The Food and Drug Administration has declared war on trans fats. The government agency said Thursday it would require food makers to gradually phase out artificial trans fats — the artery-clogging ingredient found in crackers, cookies, pizza and many other baked goods.
The change could potentially prevent 20,000 heart attacks a year and 7,000 deaths, said FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg.
While the amount of trans fats consumed by Americans has dropped dramatically over the last decade, they still “remain an area of significant public health concern,” Hamburg said during a press conference Thursday.
The FDA hasn’t yet set a time table for sweeping trans fats from the market. "We want to do it in a way that doesn't unduly disrupt markets," said Michael Taylor, FDA's deputy commissioner for foods. Still, the "industry has demonstrated that it is by and large feasible to do."
Trans fats are considered harmful because they increase risks for heart disease by both raising bad cholesterol levels (LDL) and lowering good cholesterol (HDL). In 2006, the FDA began requiring food manufacturers to include trans fats on nutritional labels, and in 2007, New York City banned trans fats from restaurants. Food marketers have been gradually going trans-fat-free in recent years -- McDonald's switched to zero-trans fat cooking oil in its iconic french fries in 2008.
New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg celebrated the FDA's proposal. “Seven years ago we became the first city in the nation to prohibit restaurants from using trans fats,” Bloomberg said in a statement Thursday. “ Since then, at least 15 states and localities have followed suit and banned trans fats – and more than ten fast food chains have eliminated trans fats entirely.”
The FDA announced that partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), the primary dietary source of artificial trans fat in processed foods, are not “generally recognized as safe” for use in foods.
The agency has opened a 60-day comment period to collect additional data and to get input on how much time it might take for food manufacturers to reformulate products that currently contain artificial trans fats.
In the meantime, Hamburg said, “consumers can make healthy choices by checking trans fat levels on the nutrition facts panel on the back of processed food packages and avoiding those with trans fats.”
There are many brands now with no or low levels available to consumers, she added.
The independent Institute of Medicine has already concluded that trans fats provide no known health benefit and that there is no safe level of consumption of artificial trans fat, Hamburg said. Additionally, the IOM has recommended that Americans keep their consumption of trans fats as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet.
Food manufacturers began adding artificial trans fatty acids, or partially hydrogenated oils, to products in the 1950s to increase the shelf life and flavor stability of foods, according to the FDA.
The FDA decision "comes from decades of research on the effects of artificial trans fats on heart health," said NBC News diet and health editor Madelyn Fernstrom. "While estimates of dietary intake of trans-fats among Americans has decreased nearly 75 percent in about a decade, there remain concerns about the inclusion of any trans-fats in foods."
In a statement, the Grocery Manufacturers Association said the industry has dramatically reduced the amount of trans fats in food products.
“Through our efforts at product reformulation and the development of suitable alternatives, trans fats that are not naturally occurring have been drastically reduced in the food supply," according to the statement. “Consumers can be confident that their food is safe and we look forward to working with the FDA to better understand their concerns and how our industry can better serve consumers.”
The FDA has previously estimated that the average American eats 4.7 pounds of trans fats a year. The American Heart Association recommends that people should consume fewer than 2 grams of trans fats a day.
Tell you what FDA. Ban Cigarettes, and we can talk. Until then keep your nose out of my fething french fries.
I'm pretty sure that guns kill a lot more people than ll of those above combined.........................
I prefer to focus on things that can be realistically banned... Well not alcohol I guess. We know how miserably that failed
How pervasive are Tranfats these days anyhow? I know it gets talked about alot and the article says that use of them has lowered but how much is lowered?
That's ridiculous. I mean, slippery slope and all, but once you start getting into broad strokes mandating healthy diets for everyone, you've gone beyond stupid. ESPECIALLY since the FDA does a poor job of regulating actually dangerous stuff like pharmaceuticals!
Schools teach healthy diet. If you don't listen in school and eat unhealthily, smoke or drink or do drugs and die prematurely, ah well, to be honest we're not short on people and you made your choices.
Dump billions of dollars into the military, wars, security, and so on to combat the thread of terrorism - which kills about 10-12 Americans per year - that's just wise policy.
Make a policy change that will save between 3,000 and 7,000 American lives a year from heart disease - the number one cause of death in the country - you're a big-government nanny-stater.
Ouze wrote: Dump billions of dollars into the military, wars, security, and so on to combat the thread of terrorism - which kills about 10-12 Americans per year - that's just wise policy.
Make a policy change that will save between 3,000 and 7,000 American lives a year from heart disease - the number one cause of death in the country - you're a big-government nanny-stater.
