of prohibition. If I could convince 51% of the residents of my city that we should not drink alcohol, the lawmakers would either change the law for us or we will elect new ones that will. This is how democracy works. Is it not wonderful?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Professional Chefs Forum
ChefTalk.com › ChefTalk Cooking Forums › Professional Food Service Forums › Professional Chefs Forum › Foi Gras in Chicago..Trans Fats in NYC...whats next?