Dronze wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't their right to do so, but the cheaper, safer alternative, is to allow the consumer to purchase it through legal means, rather than requiring that they manufacture it, themselves.

Yes, the cheaper, safer alternative to making their own chemical additive in order to slowly kill themselves is to allow shops to sell them foodstuffs that contain that chemical additive instead...


Ok, so lets say that instead of banning trans fats, your government puts a heap of money into funding education about diet and lifestyle. And just for giggles, lets say that all the kids currently bludging their way through the public school system suddenly say 'Holy crap, they're teaching us about nutrition, now?!?' and start paying attention in class. And then in 20 years time after their parents have all died of massive coronaries, the public backlash encourages all of the food producers to stop using trans fats in their products... and suddenly, you can't buy anything with trans fats in them.

Will you then be complaining that your freedoms are being maligned, because companies aren't making less healthy food just in case you want to eat it?


Although, really, isn't that still the government's fault? Whether they ban trans fats now, or fund an education program to encourage people to stop eating them, either way they're gone. Either way the government is ultimately responsible for your inability to buy foods that contain a particular unhealthy chemical additive.

The bastards.

Dronze wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't their right to do so, but the cheaper, safer alternative, is to allow the consumer to purchase it through legal means, rather than requiring that they manufacture it, themselves.

I think this shows how much you and other people opposing this FDA proposal are arguing from the abstract, talking about the notion of banning food types in general, and not about the specific realities of transfats. Sure there are products like tobacco that are bad for us, and if they were banned then a black market would form because people genuinely want to smoke, no matter how bad it is for you, and they will get their product even if its banned (opening up all the problems of a black market).

But transfats are a cheap, long lasting fattening agent. If banned, there will be no home production from people desperate to get some transfats in their food. Instead they'll keep buying the same products that they used to buy, except now they'll include some other fattening agent that is less likely to cause a heart attack. There is not going to be darkened rooms across the country in which people bubble up some hydrogen, because someone wants some chip oil that will last a little longer.

Seriously, the US government moves to ban something unnatural from food that is harming peoples health and people complain about it being unfair because of cost and "freedom"...

This just comes across as more "profit above all else" nonsense. Very very strange.

The really odd thing is people in the US are most likely to sue when they are given the choice and chose the wrong one.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you ban trans-fats, they will just replace them with other fats. Nothing will have been solved. thus it is a pointless action.

The point is trans fats are worse than other fats.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Seriously, the US government moves to ban something unnatural from food that is harming peoples health and people complain about it being unfair because of cost and "freedom"...

This just comes across as more "profit above all else" nonsense. Very very strange.

I'm quite a fan of profit.

It seems my company might be changing some of it's regulatory content due to this ban on partially hydrogenated oils. Normally when it came to the use of those, they were "generally regarded as safe" with this proposed ban on PHOs, this is no longer the case... Great and we just released new regulatory content too

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Trans-fats aren't the issue, its the freedom of choice.

Oh yes, I can totally see how it's absolutely vital for you to have the freedom to choose to buy food that contains artificial fat instead of the less harmful kind.

It's an affront to freedom, and surely communism follows immediately behind.


Or, you know, it's removing a harmful, artificial ingredient for which there are less harmful alternatives, as a part of a gradual process to improve the general health of the population. The bastards.

Yeah, and I deman to be able to use DDT all I want too!

 Easy E wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Trans-fats aren't the issue, its the freedom of choice.

Oh yes, I can totally see how it's absolutely vital for you to have the freedom to choose to buy food that contains artificial fat instead of the less harmful kind.

It's an affront to freedom, and surely communism follows immediately behind.


Or, you know, it's removing a harmful, artificial ingredient for which there are less harmful alternatives, as a part of a gradual process to improve the general health of the population. The bastards.

Yeah, and I deman to be able to use DDT all I want too!

That's a completely different issue. DDT use affected others without consent. Consumption of trans fats is a personal choice, and as such, has no real external impact. It is, contrary to popular belief, not the government's job to moniter the health of it's population unless it serves as a threat to the health of the population at large, in cases such as an outbreak of a particularly potent and communicable illness. If you want to know what you're eating, read the label. In the case of agricultural products, well, you could, were it not for the wider environmental impact necessitating an outright ban, argue that agricultural pesticides used on any plant matter you're about to buy should be clearly stated.

Also the FDA didn't regulate DDT out.

Dronze wrote:
That's a completely different issue. DDT use affected others without consent. Consumption of trans fats is a personal choice, and as such, has no real external impact. It is, contrary to popular belief, not the government's job to moniter the health of it's population unless it serves as a threat to the health of the population at large, in cases such as an outbreak of a particularly potent and communicable illness. If you want to know what you're eating, read the label. In the case of agricultural products, well, you could, were it not for the wider environmental impact necessitating an outright ban, argue that agricultural pesticides used on any plant matter you're about to buy should be clearly stated.

First up, if it is not written in law, not followed by government, and not popular belief... then basically it's just your opinion. You don't get to decide how you'd like things to be, and then insist that's how things really are, despite popular opinion believing otherwise.

Second up, you're still arguing in the abstract, arguing that personal choice is unquestionably an absolute principle regardless of the specifics of any particular issue. You really need to take a look at why personal choice is important (which it most certainly is), and what assumptions need to hold for it to continute to be the best possible choice. And maybe in doing so you'll find banning transfats is okay, or maybe you'll find it isn't, but either way going through the process will mean you're able to actually debate in substance why or why not, and not just continue to repeat an abstract principal about freedom.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Also, what the hell is liquid smoke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_smoke

It does taste good though.

I have some. I forgot what I used it in...

To be fair, trans fats aren't actually found anywhere in nature I don't think. They were human engineered to try and get the good taste of complex animal fats with the health benefits of vegetable oils. Ended up not really doing much of either but really messing up your body because it doesn't know how to process them.

At least that's what my college organic chemistry teacher told me a couple years ago anyway.

That said I'm of the opinion the government should just legalize and tax everything that can alter your mental state anyway. Apparently the Coast Guard grabs millions of dollars worth of drugs fairly often when it does an interdiction. I see that as good tax money our government is missing out on.

Except at least drugs get you high. Trans fats do nothing except kill you.

 Fafnir wrote:
Except at least drugs get you high. Trans fats do nothing except kill you.

You've obviously not eaten enough fries

Dronze wrote:
Consumption of trans fats is a personal choice, and as such, has no real external impact.

Nobody chooses to eat trans fats - they only do so because said fats are "packaged" with the things they do choose to eat. If you can eat the things you want - fatty foods - without the associated health risks, why wouldn't that be a good thing?

 AlexHolker wrote:
Nobody chooses to eat trans fats - they only do so because said fats are "packaged" with the things they do choose to eat.

What a hilarious attempt at a distinction.

 Seaward wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
Nobody chooses to eat trans fats - they only do so because said fats are "packaged" with the things they do choose to eat.

What a hilarious attempt at a distinction.

I think it's pretty true I don't know anyone who picks an item because it has trans fats in it.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think it's pretty true I don't know anyone who picks an item because it has trans fats in it.

Can you think of any items made with trans fat that don't have alternatives without it? Choosing to eat food with trans fat is choosing to eat trans fat. It's not the only option on the table, and pretending otherwise is, don't get me wrong, hilarious as hell, but incorrect.

Dronze wrote:
Consumption of trans fats is a personal choice, and as such, has no real external impact.

Obesity has an 'external impact'.

It is, contrary to popular belief, not the government's job to moniter the health of it's population unless it serves as a threat to the health of the population at large,...

So, like where companies are using extremely unhealthy ingredients that contribute nothing worthwhile to the product other than a slight price reduction, and which contribute in a big way to obesity, high cholestorol, and all sorts of fun heart conditions?



Nobody would have a problem with the government stepping in if, say, McDonalds started putting arsenic in their fries. Trans Fats just do the same job more slowly.