'murica
ahem
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis
This will hurt the economy in ways I don't think we can determine right now... is this the right thing to do at this time?
In the UK at least, public opinion turned against them and their use has been cut a lot. Some stores have eliminated them and it's only a few fast food places still use them much and even those are phasing them out. There isn't a ban, but they're not popular.
Truthfully I'm surprised to see this is even necessary. I think they're already pretty rare here now - the only fast food places I am aware of that still use them are small regional places like Church's Chicken, I think.
Honestly convinced that school lunch pizza is made of plastic and cardboard. Whatever those things were, they sure as hell weren't green peppers and that surer than hell wasn't tomato sauce.
Ouze wrote: Truthfully I'm surprised to see this is even necessary. I think they're already pretty rare here now - the only fast food places I am aware of that still use them are small regional places like Church's Chicken, I think.
Yeah... I can't think of another place that really use it.
If you don't like the food provided by the school, bring a packed lunch. It's not hard.
We didn't have the luxury of any on site food in my school except a chip van that came around sometimes, and we were in the middle of nowhere, so I just always had sandwiches, fruit and sometimes crisps.
Da Boss wrote: If you don't like the food provided by the school, bring a packed lunch. It's not hard. We didn't have the luxury of any on site food in my school except a chip van that came around sometimes, and we were in the middle of nowhere, so I just always had sandwiches, fruit and sometimes crisps.
The school provided lunches are generally provided to those kids that cannot bring a packed lunch and are getting these lunches at a free or reduced cost.
Also McDonalds uses a canola blend that has 0 grams of trans fat per serving... so where is the trans-fat coming from that's on their menu items, the cheese?
You can still tank your heart from all sorts of other foods anyhow, so it's a bit ridiculous to focus so much on trans fats.
Alcohol, general obesity, vitamin C deficiency, stress, sedentary lifestyle and many other factors all contribute to coronary heart disease. The only solution is a holistic healthy lifestyle approach. And if people want to go eat themselves to death, it's not like the planet is lacking in humans.
I'm not normally this heartless but I really can't get behind most regulation to prevent self harm through wilful stupidity. I have similarly extreme views about most hard drugs. I figure I'm probably abnormally annoyed by that sort of thing.
Da Boss wrote: If you don't like the food provided by the school, bring a packed lunch. It's not hard. We didn't have the luxury of any on site food in my school except a chip van that came around sometimes, and we were in the middle of nowhere, so I just always had sandwiches, fruit and sometimes crisps.
The school provided lunches are generally provided to those kids that cannot bring a packed lunch and are getting these lunches at a free or reduced cost.
Plus the cheese sludge they used at my school made the half Grade F(but edible!)/half soy cheeseburgers taste better than anything I could've brought.
Also, freakin' Shepard's Pie day. That gak was so good, you weren't getting any if you waited until the line died down and went after half bell. EVERYONE got double portions. Even people that brought lunch didn't on Shepard's Pie day.
Da Boss wrote: If you don't like the food provided by the school, bring a packed lunch. It's not hard.
We didn't have the luxury of any on site food in my school except a chip van that came around sometimes, and we were in the middle of nowhere, so I just always had sandwiches, fruit and sometimes crisps.
The school provided lunches are generally provided to those kids that cannot bring a packed lunch and are getting these lunches at a free or reduced cost.
Also McDonalds uses a canola blend that has 0 grams of trans fat per serving... so where is the trans-fat coming from that's on their menu items, the cheese?
I'd be pretty surprised if there was an appreciable difference in CHD rates in school children eating the school lunches vs. packed lunches at that age.
Later in life if they continue to eat like that, perhaps.
Though, the school should (obviously) provide non-fried food for lunch, I really don't think the issue of schools providing poor quality food is one that absolves people of their responsibility for what they eat. If the school can't afford decent food it's an argument to raise local taxes to fund the school a little better.
Ouze wrote: Some do - pretty sure that Chik-Fil-A uses peanut oil. Mcdonalds I think use Canola.
I myself prefer peanut oil if I can get it on sale for deep frying turkeys.
Maybe for now you can, but once you start down this road Ze STATE decides what you can eat. Enjoy those two pats of approved government butter, but first its 20 minutes of government mandated exercise in front of the view screen Citizen. After all its fair because Everyone pays your healthcare Citizen.
Da Boss wrote: I'd be pretty surprised if there was an appreciable difference in CHD rates in school children eating the school lunches vs. packed lunches at that age.
Later in life if they continue to eat like that, perhaps.
