Bad news, Gander

[Downthestretch55]

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:

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

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:

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

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

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

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

[timmgirvan]

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?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

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.

[Downthestretch55]

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

[timmgirvan]

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