Actually, I take that back. Going by some of the responses in this thread, it's apparently the right of the individual to eat fries that will kill them if they want to, so really, the fact that McDonalds aren't using arsenic in their fries is an invasion of our freedoms!, and something must be done about it. Picket you local McDonalds now!

 Seaward wrote:
What a hilarious attempt at a distinction.

No, it works just fine. If you don't want to see it, then you won't see it. For everybody else, the difference is kind of obvious. Consider soup cans that claim 'salt reduced'... now that soup is going to be a lot better for you, but there's a pretty good chance you won't buy it anyway, because canned soup needs lots of salt to avoid tasting like ass. But then consider a frozen meal that announces 'we use some other fattening agent instead of transfat'... and no-one will give a gak because it doesn't affect the taste at all. The product may be about 4c more expensive, but once again no-one will give a gak, because it's 4c... and if you're really in such deep financial straits that 4c matters then you really shouldn't be buying frozen lasagne anyway.

Which brings us back to the basic point I've been repeating over and over in this thread, no-one picks a food with transfat in it because it has transfat. Consumers get it because they don't know it's in there, or because they don't know how bad it is for them.

It's interesting that you've commented a few times how funny other people's points are. Well, ultimately your constant repetition of 'consumer choice' isn't even funny, it's just boring. You've just got 'consumer choice' wedged in to your brain, and then decided for some reason you'll never examine or analyse why that actually might be important, and so never begin to understand the situations in which it doesn't actually deliver a good result. So the rest of us just repeat the same basic issues over and over again. Boring.

 sebster wrote:
Consumers get it because they don't know it's in there, or because they don't know how bad it is for them.

Aside from the ones who know it's in there, and know how bad it is for them, you mean? I mean, Jesus, sebster, I knowingly ate trans fat just a few days ago.

It's interesting that you've commented a few times how funny other people's points are. Well, ultimately your constant repetition of 'consumer choice' isn't even funny, it's just boring. You've just got 'consumer choice' wedged in to your brain, and then decided for some reason you'll never examine or analyse why that actually might be important, and so never begin to understand the situations in which it doesn't actually deliver a good result.

Why do you think I care about good results? When have I ever said anything to give you the impression that I think everything should always end up happily for everyone, ever?

So the rest of us just repeat the same basic issues over and over again. Boring.

I have a solution, but it involves proactive choice on your part, so I know it won't fly.

 Seaward wrote:

So the rest of us just repeat the same basic issues over and over again. Boring.

I have a solution, but it involves proactive choice on your part, so I know it won't fly.

The problem is you haven't really provided a reason why being able to buy trans fat-laden food is a meaningful choice. Generally I believe that being able to buy goods that are harmful to the customer for no benefit is a bad thing, because it's a huge waste of effort and money for people to have to go around worrying that their clothes are going to be toxic, their shampoo is going to make their kids go blind or their car is going to blow up. There's no particular value in people having the option of buying a car that explodes, so it saves everyone time and money if the government stops that.

"Freedom liberty!!1" just isn't a coherent life philosophy. Choices aren't all created equal.

Its less that its a meaningful choice, its more that its our choice as citizens to make. The govenrment has no place in it.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

So the rest of us just repeat the same basic issues over and over again. Boring.

I have a solution, but it involves proactive choice on your part, so I know it won't fly.

The problem is you haven't really provided a reason why being able to buy trans fat-laden food is a meaningful choice. Generally I believe that being able to buy goods that are harmful to the customer for no benefit is a bad thing, because it's a huge waste of effort and money for people to have to go around worrying that their clothes are going to be toxic, their shampoo is going to make their kids go blind or their car is going to blow up. There's no particular value in people having the option of buying a car that explodes, so it saves everyone time and money if the government stops that.

"Freedom liberty!!1" just isn't a coherent life philosophy. Choices aren't all created equal.

Touché. And choices containing transfer fats are often a less expensive choice.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The problem is you haven't really provided a reason why being able to buy trans fat-laden food is a meaningful choice. Generally I believe that being able to buy goods that are harmful to the customer for no benefit is a bad thing, because it's a huge waste of effort and money for people to have to go around worrying that their clothes are going to be toxic, their shampoo is going to make their kids go blind or their car is going to blow up. There's no particular value in people having the option of buying a car that explodes, so it saves everyone time and money if the government stops that.

And we've gone over why the exploding car is a horrible analogy. A car that will explode and kill you right that second, or shortly thereafter, is not remotely comparable to an additive that you need to eat quite a bit of over the course of your life to die earlier than you probably would have without doing so.

"Freedom liberty!!1" just isn't a coherent life philosophy.

Sure it is.

Choices aren't all created equal.

No, they're certainly not. You'll need to reference above, though, to my indifference towards people making decisions that are harmful to themselves.

There's a lot you can avoid to lower your chances of keeling over dead at 60. I believe pretty much none of those choices should be mandated by the federal government.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its less that its a meaningful choice, its more that its our choice as citizens to make. The govenrment has no place in it.

It is not your choice to make, it is the producer's choice to make. They packaged trans fats into their product despite the fact that only the most stupid cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face zealot would eat it instead of the equivalent trans fat free meal, if they'd been given the choice.

Except you do have the choice.

You can always NOT eat stuff that contains trans-fats. Nobody is forcing you to eat that Twinkie or Big Mac. You can always have a granola bar or a nice turkey sandwich you made at home.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its less that its a meaningful choice, its more that its our choice as citizens to make. The govenrment has no place in it.

It is not your choice to make, it is the producer's choice to make. They packaged trans fats into their product despite the fact that only the most stupid cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face zealot would eat it instead of the equivalent trans fat free meal, if they'd been given the choice.

Unless one is cheaper to buy because it's cheaper to produce. No one has ever made that decision though, so it's probably an invalid argument.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You can always NOT eat stuff that contains trans-fats. Nobody is forcing you to eat that Twinkie or Big Mac. You can always have a granola bar or a nice turkey sandwich you made at home.

That's fine for the adult who has the ability to educate themselves on the dangers of what they are eating. It doesn't help the children of those parents who either don't know any better, or don't care.


That's something that seems to have been overlooked here... a parent's dietary choices don't just affect themselves. Laws about what can and can't be put in food don't just protect the adults who don't want to learn about nutrition.

Parents make decisions for their kids. If they choose to let them eat trans-fats that is their choice.

The kids can then make their own decisions once they become adults.

Typically, giving children poison is something that's looked down upon by social services.

Poison is far too strong a word.

poison
poi·son
[poi-zuhn]
noun
1.
a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.

Now, granted, the effects might be less pronounced than something like Arsenic. But then again, the purpose of actually keeping trans fats in foods could be likened to that of keeping arsenic in food. Both are entirely useless, and only act to cause harm. The difference being one is more chronic than the other.

On the contrary, Trans-fats do serve a purpose. They make the food cheaper. Arsenic on the other hand would serve no purpose other than to kill.

And something that only kills you after decades of consumption can hardly be seen as something we should ban. Alcohol will kill you quicker.


Also, under that definition of poison we could list the following,

Water. Tends to destroy life when inhaled or ingested in large quantities.

Alcohol. This is actually a poison. And in exchange it only gives a small mind altering effect, followed by the unpleasant effects of a hangover.

Fat in general. Eat too much of it(key words: "too much") and it will impair your health.



All that should be done is more education about the, rather subdued, dangers of trans-fats.

People have the choice to not eat them right now. Nobody is being forced to eat them, no not even the children whose parents give them trans-fat foods.

Thus there is no compelling reason to ban them.

 Fafnir wrote:
poison
poi·son
[poi-zuhn]
noun
1.
a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.

Now, granted, the effects might be less pronounced than something like Arsenic. But then again, the purpose of actually keeping trans fats in foods could be likened to that of keeping arsenic in food. Both are entirely useless, and only act to cause harm. The difference being one is more chronic than the other.