Though, the school should (obviously) provide non-fried food for lunch, I really don't think the issue of schools providing poor quality food is one that absolves people of their responsibility for what they eat. If the school can't afford decent food it's an argument to raise local taxes to fund the school a little better.
No, but a packed lunch of a wheat bread, turkey, a slice of lettuce, and a piece of cheese, some fruit, some juice/milk, and something else like chips or pudding is healthier than more balanced than "cardboard pizza and green beans"
And you're right about the later in life issue. A balanced and healthy packed lunch helps instill good eating habits in kids while they're still impressionable. If you tell a kid that an average lunch is a fries, cheeseburger, and soda, then we're going to have issues later in that kid's life that fries, cheeseburger, and soda is an okay lunch every day. And the CHD rate isn't what we need to be worried about with kids, but their obesity rate.
School provided lunches are supposed to have more fruits and vegetables in them to help promote healthy eating habits, but when the FDA says that pizza counts as a vegetable, then you're not really helping the situation. You also have to take into account that schools don't just get healthy foods to serve to their kids, they have to spend money on it, and like anyone trying to stay within a budget, you're going to go for the cheaper foods, so you're going to sacrifice quality over quantity. There is also plenty of work that suggests that there is something lacking in the school lunches, and that a properly packed lunch is far better than the school lunches, too bad the kids that get the school lunches are worried about eating rather than eating properly.
Ouze wrote: Some do - pretty sure that Chik-Fil-A uses peanut oil. Mcdonalds I think use Canola.
I myself prefer peanut oil if I can get it on sale for deep frying turkeys.
Maybe for now you can, but once you start down this road Ze STATE decides what you can eat. Enjoy those two pats of approved government butter, but first its 20 minutes of government mandated exercise in front of the view screen Citizen. After all its fair because Everyone pays your healthcare Citizen.
does government mandated exercise involve picking up that can, Citizen?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Y'know, I agree, people keep asking for the govt to do something about bad food, but when they do, they get huffy about freedom
Who is this people you are referring to? I don't recall asking the government to do anything about it, nor recall hearing anyone do it. No one other then busy bodies who want to have to much say in how I live my life that is.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Y'know, I agree, people keep asking for the govt to do something about bad food, but when they do, they get huffy about freedom
Who is this people you are referring to? I don't recall asking the government to do anything about it, nor recall hearing anyone do it. No one other then busy bodies who want to have to much say in how I live my life that is.
I see then. Concerning to hear that there have been several, though I suppose the place and name kind of lend themselves to draw in those who I would imagine would be most susceptible to those kinds of ailments.
And I couldn't imagine a more worthy one. I'd never be able to make it through probably even the triple, sadly. For a fatass, I'm not very good at playing the part.
daedalus wrote: I see then. Concerning to hear that there have been several, though I suppose the place and name kind of lend themselves to draw in those who I would imagine would be most susceptible to those kinds of ailments.
And I couldn't imagine a more worthy one. I'd never be able to make it through probably even the triple, sadly. For a fatass, I'm not very good at playing the part.
I'm kind of grossed out by the whole idea. Like, I'm hovering at 250 pounds, but nothing sounds appealing about consuming 2 pounds of ground beef, 8 slices of cheese, 20 slices of bacon, a whole tomato, a whole onion, some lettuce, and w/e is their secret sauce. Also... remember, anyone over 350 pounds eats for free...
School lunches for poor kids is a contentious issue, I'll just say that I didn't grow up in an affluent area, many students had alcoholic parents or came from single parent families where the parent was unemployed or working for low wages, and t my knowledge almost everyone was able to spring for sandwiches and some lunch meat or failing that, cheese. There was one kid, both of his parents were alcoholic, and he came to school hungry a bit in Primary School until the local police talked to his folks. To be honest, I think that's where efforts should be focused rather than the school being a cure-all-ills machine. But I'm biased of course.
Your argument about preventing childhood obesity is good, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, heart attacks are pretty damn painful most of the time so I figure they probably died in terrifying agony rather than gastronomic bliss.
MrMoustaffa wrote: As long as the food tastes the same or better I don't really care.
I never noticed a change in McDonald's french fries, so if I never noticed the trans fat going away I think we're ok.
And that's exactly what makes this ban a good idea. It's all about the battles you can win...
Banning cigarettes would trigger a revolution. Banning trans-fats just results in companies using a slightly different (but less unhealthy) ingredient. Most people will never notice the difference.
daedalus wrote: I see then. Concerning to hear that there have been several, though I suppose the place and name kind of lend themselves to draw in those who I would imagine would be most susceptible to those kinds of ailments.
And I couldn't imagine a more worthy one. I'd never be able to make it through probably even the triple, sadly. For a fatass, I'm not very good at playing the part.
