RTFM. Try looking at pictures of any US city 100 years ago.

What do you see?

That's right. Bikes and streetcars.

No cars.

Not here. Advanced tech cities are ditching cars. Cars are a 19th Century solution using an outmoded power source.

If people know there is an 80 percent chance they will be stopped, forced to park their car, and not able to use that car for three days (72 hours), or any other car, they will stop doing certain risky things.

The certainty of an immediate penalty is more important than the severity of the penalty.

Stop molly-coddling car drivers. Most of the urban roads were built for bicycles and pedestrians originally.

And drones have shiny things and are viewed as intruders.

Think about that.

It's illegal to fly drones in much of my state, so be advised.

Agreed.

So say all Canadians.

Look, when you get to keep all the money you stole and pay a fine of 0.01 pct of the amount you stole, it's like a checking fee for being one day late.

Until we see real jail time for senior execs who signed off on these illegal actions, it's meaningless.

Inadequate testing? They've been not using transfats in the EU for DECADES.

Look, I get that you think testing only exists in the US, but that has never been true.

The thing is, they are talking of a three year phase in.

But there are many schedules that would be quicker.

One might be a 90 day cease-and-desist. That might be difficult for some.

Another might be a 90 day cease-and-desist for firms that have component firms that use non-transfat recipes, but with a waiver for the retesting component (e.g. the label it's sold under being tested again - since it was already tested, you let them not change the labeling until a reasonable time, but they change the recipe to one they can already make) or for insourced products (import permits waived to meet the new FDA requirement until the local firms can make it.

It's a series of staggered schedules. You also allow them to sell already packaged materials, but not to make more after a cutoff date (e.g. 90 days), although they can use the existing packaging for a transition period.

The only exemptions might be small 50 or less person firms, who might have an expedited testing regime to allow a slight reformulation to meet the transfat removal without full scale retesting in quantity, but with a small sample size (test after switch). Since the reformulation makes it "safer", you permit that as an improvement, but not with the usual deadlines.

I have that too. Some work better in the steam/rice cooker, some are better microwaved (basically steamed inside).

Both keep the flavor in.

No, I understand completely. In fact, I've been a direct shareholder of many food companies and truck and rail and shipping companies.

Fun fact: Most US firms that say they "can't develop recipes" own firms that use non-transfat recipes for other markets.

They just want you to believe it's harder than it is.