So I guess that petition to ban dihydrogen-monoxide was legit then.

If we are going to argue that it is peoples rights to eat trans fat then it is also peoples rights to consume meth, heroine, Marijuana, and other drugs

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If we are going to argue that it is peoples rights to eat trans fat then it is also peoples rights to consume meth, heroine, Marijuana, and other drugs

Well... those ARE poisons.

But iit is their right to put something harmful in their bodies if they so please, like Trans Fat.

There is a distinct difference between harmful drugs and trans-fats.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Parents make decisions for their kids. If they choose to let them eat trans-fats that is their choice.

Yes, that's exactly my point.

If parents aren't going to take their job seriously, someone else has to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And something that only kills you after decades of consumption can hardly be seen as something we should ban.

So we should put the lead back into paint?

All that should be done is more education about the, rather subdued, dangers of trans-fats.

Because that will totally work.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is a distinct difference between harmful drugs and trans-fats.

Both can cause immense harm if you use them. the difference is one is legal.

There is a major difference between someone who has abused crack and someone who has eaten too much trans-fats.

Its ludicrous to compare the 2.

I do no think, if we are going to talk about freedom and the right to do what you want, then Drugs should be legal. Trans Fats are harmful to people, especially growing children.

Its not the Trans-fats specifically that is the issue here.

Its the government overstepping its bounds and telling you how to run your life.


Drug use harms not only yourself, but those around you. Trans-fats only harm you, and in the corner case your children if you feed them trans-fats. But then again, that's poor parenting. Not something the government has any business butting its nose into.

Only if it translates to direct physical or mental harm to the child should the government step in, and only when its absolutely necessary. Feeding kids trans-fats is not child abuse or negligence. its just a bad choice of food thats all.


If this goes through, what stops it from continuing to the government saying what toys you can give your kids, what disciplinary methods you use, what kind of electronic devices you are allowed to let them play with, what kind of pets you can have, etc...

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Parents make decisions for their kids. If they choose to let them eat trans-fats that is their choice.

Yes, that's exactly my point.

If parents aren't going to take their job seriously, someone else has to.

No. Just, no. This is the same argument that has led to the inane banning of videogames in Australia. Children are not automatically wards of the state just because someone else doesn't agree with the dietary choices their parents make for them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And something that only kills you after decades of consumption can hardly be seen as something we should ban.

So we should put the lead back into paint?

Lead is already handled by the EPA, and was banned for the harm it could do to others, especially when it's presence went unannounced to home buyers down the line.

All that should be done is more education about the, rather subdued, dangers of trans-fats.

Because that will totally work.

 insaniak wrote:

All that should be done is more education about the, rather subdued, dangers of trans-fats.

Because that will totally work.

It works pretty damn well for tobacco.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its not the Trans-fats specifically that is the issue here.

Its the government overstepping its bounds and telling you how to run your life.

Yeah, how dare the government make it harder for people to ruin their own health...

Trans-fats only harm you, and in the corner case your children if you feed them trans-fats.

Obesity affects the people around you.
Heart Disease affects the people around you.
Having an unhealthy population affects the people around you.

If this goes through, what stops it from continuing to the government saying what toys you can give your kids, what disciplinary methods you use, what kind of electronic devices you are allowed to let them play with, what kind of pets you can have, etc...

Er... they do that already...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dronze wrote:Lead is already handled by the EPA, and was banned for the harm it could do to others, especially when it's presence went unannounced to home buyers down the line.

Yes, but it doesn't hurt you straight away... which apparently is sufficient grounds for letting people chug it down like candy.

Grey Templar wrote:It works pretty damn well for tobacco.

After how many decades, and how many millions of dollars spent on anti-smoking advertising?

Repeating that for every harmful thing that manufacturers choose to put into our food supply hardly seems like the most effective use of taxpayer money... At some point, it's surely better for everyone for them to just say 'You know what, this thing here has no beneficial properties whatsoever, is harmful to the health, and there are better alternatives out there... maybe we should just tell people to stop using it.'

11 pages in, and the same group of people are arguing the same thing they were arguing on page 1, that choice triumphs above everything else. Even a choice that's nothing but bad, because the consumer apparently has an inalienable right to make objectively stupid choices or something.

Not one thing has made a dent in any of this. When it was pointed out that transfats are flavourless but far more dangerous than other types of fats, this was countered with the idea that person can choose not to consume them. Now, once the only defence of a product is that a person can not buy it, that should lead to some kind of thought about whether all choices are automatically good... but we got none of that.

So yeah, when people talk about the intellectual bankruptcy of the right wing, you all need to understand it's efforts like this that people are talking about. Seriously, you guys don't even try to think about this stuff. It's just consumer freedom uber alles, and not one second spent thinking whether that actually works in all situations.

 Seaward wrote:
Why do you think I care about good results? When have I ever said anything to give you the impression that I think everything should always end up happily for everyone, ever?

So it's freedom huzzah! And even then it's a very narrow definition of freedom, one that can consider nothing other than government.

Which, once again, leaves us explaining why other things matter, and you falling back in to your ideology to consider none of it. Which, as I already explained, is boring.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Its the government overstepping its bounds and telling you how to run your life.

Government exists in order to tell you how to run your life.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Drug use harms not only yourself, but those around you. Trans-fats only harm you, and in the corner case your children if you feed them trans-fats.

How does drug use harm those around you in a way which is distinct from the consumption of trans-fats?

 Grey Templar wrote:

If this goes through, what stops it from continuing to the government saying what toys you can give your kids, what disciplinary methods you use, what kind of electronic devices you are allowed to let them play with, what kind of pets you can have, etc...

The state already does all of those things.

 Grey Templar wrote:
On the contrary, Trans-fats do serve a purpose. They make the food cheaper. Arsenic on the other hand would serve no purpose other than to kill.

I can guarantee that almost any food product will get a lot cheaper if there was arsenic in it. That alone should be a reason to allow it to be put in food products. Woe betide those who end up buying it, but that was their choice as consumers.

 dogma wrote:


Government exists in order to tell you how to run your life.

Wait. What? No. No. No.

Thomas Jefferson would heartily disagree with you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:


How does drug use harm those around you in a way which is distinct from the consumption of trans-fats?
.

I think most drugs should be legal, just like alcohol and tobacco are.

Granted, gak like meth can make you paranoid and violent, and when that happens it can start to affect others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:


I can guarantee that almost any food product will get a lot cheaper if there was arsenic in it. That alone should be a reason to allow it to be put in food products. Woe betide those who end up buying it, but that was their choice as consumers.

It really isn't even remotely the same. I really don't understand how y'all are trying to reasonably make that comparison.

 cincydooley wrote:
It really isn't even remotely the same. I really don't understand how y'all are trying to reasonably make that comparison.

It's not a reasonable comparison. It's a ridiculous one. But a ridiculous comparison is needed to highlight the ridiculousness of insisting that the use of a harmful and in no way nutritionally beneficial ingredient should be allowed because it makes the end product slightly cheaper.

 insaniak wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
It really isn't even remotely the same. I really don't understand how y'all are trying to reasonably make that comparison.

It's not a reasonable comparison. It's a ridiculous one. But a ridiculous comparison is needed to highlight the ridiculousness of insisting that the use of a harmful and in no way nutritionally beneficial ingredient should be allowed because it makes the end product slightly cheaper.

Except people make cheaper, less healthy decisions every time they order from the dollar menu. People make the decision to live in worse neighborhoods because they're cheaper too. They should be allowed that choice.

 cincydooley wrote:

I think most drugs should be legal, just like alcohol and tobacco are.

Oh my god i agree with you!

People who want to totally de-regulate the government should love to live, like in the industrial revolution era where a few rich controlled
what normal people could do, work 18 hours, buy at the company store only. like in most thing there has to be balance.

I wonder if there is a transfat prohibition, will there be Burger runs instead of Moonshine runs?