I'm kind of grossed out by the whole idea. Like, I'm hovering at 250 pounds, but nothing sounds appealing about consuming 2 pounds of ground beef, 8 slices of cheese, 20 slices of bacon, a whole tomato, a whole onion, some lettuce, and w/e is their secret sauce. Also... remember, anyone over 350 pounds eats for free...
It beats skin cancer by a mile. Nothing says loving like screaming to death.
Tell you what FDA. Ban Cigarettes, and we can talk. Until then keep your nose out of my fething french fries.
One of my best friend's father is a (I reckon) leading cardiologist. According to him, obesity has greater health impacts and societal costs than alchool consumption and cigarette smoking.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Y'know, I agree, people keep asking for the govt to do something about bad food, but when they do, they get huffy about freedom
Who is this people you are referring to? I don't recall asking the government to do anything about it, nor recall hearing anyone do it. No one other then busy bodies who want to have to much say in how I live my life that is.
I see it alot, they ask the government to do things about heart diseases, obesity and other such things, but when they attack the source f it people get in arms about Freedom
I'm confused... who exactly is asking the government to do something about obesity?
EDIT:
We all should pay attention to this smart man.
"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?"
Dennis Leary
Demolition Man.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If he wants too eat bad, let him, just dont expect tax payers to pay for his treatment
You mean like many people on Medicaid? People who eat unhealthily are often poor. Perhaps we should deny health care to any one who suffers from an obesity related illness. I know! We can call it a "pre-existing" condition. We can do the same with anyone who developed skin cancer by staying in the sun too long, or lung cancer from smoking, or maybe someone who crashed their car while speeding. Anyone with an STD obviously didn't use common sense when having sex so they are definitely out. That sounds like a great idea!
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you support the PPACA/Government healthcare systems?
Tell you what FDA. Ban Cigarettes, and we can talk. Until then keep your nose out of my fething french fries.
One of my best friend's father is a (I reckon) leading cardiologist. According to him, obesity has greater health impacts and societal costs than alchool consumption and cigarette smoking.
It does, but obesity is caused by more then just transfat.
They are targetting a specific thing, while ignoring the other thing that kills half a million a year (because they have lobbyists). It's bull gak to the first degree. They stamp a warning on packages of cancer, let them stamp a warning on my Big Mac.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If he wants too eat bad, let him, just dont expect tax payers to pay for his treatment
Weren't we just arguing a few weeks ago about food stamps being used to buy things like soda, and you didn't get why people didn't like the idea of their tax dollars going towards soda consumption?
hotsauceman1 wrote: If he wants too eat bad, let him, just dont expect tax payers to pay for his treatment
Weren't we just arguing a few weeks ago about food stamps being used to buy things like soda, and you didn't get why people didn't like the idea of their tax dollars going towards soda consumption?
Not sure if trolling or....
Ok, good spot Alf, that caused a chuckle on my part.
No,Im just a proffessional devils advocate/punching bad, every thread needs one.
Or Im inconsistant(Hint, Im not, I just dont like agreeing with people, threads get boring if there are not advocates for the other sides)
I believe that once you turn 60, you should have to go to the DMV and pass an eye exam and driving exam with an instructor EVERY YEAR for our protection.
I further believe that once you hit 300 lbs, you should either no longer be allowed to buy junk food OR you sign a waiver that the rest of us don't have to tote your medical note when your body breaks down from being a lard ass.
I further believe that birth control pills should be mandatory once you hit puberty and you have to pass a test and have a steady income before you're allowed to breed.
kronk wrote: I believe that once you turn 60, you should have to go to the DMV and pass an eye exam and driving exam with an instructor EVERY YEAR for our protection.
I further believe that once you hit 300 lbs, you should either no longer be allowed to buy junk food OR you sign a waiver that the rest of us don't have to tote your medical note when your body breaks down from being a lard ass.
I further believe that birth control pills should be mandatory once you hit puberty and you have to pass a test and have a steady income before you're allowed to breed.
I'm Kronk, and that's my platform.
Your third stance seems to differ with your platform stance of repopulating the world.
kronk wrote: I believe that once you turn 60, you should have to go to the DMV and pass an eye exam and driving exam with an instructor EVERY YEAR for our protection.
I further believe that once you hit 300 lbs, you should either no longer be allowed to buy junk food OR you sign a waiver that the rest of us don't have to tote your medical note when your body breaks down from being a lard ass.
I further believe that birth control pills should be mandatory once you hit puberty and you have to pass a test and have a steady income before you're allowed to breed.
