Bad news, Gander
 

Now the doughnuts are being taken away.
Like you, I've enjoyed my share, but not an everyday kind of thing.
Shucks!
What's next?
Ice cream?http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0928-05.htm:

:confused:

DTS: the link didn't work! What is your opinion of this manuever?

24,000 restaurants won't be allowed to cook with transfats.

I don't think there is a legal leg for them to stand on! There would have to be a general election to pass a law,I think. How 'bout you?

I'm with Timm on this one. I would think they could make an argument to insist all restaurants post the trans fats contents on their menus, but not to forbid them cooking with them.

Of course, I also thought the smoking ban here wouldn't stand up legally, and it did. Go figure. The NYTimes did a cute article about the ban, two years later, where they found even most smokers were happy with the ban, for two reasons: A) their drycleaning bills had gone down and B) having to go outside to smoke was a great way to meet girls who were also outside to smoke. Now, if Bloomberg had only thought to present the ban that way-- "Ban smoking; find romance," people would have RACED to see the law enacted. ;)

It was first published in the Guardian.
You can still see it at commondreams (left side)
Try this:http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0928-05.htm

GR: it's all in the packaging,huh?:)

DTS: thanks for the link. I think it would be like stopping a locomotive with a piece of bubblegum....no chance of it happening...not here...not now