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I wonder if there is a transfat prohibition, will there be Burger runs instead of Moonshine runs?

Nah, man. I know a guy. It's cool, man - the best stuff. Uncut.

Nah... I'll stick with these:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I wonder if there is a transfat prohibition, will there be Burger runs instead of Moonshine runs?

No, since the burger producers will just use different ingredients.

Which brings us back to this really being a non-issue. It's not going to make anything go away... it's just going to result in a recipe change for those products that currently include trans fats. The vast majority of people won't even notice... and of those that do, is anyone really going to claim with a straight face that having the 'right' to choose to eat artificially modified fat is that important?



This isn't about freedom of choice. It's about health. You'll still have the right to choose to eat whatever the hell you want. It just won't have one particular unhealthy ingredient in it. It's hardly going to be the first thing to ever be banned from commercial food production.

But for many products you're going to have to pay more to do so now.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Alcohol. This is actually a poison. And in exchange it only gives a small mind altering effect, followed by the unpleasant effects of a hangover.

Hangover? What's that?

 cincydooley wrote:
But for many products you're going to have to pay more to do so now.

Well, most fast food places (and some of the largest vendors) dropped transfats a few years ago when NYC banned them, rather than have 2 different menus (along with realizing this wasn't going to stop with NYC). Although the transfat food riots were pretty bad at first, in 2013 we seem to have weathered the storm and heading into 2014, seem to have accepted that french fries are just going to be $25 a serving now.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
But for many products you're going to have to pay more to do so now.

Well, most fast food places (and some of the largest vendors) dropped transfats a few years ago when NYC banned them, rather than have 2 different menus (along with realizing this wasn't going to stop with NYC). Although the transfat food riots were pretty bad at first, in 2013 we seem to have weathered the storm and heading into 2014, seem to have accepted that french fries are just going to be $25 a serving now.

Well I guess it's a good thing trans fat is only used in fast food!

Aw, my favorite game, say something that is sort of like what I said!

 Ouze wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I wonder if there is a transfat prohibition, will there be Burger runs instead of Moonshine runs?

Nah, man. I know a guy. It's cool, man - the best stuff. Uncut.

*vomits* I'll pass man, that ain't my thing...

 sebster wrote:
So it's freedom huzzah! And even then it's a very narrow definition of freedom, one that can consider nothing other than government.

Which, once again, leaves us explaining why other things matter, and you falling back in to your ideology to consider none of it. Which, as I already explained, is boring.

So stop doing it, sebster. Christ knows you do an acutely terrible job of it.

This whole argument boils down to the same question as the abortion or drugs issue: Do I have any agency when it comes to choices I make about my own body, provided it isn't doing any financial or physical harm to anyone else?

Dead simple, really.

In order to effectively argue that transfats, banned by means of state, federal, or local legislation, rather than industry standards or personal choice, you must subscribe in part, if not in full, to the idea that it is another man's right to strip you of your personal liberties because they disagree with one or more of your personal habits, insofar as it applies to the impact it makes on your life.

Ignoring emotional impact, which is a chosen, voulentary, and subjective response, and therefore the responsibility of the reactant, not the subject, the consumption of transfats is, ultimately, no different from most drug use. Will it destroy your life, health, and emotional well-being? Perhaps, but we are talking about liberty, and all of these things are yours to destroy if you so choose. Is it your right to tell me I am not allowed to destroy a brand new half-million dollar sportscar, or an old-school miniatures collection, if it belongs to me, and if so, who or what gives you, or anyone else for that matter, that right? How is that example any different from the transfat argument?

It's not, at all. My body, my life, my belongings, my resources are mine to do with as I see fit, provided, of course, that what I am doing does not interfere with the body, life, resources, or belongings of others without their consent. If I choose to guzzle down 5 gallons of butter-flavored popcorn topping, who are you to think you have the right to tell me I cannot? You can tell me that I shouldn't, and what it will do to my body, but to think you have the right to take that jug from me is absolutely wrong-headed.

Drug comparison doesn't really work for me because you can't get high off of transfats.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Drug comparison doesn't really work for me because you can't get high off of transfats.

You've obviously never had taco bell after a late night of partying...

 Cheesecat wrote:
Drug comparison doesn't really work for me because you can't get high off of transfats.

Didn't someone already say that once here?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Drug comparison doesn't really work for me because you can't get high off of transfats.

Didn't someone already say that once here?

Yeah, but people are ignoring that distinction.

Dronze wrote:
This whole argument boils down to the same question as the abortion or drugs issue: Do I have any agency when it comes to choices I make about my own body, provided it isn't doing any financial or physical harm to anyone else?

Except it's not.

What it actually comes down to is - Do food manufacturers have a responsibility to not use ingredients that are harmful to those who consume them and have no nutritional value?

What you choose to eat is entirely up to you.
What a food manufacturer is allowed to sell to you is the subject of regulation.

 insaniak wrote:

What it actually comes down to is - Do food manufacturers have a responsibility to not use ingredients that are harmful to those who consume them and have no nutritional value?

Which, I'll add, is the entire point of existence of the FDA.

This whole argument is fething ridiculous. Can someone give me some good reasons why manufacturers need to include transfats in their food?

-Shrike- wrote:
This whole argument is fething ridiculous. Can someone give me some good reasons why manufacturers need to include transfats in their food?

Good reason for whom? The consumer or the manufacturer?

-Shrike- wrote:
This whole argument is fething ridiculous. Can someone give me some good reasons why manufacturers need to include transfats in their food?

Cause it raises those products prices up like 4 cents more and cause freedom.

 insaniak wrote:

Dronze wrote:
This whole argument boils down to the same question as the abortion or drugs issue: Do I have any agency when it comes to choices I make about my own body, provided it isn't doing any financial or physical harm to anyone else?

Except it's not.

What it actually comes down to is - Do food manufacturers have a responsibility to not use ingredients that are harmful to those who consume them and have no nutritional value?

What you choose to eat is entirely up to you.
What a food manufacturer is allowed to sell to you is the subject of regulation.

By that reasoning, what's to be done about refined sugar, since we're not including caloric content as nutritional value? Can't really argue that one both ways.

 Alfndrate wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:
This whole argument is fething ridiculous. Can someone give me some good reasons why manufacturers need to include transfats in their food?

Good reason for whom? The consumer or the manufacturer?

Consumer. The only one I've seen so far is that it is a few cents cheaper.

[EDIT - 300th post!]

-Shrike- wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:
This whole argument is fething ridiculous. Can someone give me some good reasons why manufacturers need to include transfats in their food?

Good reason for whom? The consumer or the manufacturer?

Consumer. The only one I've seen so far is that it is a few cents cheaper.

[EDIT - 300th post!]

It's also considerably more shelf stable, meaning it can last longer.

Dronze wrote:
By that reasoning, what's to be done about refined sugar, since we're not including caloric content as nutritional value? Can't really argue that one both ways.

I would have absolutely no problem with the banning of refined sugar and invert corn syrup.

 cincydooley wrote:

...People make the decision to live in worse neighborhoods because they're cheaper too. They should be allowed that choice.

A small nitpick, but almost all of the time this isn't a choice that people make, it's a choice forced on them by economics.

 insaniak wrote:

Dronze wrote:
By that reasoning, what's to be done about refined sugar, since we're not including caloric content as nutritional value? Can't really argue that one both ways.

I would have absolutely no problem with the banning of refined sugar and invert corn syrup.

But others would, myself included. What moral high ground do you claim to have here, insaniak, that you think we should all change our diet based on government mandate?

Seriously, I would love to know, because at this point, I'm beginning to think you're one of those nut bars that feels videogames should be banned based on the same flimsy style of logic you're putting forth. Further, you've not actually addressed the salient point: from where or whom do you get the right to strip others of their liberties, let alone maintain that giving anyone else that right is a good thing?

Oh, and by the bye, what companies choose to sell, and what people choose to buy, are two very different things. If you don't want to eat anything but naturally sourced, organically grown, hand prepared food, that's your choice, and you're welcome to it. Just don't presume to use that as a template for how the rest of us should be forced to live.

 Extreaminatus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

...People make the decision to live in worse neighborhoods because they're cheaper too. They should be allowed that choice.

A small nitpick, but almost all of the time this isn't a choice that people make, it's a choice forced on them by economics.

But it is a choice that some make, and make happily. There isn't any place that will turn you down to buy or rent because you make too much money.

Dronze wrote:
What moral high ground do you claim to have here, insaniak, that you think we should all change our diet based on government mandate?

No 'moral high ground' at all. We've all been changing our diet based on government mandate for as long as there has been government. The fact that you seem to think this is something new is rather puzzling, to be honest.

Further, you've not actually addressed the salient point: from where or whom do you get the right to strip others of their liberties, let alone maintain that giving anyone else that right is a good thing?

I don't get that right at all.

The government does, through virtue of, you know, being the government.



Edit - And no, I don't have any particular urge to call for video games to be banned... But I have absolutely no issue with the government regulating them. Just as I have no issue with the government requiring cars to have functional brakes, toys to not be painted with lead-based paint, and DDT to not be sprayed on my vegetables. They make the rules. That's their job.

Dronze wrote:

 Extreaminatus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

...People make the decision to live in worse neighborhoods because they're cheaper too. They should be allowed that choice.

A small nitpick, but almost all of the time this isn't a choice that people make, it's a choice forced on them by economics.

But it is a choice that some make, and make happily. There isn't any place that will turn you down to buy or rent because you make too much money.

Income restricted housing certainly will turn you down for making too much money. And I wasn't saying that it's not a choice for everyone, but the statement I was replying to implied that everyone has the choice to not live in a crappy neighborhood if they wanted.

 insaniak wrote:

Dronze wrote:
What moral high ground do you claim to have here, insaniak, that you think we should all change our diet based on government mandate?

No 'moral high ground' at all. We've all been changing our diet based on government mandate for as long as there has been government. The fact that you seem to think this is something new is rather puzzling, to be honest.

Name one within the last 50 years, aside from the whole bushmeat thing, which was an ecological point.

Further, you've not actually addressed the salient point: from where or whom do you get the right to strip others of their liberties, let alone maintain that giving anyone else that right is a good thing?

I don't get that right at all.

The government does, through virtue of, you know, being the government.

Not here. Good ol' #10 on the bill of rights:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So often left unloved and ignored, but so very, very important.

Dronze wrote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So often left unloved and ignored, but so very, very important.

The FDA's purview to regulate what foods are generally recognized as safe falls well within the limits of the commerce clause - so, if you read that a little more carefully, you'd realize that the sentence you think nulls this actually explicitly authorizes with the first 11 words, there.

 Extreaminatus wrote:

Dronze wrote:

 Extreaminatus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

...People make the decision to live in worse neighborhoods because they're cheaper too. They should be allowed that choice.

A small nitpick, but almost all of the time this isn't a choice that people make, it's a choice forced on them by economics.

But it is a choice that some make, and make happily. There isn't any place that will turn you down to buy or rent because you make too much money.

Income restricted housing certainly will turn you down for making too much money. And I wasn't saying that it's not a choice for everyone, but the statement I was replying to implied that everyone has the choice to not live in a crappy neighborhood if they wanted.

Didn't imply that at all, and I made sure not to.

Dronze wrote:
Name one within the last 50 years, aside from the whole bushmeat thing, which was an ecological point.

http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm#banned_additives

 insaniak wrote:

Dronze wrote:
Name one within the last 50 years, aside from the whole bushmeat thing, which was an ecological point.

http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm#banned_additives

ethylene glycol solvent synthetic 1998 Kidney damage


Thanks, Clinton.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Extreaminatus wrote:

Dronze wrote:

 Extreaminatus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

...People make the decision to live in worse neighborhoods because they're cheaper too. They should be allowed that choice.

A small nitpick, but almost all of the time this isn't a choice that people make, it's a choice forced on them by economics.

But it is a choice that some make, and make happily. There isn't any place that will turn you down to buy or rent because you make too much money.

Income restricted housing certainly will turn you down for making too much money. And I wasn't saying that it's not a choice for everyone, but the statement I was replying to implied that everyone has the choice to not live in a crappy neighborhood if they wanted.

Didn't imply that at all, and I made sure not to.

Must have been all of the slippery slope, all-or-nothing, black-and-white statements made over 12 pages that me read too much into it.

My mistake, then.

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:


Government exists in order to tell you how to run your life.

Wait. What? No. No. No.

Thomas Jefferson would heartily disagree with you.

I don't think he would. I think he would agree with me, and then argue that because Government exists to tell people how to run their lives its ability to do so should be minimized.

 Seaward wrote:
So stop doing it, sebster. Christ knows you do an acutely terrible job of it.

I'd actually like to have a discussion, not just on transfats but expand that out in to all areas of regulation. Because it is a complex an interesting issue - where is the line on government intervention?

But that conversation doesn't happen, because people like you just like shouting freedom huzzah over and over again, pretending that's a workable world view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dronze wrote:
In order to effectively argue that transfats, banned by means of state, federal, or local legislation, rather than industry standards or personal choice, you must subscribe in part, if not in full, to the idea that it is another man's right to strip you of your personal liberties because they disagree with one or more of your personal habits, insofar as it applies to the impact it makes on your life.

Only if the consumption of the transfats is a habit, or at least a conscious choice. Which is one hell of an assumption.

As already explained, we aren't talking about sugar or salt here - those things are bad for you, but they work to make food tastier and so we understand that a person who buys food with salt and sugar in it is likely making a choice to pick the tastier food. And so there's no talk about banning it.

But transfats don't make the food any tastier, they're just a particularly cheap way to add fat. No-one looks at an ingredients list and chooses the product because it has transfat in it. They're bought because people don't look at the ingredients list, don't understand the list, or aren't aware of how bad transfats are for them.

Now, let's consider a perfect market, one where people were fully informed about the ingredients in all products, and fully informed of the health consequences. There is simply no reasonable argument that anyone in that market would buy transfat products. It is only consumer ignorance that means these products continue to be consumed.

And so at what point do we accept that products that only get consumed out of ignorance need to be available to consumers? Why pretend that it is important that such products are available, but we should read every ingredient list carefully to make sure we don't consume any? At what point does it just make more sense to say 'producers need to use other less deadly forms of additives' and we can eat food without having to check it has harmful, tasteless gunk in it?

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
So stop doing it, sebster. Christ knows you do an acutely terrible job of it.

I'd actually like to have a discussion, not just on transfats but expand that out in to all areas of regulation. Because it is a complex an interesting issue - where is the line on government intervention?

But that conversation doesn't happen, because people like you just like shouting freedom huzzah over and over again, pretending that's a workable world view.

People should be free to do what ever they want aslong as it posses no Direct harm to the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Of said person. (and by pursuit of happiness i'm not taking about emotions)

But back to the topic of trans fats
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
A lot of hostess products have transfats and yet this man lost weight on his weird diet,

The FDA has said that eating 25 g of soy protein a day lowers the risk of coronary heart disease, yet they don't talk about the Hormonal changes that soy can have on men and women.
So do we take what the FDA says and believe everything?
Or do we know that Trans fat cause problems in the human body as do many other foods, and like all things you should take it in moderation (or not at all) but that choice is up to you and no other.

And you can make that choice. You and no other.

Nobody is stopping you from eating it or limiting your freedom to stuff whatever you want in your face.

They are just limiting the sales of it.

But if you are stopped with a dime bag of trans-fats in your pocket you will still be able to suck them up later without facing charges.

Can you still manufacture trans-fats on a commercial level? Or is it just attempting to limit it in food production?

 Ninjacommando wrote:
But back to the topic of trans fats
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
A lot of hostess products have transfats and yet this man lost weight on his weird diet,

That's because he was consuming less total calories with the amount he was actually eating.

The FDA has said that eating 25 g of soy protein a day lowers the risk of coronary heart disease, yet they don't talk about the Hormonal changes that soy can have on men and women.

That would be due to the lack of any actual evidence of that happening...

So do we take what the FDA says and believe everything?

Whether or not you believe them has litle to do with what they may choose to regulate.

But as with anything else, you're certainly under no obligation to just blindly believe everything they tell you. Researching for yourself is always a good idea, so long as you have the patience to sort through all the guff that is out there.

Or do we know that Trans fat cause problems in the human body as do many other foods, and like all things you should take it in moderation (or not at all) but that choice is up to you and no other.

Again, the choice of whether or not to eat it is entirely up to you.

It's the choice of the commercial manufacturer to use it in their product that is on the chopping block.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Can you still manufacture trans-fats on a commercial level? Or is it just attempting to limit it in food production?

It would be limiting it in food usage only. There is a category of stuff that is "Generally Recognized As Safe" that this would no longer fall into.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

A lot of hostess products have transfats and yet this man lost weight on his weird diet.

According to the article, Haub's premise was...

That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.

...which is correct. If you consume fewer calories than you need to maintain your weight, then you will not maintain your weight; something which should shock no one. Unfortunately losing weight does not necessarily make a person healthy, nor can all people be expected to possess the knowledge of a professor of nutrition.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

The FDA has said that eating 25 g of soy protein a day lowers the risk of coronary heart disease, yet they don't talk about the Hormonal changes that soy can have on men and women.

No, the FDA has said that consuming 25 grams of soy protein per day correlates with a lower rate of coronary heart disease, not that it actually lowers the rate of coronary heart disease.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
People should be free to do what ever they want aslong as it posses no Direct harm to the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Of said person. (and by pursuit of happiness i'm not taking about emotions)

So your response is to just repeat the claim that there is an absolute right to choice that trumps all other factors... again. Incredible. It's almost a religious conviction with you guys.

But back to the topic of trans fats
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
A lot of hostess products have transfats and yet this man lost weight on his weird diet,

As has already been explained in this thread, total weight alone isn't enough of a guide to health. Exercise and moderate cholesterol intake can keep you skinny, but if the food you eat is full of stuff like transfats you will still be lowering your life expectancy. This is because there's a lot more to healthy human life than weight - in the case of transfats it does a really thing at the chemical level to the different compounds that carry cholesterol around the body.

 Ouze wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Can you still manufacture trans-fats on a commercial level? Or is it just attempting to limit it in food production?

It would be limiting it in food usage only. There is a category of stuff that is "Generally Recognized As Safe" that this would no longer fall into.

Yup, made this post a few pages back. My company works in the Envrionmental Health and Safety Field, and we were just notified a week or so ago that with the changes the FDA is making to trans-fats all of our regulatory data related to trans-fats have to change to no longer automatically assign them as GRAS.

 sebster wrote:
I'd actually like to have a discussion, not just on transfats but expand that out in to all areas of regulation. Because it is a complex an interesting issue - where is the line on government intervention?

But that conversation doesn't happen, because people like you just like shouting freedom huzzah over and over again, pretending that's a workable world view.

It is a workable world view. It's a very easily workable world view, in fact. I know it's a world you wouldn't particularly like, but you know what? I'm okay with that.

Does it pose a direct, immediate, compelling threat to consumers? If so, ban it. Trans fats don't meet that criteria. If you want to ban everything that'll kill you in twenty years instead of twenty-five, we've got a long list.

Let's start with sedentary lifestyles, which will kill you as or even more early than trans fats, and offer no benefit. The "show yourself" thread tells me that a lot of the folks arguing for trans fats to go away because they're unhealthy are doing so from a hypocritical place.

I'm arguing for trans-fats to go away, and the image I provided in the "Show Yourself" thread doesn't portray me as being unhealthy. Indeed, I am ~190 lbs in that image and, as I have repeatedly noted in this forum, my lifestyle is not sedentary.

 dogma wrote:
I'm arguing for trans-fats to go away, and the image I provided in the "Show Yourself" thread doesn't portray me as being unhealthy. Indeed, I am ~190 lbs in that image.

That's fantastic. Did you misunderstand the difference between "a lot" and "all" again?

 Seaward wrote:

That's fantastic. Did you misunderstand the difference between "a lot" and "all" again?

No, I understood that you were trying to insult a group of people because you could not present a coherent argument.

 dogma wrote:
No, I understood that you were trying to insult a group of people because you could not present a coherent argument.

Pointing out that unhealthy people are unhealthy is an insult now? Now wonder stuff like this flies with your side.

The argument's endlessly coherent. This ban A) won't help anyone, as people who were eating trans fat in abundance aren't suddenly going to switch to healthy lifestyles, B) is unnecessary, because trans fats don't present an immediate, grave risk, and C) hypocritical as gak unless you want to ban everything else that's unhealthy for you.

Not to mention the whole aspect of it being nanny state bs.

Now, go troll elsewhere, please.

Talks about personal freedoms.

Tells people to go away.

 sebster wrote:


As has already been explained in this thread, total weight alone isn't enough of a guide to health. Exercise and moderate cholesterol intake can keep you skinny, but if the food you eat is full of stuff like transfats you will still be lowering your life expectancy. This is because there's a lot more to healthy human life than weight - in the case of transfats it does a really thing at the chemical level to the different compounds that carry cholesterol around the body.

And you don't have the ability to read the article, Hostess products use trans fats,

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

He ate 1,800 calories a day of Junk food and yet all of his data says that he is heathlier than when he started, thats why he is bothered with his own data, he doesn't want to say that he is Healthier, but the data says he is.

By your logic he should of been nearly dead at the end of his experiment and yes his data said other wise.

 insaniak wrote:

That would be due to the lack of any actual evidence of that happening...

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence, there are reasons why in 2005 the Israeli health Ministry is tolds its people to limit the ammount of soy they eat and also told parents to stop using infant formula that contains soy.

 Seaward wrote:

Pointing out that unhealthy people are unhealthy is an insult now? Now wonder stuff like this flies with your side.

Your argument was that people arguing for a ban on trans-fats, who posted pictures of themselves in the "Show Yourself" thread, were doing so hypocritically. This implies that people who posted pictures of themselves in the "Show Yourself" thread that also argued for a ban on trans-fats were demonstrating themselves to be unhealthy by way of an image.

In essence, you were arguing that because a person appears fat, that person's argument is invalid.

 dogma wrote:
In essence, you were arguing that because a person appears fat, that person's argument is invalid.

I'm arguing it's hypocritical.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

He ate 1,800 calories a day of Junk food and yet all of his data says that he is heathlier than when he started, thats why he is bothered with his own data, he doesn't want to say that he is Healthier, but the data says he is.

Well, no, he didn't. Roughly 66% of his stated calorie consumption was "junk food"; defined (by Madison Park) as snack cakes manufactured by Hostess and Little Debbie, plus Doirtos, Oreos, and "sugary cereals". He also, apparently consumed a protein shake and an assortment of vegetables, which I would assume provided the remaining 600 calories. Seeing as some of those vegetables were stalks of celery, I assume that was a very calorie intensive protein shake.

 dogma wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:

He ate 1,800 calories a day of Junk food and yet all of his data says that he is heathlier than when he started, thats why he is bothered with his own data, he doesn't want to say that he is Healthier, but the data says he is.

Well, no, he didn't. Roughly 66% of his stated calorie consumption was "junk food"; defined (by Madison Park) as snack cakes manufactured by Hostess and Little Debbie, plus Doirtos, Oreos, and "sugary cereals". He also, apparently consumed a protein shake and an assortment of vegetables, which I would assume provided the remaining 600 calories. Seeing as some of those vegetables were stalks of celery, I assume that was a very calorie intensive protein shake.

So he ate more trans-fat loaded garbage than "healthy" food and the data still found that we was healthier afterwards? Interesting.

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:

He ate 1,800 calories a day of Junk food and yet all of his data says that he is heathlier than when he started, thats why he is bothered with his own data, he doesn't want to say that he is Healthier, but the data says he is.

Well, no, he didn't. Roughly 66% of his stated calorie consumption was "junk food"; defined (by Madison Park) as snack cakes manufactured by Hostess and Little Debbie, plus Doirtos, Oreos, and "sugary cereals". He also, apparently consumed a protein shake and an assortment of vegetables, which I would assume provided the remaining 600 calories. Seeing as some of those vegetables were stalks of celery, I assume that was a very calorie intensive protein shake.

So he ate more trans-fat loaded garbage than "healthy" food.

Nope...







So what we have is a guy who ate junk food labeled trans-fat free and without the harmful ingredient he lowered his cholesterol.

Interesting.

 sebster wrote:


I'd actually like to have a discussion, not just on transfats but expand that out in to all areas of regulation. Because it is a complex an interesting issue - where is the line on government intervention?

But that conversation doesn't happen, because people like you just like shouting freedom huzzah over and over again, pretending that's a workable world view.

Frankly, I don't think the government should have bereaucrats creating things like the Food Pyramid, and the "My Plate" or whatever it is we're supposed to follow shows. To that end, I don't think the government should be able to outright ban a food substance on the chance that it may cause health problems in those who are for whatever reason, unable to regulate themselves.

I mean, when it comes to these non-animal fats that are being used now, it seems a little hypocritical to me, that the same "people" who introduced the stuff and basically forced it onto the market now wants to remove it. The reason why things like transfats and hydrogenated oils are such a cheap alternative to other forms of fattening, is because when they were created in the 1920s, the government couldnt GIVE the stuff away, no one wanted to touch it.... Now, it seems like some weird pox on our society that many people want to be rid of, but they dont want to pay higher food prices so they "deal with it"

@ D-USA

You do know that .5grams or less of trans fats are listed as 0 on the back of nutrition facts right? They are allowed to do this.

Your last picture is of little debbie snack cakes has

"partially hydrogenated ---- Oil"

no matter how you spell it those are trans fats.

partially hydrogenated Vegtable oil is a transfat

Cupcakes have "shortening" listed in them, shortening is also a trans fat

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:


I'd actually like to have a discussion, not just on transfats but expand that out in to all areas of regulation. Because it is a complex an interesting issue - where is the line on government intervention?

But that conversation doesn't happen, because people like you just like shouting freedom huzzah over and over again, pretending that's a workable world view.

Frankly, I don't think the government should have bereaucrats creating things like the Food Pyramid, and the "My Plate" or whatever it is we're supposed to follow shows. To that end, I don't think the government should be able to outright ban a food substance on the chance that it may cause health problems in those who are for whatever reason, unable to regulate themselves.

I mean, when it comes to these non-animal fats that are being used now, it seems a little hypocritical to me, that the same "people" who introduced the stuff and basically forced it onto the market now wants to remove it. The reason why things like transfats and hydrogenated oils are such a cheap alternative to other forms of fattening, is because when they were created in the 1920s, the government couldnt GIVE the stuff away, no one wanted to touch it.... Now, it seems like some weird pox on our society that many people want to be rid of, but they dont want to pay higher food prices so they "deal with it"

Let's get back to basics. What are th things the Government can ban? Why those things?

 Ninjacommando wrote:
@ D-USA

You do know that .5grams or less of trans fats are listed as 0 on the back of nutrition facts right? They are allowed to do this.

Your last picture is of little debbie snack cakes has

"partially hydrogenated ---- Oil"

no matter how you spell it those are trans fats.

partially hydrogenated Vegtable oil is a transfat

Cupcakes have "shortening" listed in them, shortening is also a trans fat

And they have a minimal amount. Much less than they used to have. And now we are just getting rid of the last little bit.

The American Heart Association recommends that you limit your trans fat intake to no more than 2 grams a day. If we average out the calories per serving in those labels and assume that every single serving of every food present is maxed out at 0.5 grams of trans-fats per serving, then this guy ended up eating 3.5 grams of trans fats a day.

It's more than the recommended limit, but it's a far cry from the "OMG, this guy ate nothing but trans-fats and he is perfectly healthy" that people make it out to be.

 cincydooley wrote:

So he ate more trans-fat loaded garbage than "healthy" food and the data still found that we was healthier afterwards? Interesting.

Frito Lay eliminated trans-fats from Doritos in 2002, so those don't count. Nabisco eliminated them from Oreos in 2006, so they don't count either.

This leaves us with whatever he ate that was manufactured by Hostess Brands or McKee Foods, and what could be called a "sugary cereal". Based on the relevant picture he, minimally, consumed 1 serving of Nutty Bars, Swiss Rolls, or Little Debbie Muffins every 3 hours. However, the article does not indicate which products he consumed, or when consumed them; meaning that it is deliberately vague.

 Easy E wrote:

Let's get back to basics. What are th things the Government can ban? Why those things?

Honestly, they shouldn't be able to ban anything... smoking and drinking are both legal (and we all know how the last time the Feds decided making drinking illegal went)

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Cupcakes have "shortening" listed in them, shortening is also a trans fat

Not entirely true. Lard or palm oil can also used for shortening. And many hydrogenated shortnings (Chrisco amongst them) have been reformulated in recent years to contain very small amounts or no trans fats.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Cupcakes have "shortening" listed in them, shortening is also a trans fat

Not entirely true. Lard or palm oil can also used for shortening. And many hydrogenated shortnings (Chrisco amongst them) have been reformulated in recent years to contain very small amounts or no trans fats.

Perhaps in Australia, but you appear to be unaware that in America, our entire transfat-based economy would utterly collapse if we were to eliminate this... much in the way that seatbelt laws devastated the auto industry, just as they warned.

 Ouze wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Cupcakes have "shortening" listed in them, shortening is also a trans fat

Not entirely true. Lard or palm oil can also used for shortening. And many hydrogenated shortnings (Chrisco amongst them) have been reformulated in recent years to contain very small amounts or no trans fats.

Perhaps in Australia, but you appear to be unaware that in America, our entire transfat-based economy would utterly collapse if we were to eliminate this... much in the way that seatbelt laws devastated the auto industry, just as they warned.

Seatbelts, the restrained killer!

Fwiw, I thnk the seatbelt law for an adult is a bunch of horsegak too, especially when I can ride my motorcycle without a helmet or seatbelt as often as I'd like.

But it is what it is.

 Seaward wrote:
It is a workable world view.

Take a look at the real world. You see how many libertarian countries there are? None. Not one.

Communism is fething stupid, and people were still willing to give that crack in a whole bunch of places. Meanwhile, libertarianism hasn't even come close to being attempted, it's high watermark is the odd time a libertarian party has ridden a protest vote to achieve a minor political posting.

And there is a really basic reason for this - despite all the rhetoric, no-one actually wants a libertarian society. The idea that each man is an independant island that interacts with society only where his rational self-interested decision making makes him desire such interaction is total nonsense. And because it's such nonsense, libertarianism is stuck as a very shallow, incompletely political philosophy, it makes great noise about minor inconveniences and purely ideological outrages, but that's all it ever achieves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
And you don't have the ability to read the article, Hostess products use trans fats,

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

He ate 1,800 calories a day of Junk food and yet all of his data says that he is heathlier than when he started, thats why he is bothered with his own data, he doesn't want to say that he is Healthier, but the data says he is.

You're confusing science with 'a guy did a thing'.

By your logic he should of been nearly dead at the end of his experiment and yes his data said other wise.

Yeah, because my logic states that health impacts will be absolutely universal and immediate to all people. Try and be a little bit sensible, please.

 sebster wrote:
Take a look at the real world. You see how many libertarian countries there are? None. Not one.

Communism is fething stupid, and people were still willing to give that crack in a whole bunch of places. Meanwhile, libertarianism hasn't even come close to being attempted, it's high watermark is the odd time a libertarian party has ridden a protest vote to achieve a minor political posting.

I attribute it entirely to a whole lot of people recognizing that they would not do well in a society where the government didn't exist to wipe their noses. They're likely right.

 sebster wrote:
Take a look at the real world. You see how many libertarian countries there are? None. Not one.

Now, now - are you sure you're not forgetting one? Somalia - libertarian paradise, where the free market is unrestricted by cumbersome government regulation.

 Ouze wrote:
Now, now - are you sure you're not forgetting one? Somalia - libertarian paradise, where the free market is unrestricted by cumbersome government regulation.

What's amusing is that I actually believe you'd make that mistake.

 Seaward wrote:
I attribute it entirely to a whole lot of people recognizing that they would not do well in a society where the government didn't exist to wipe their noses. They're likely right.

Of course you'd attribute it to something like. I mean, if you were the type to spend a lot of time thinking about your ideology, then you wouldn't be a libertarian. Instead you're the kind who just thinks up a way of explaining the problem away with a put down of those other people, and that lets you happily carry on believing as you do.

 sebster wrote:
Of course you'd attribute it to something like.

Indeed. It's self-evident.

I mean, if you were the type to spend a lot of time thinking about your ideology, then you wouldn't be a libertarian.

Reality disagrees with you, as it so often does.

 cincydooley wrote:
Fwiw, I thnk the seatbelt law for an adult is a bunch of horsegak too, especially when I can ride my motorcycle without a helmet or seatbelt as often as I'd like.

Unless you happen in to be in in Alabama, California, D.C., Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, or West Virginia; 19 of the 50 states in the US plus D.C.

In your home state of Ohio adults can only ride a motorcycle without a helmet if they have held their license for at least 1 year. Given this, it an unspecified adult may not able ride without a helmet as often as he likes.

 d-usa wrote:

It's more than the recommended limit, but it's a far cry from the "OMG, this guy ate nothing but trans-fats and he is perfectly healthy" that people make it out to be.

In Haub's defense, I assume he collected comprehensive data regarding the nutritional content of what he consumed, and when he consumed it, but that this data was not reported in the CNN article. The issue here seems to be poor journalism being exploited by people who don't want to think critically.

 sebster wrote:

Yeah, because my logic states that health impacts will be absolutely universal and immediate to all people. Try and be a little bit sensible, please.

Why be sensible when you can be hyperbolic?

 dogma wrote:


Unless you happen in to be in in Alabama, California, D.C., Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, or West Virginia; 19 of the 50 states in the US plus D.C.

So less than half the country. Your point?

In your home state of Ohio adults can only ride a motorcycle without a helmet if they have held their license for at least 1 year. Given this, it an unspecified adult may not able ride without a helmet as often as he likes.

Very aware. My statement stands. But you know, thanks for stating gak I already knew.

 Seaward wrote:
Indeed. It's self-evident.

Well, yeah. And if my point was to just state that's what you're doing, your reply would make sense. Except my point was to note what you just did, and explain why you did. You cut the second part out and responded to the first.

Reality disagrees with you, as it so often does.

Ah yes, the reality of all those libertarian societies all across the globe. Look across the globe at all our Randian utopias and despair! I mean, sure they don't actually exist in reality, and unless we're going to pretend that occasionally winning a council position on a local school board counts, the power of libertarians is basically zero. But hey, this is the internet and you're free to claim whatever nonsense you want.

Hah, arguing with these guys on this topic is kind of like playing Street Fighter if Ryu only had Dragon Punch and no other moves. Ultimately it's kind of our fault for plugging in quarters over and over again.

 Ouze wrote:
Hah, arguing with these guys on this topic is kind of like playing Street Fighter if Ryu only had Dragon Punch and no other moves. Ultimately it's kind of our fault for plugging in quarters over and over again.

Very true.

But at least in that case, you can just crouching roundhouse and oki into a fireball trap until he stops getting up.

These guys just don't go down.

 sebster wrote:
Ah yes, the reality of all those libertarian societies all across the globe. Look across the globe at all our Randian utopias and despair! I mean, sure they don't actually exist in reality, and unless we're going to pretend that occasionally winning a council position on a local school board counts, the power of libertarians is basically zero. But hey, this is the internet and you're free to claim whatever nonsense you want.

Such as, "If you actually thought about your ideology, you wouldn't be a libertarian?" That kind of nonsense? Please.

Didn't I just explain to you why there are no libertarian countries? Enough people wouldn't go for it, sebster. People need the government to hold their hand in order to get through life. I don't know why that is - I'm sure you could tell me firsthand - but that's the way of it. Pithy but characteristically ill-informed scorn doesn't make it any less valid an ideology, merely something that our beloved liberals can gang up and pat themselves on the back over before getting back to spending my tax money.

Can't believe that there aren't enough libertarians to even settle one tiny island somewhere...

 d-usa wrote:
Can't believe that there aren't enough libertarians to even settle one tiny island somewhere...

No female libertarians, it'd be a total tropical sausage fest. It's like a regular sausage fest, but with pineapples, mangos and everyone gets lei'd

 Alfndrate wrote:
No female libertarians, it'd be a total tropical sausage fest. It's like a regular sausage fest, but with pineapples, mangos and everyone gets lei'd

I know a few.

 Seaward wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
No female libertarians, it'd be a total tropical sausage fest. It's like a regular sausage fest, but with pineapples, mangos and everyone gets lei'd

I know a few.

I married one.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Ah yes, the reality of all those libertarian societies all across the globe. Look across the globe at all our Randian utopias and despair! I mean, sure they don't actually exist in reality, and unless we're going to pretend that occasionally winning a council position on a local school board counts, the power of libertarians is basically zero. But hey, this is the internet and you're free to claim whatever nonsense you want.

Such as, "If you actually thought about your ideology, you wouldn't be a libertarian?" That kind of nonsense? Please.

Didn't I just explain to you why there are no libertarian countries? Enough people wouldn't go for it, sebster. People need the government to hold their hand in order to get through life. I don't know why that is - I'm sure you could tell me firsthand - but that's the way of it. Pithy but characteristically ill-informed scorn doesn't make it any less valid an ideology, merely something that our beloved liberals can gang up and pat themselves on the back over before getting back to spending my tax money.

Or, instead of masterbatory and characteristically dismissive scorn, libertarians could remember that America was a libertarian paradise until about 1900. I mean, it was so cool to have company towns and private spy rings police forces and Jim Crowe laws and child labor. Oh man, CHILD LABOR! Like Newsies! Who doesn't love Newsies?!

It's called the Gilded Age for a reason, time to move on.

 Seaward wrote:
Such as, "If you actually thought about your ideology, you wouldn't be a libertarian?" That kind of nonsense? Please.

Didn't I just explain to you why there are no libertarian countries? Enough people wouldn't go for it, sebster. People need the government to hold their hand in order to get through life. I don't know why that is - I'm sure you could tell me firsthand - but that's the way of it. Pithy but characteristically ill-informed scorn doesn't make it any less valid an ideology, merely something that our beloved liberals can gang up and pat themselves on the back over before getting back to spending my tax money.

Just saying 'oh people need government to hold their hand' isn't thinking about the issue. It's the same non-thought that socialists exhibit when they just write off the unpopularity of their movement with false class consciousness.

People are, and don't forget this is the core of your ideology, self-interested and rational (at least, rational enough when taken as a whole). And so when people look at their self interests, they rationally decide they don't want your government free utopia. This is because out in the real world, where interactions are a hell of a lot more complicated than the perfectly informed decision makers acted with complete independance that your philosophy simplistically assumes.