I'm Kronk, and that's my platform.
Your third stance seems to differ with your platform stance of repopulating the world.
He's excluded... dontcha now? That's the "in thang" for politicians these days. Rules for the Plebs but not for me!
Your third stance seems to differ with your platform stance of repopulating the world.
I believe the Kronk Repopulation Strategy (as I'm referring to it as of this moment) only directly applies in locations where population is in danger, not everywhere. It's an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.
Snake Plissken: Got a smoke?
Malloy: The United States is a no-smoking nation. No smoking, no drinking, no drugs. No women - unless of course you're married. No guns, no foul language... no red meat.
Snake Plissken: [sarcastic] Land of the free.
Programming note... quite possibly the best ending evar!
kronk wrote: I believe that once you turn 60, you should have to go to the DMV and pass an eye exam and driving exam with an instructor EVERY YEAR for our protection
Isn't that, like, already a thing? I'm pretty sure old peeps here have to pass one, although I don't know how frequent it is.
I further believe that once you hit 300 lbs, you should either no longer be allowed to buy junk food OR you sign a waiver that the rest of us don't have to tote your medical note when your body breaks down from being a lard ass.
How easy is it for underage teens to obtain alcohol? Because it'd be even easier for Fatty-fat Mclardy to go around those rules.
I further believe that birth control pills should be mandatory once you hit puberty and you have to pass a test and have a steady income before you're allowed to breed.
And what do you do when you find the millions of undeclared births? Have the kids taken away? Have the parents put in prison?? Fine them???
I'm Kronk, and that's my platform.
And I bet you'd find people ready to vote for you.
I do like our freedoms. But who knows maybe this will help control the rampant miss labeling of food. I can't count how many times i've bought something that had "egg" or something else only to read the label and find a hundred chemical ingredients mushed together to resemble real food.
Seriously we had a call to a sweet in low plant one time and there was a giant tank of formaldehyde there used in production.
But still, i do want my oreos. I know they are trans fat and they don't hide it. I'm okay with that.
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: [narrating] Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fething big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suit on hire purchase in a range of fething fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the feth you are on Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fething junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fethed up brats you spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
djones520 wrote: What the government should be doing is working on education, and helping to ensure things like food deserts dissapear.
They work on education. Beside, it's not like it ever properly worked. The knowledge that proper dietary habits is important has been common for a while now, just like the knowledge that smoking cigarette isn't healty has been common for a lot longer than people will admit. I have friends who are no older than 30 that still use the old ''yeah, but when I was a teen and started smoking, most people didn't know it was unhealty''. No. The difference is that it wasn't seen as a bad habit to smoke bad then. Mothers knew it was unhealthy to smoke or drink during pregnancies, but since it wasn't a social stigma like it is today, it didn't stop so many.
Education doesn't stop habits. Education creates awareness, which leads to social blaming and shaming, which leads to an effective restriction of the behaviour. Maybe this isn't happening quickly enough to the eyes of those in power, and they've decided to go and try cutting one source of the problem?
There are ways they can combat obesity, without restricting our freedom of choice.
And why would you care so much about your freedom to choose wrongly? I mean, do you really need to know that you have the ability to get your french fries with extra carcinogen? With, actually, about 100 times the otherwise legal limit of carcinogen allowed in tap water?
Like, you know that trans fat free fries are available and sold in a lot of fast food joints, right?
I have the choice to buy sticks full of carcinogens, and inject them directly into my lungs. Tell me why I should haven't the same choice with my french fries?
djones520 wrote: I have the choice to buy sticks full of carcinogens, and inject them directly into my lungs. Tell me why I should haven't the same choice with my french fries?
Because two negatives doesn't, in cases like this, makes a positive?
Making cigarettes illegal destroys completely an entire industry, which happens to be very rich. Now I agree that that might not be a sufficiently reasonnable excuse to let them poison the gak out of a very large part of population, but people in power are used to, to borrow Terry Pratchett's words, the dreadful algebra of necessity. In some cases, when you can't beat your enemy, what you do is simply to try and make their life harder until they realize that there's surely a way to work out things to both interests. So instead of killing the tobacco industry, you just piss them off until they start pouring money into research into less toxic products.
Banning trans fat oil doesn't kill the fast food industry. It forces them to search for an alternative.
djones520 wrote: I have the choice to buy sticks full of carcinogens, and inject them directly into my lungs. Tell me why I should haven't the same choice with my french fries?
You should. But those really crappy foods should be taxed to hell like cigarettes. Right now it's actually cheaper to eat crap than food that is good for you. This can be fixed with a trans fat or even a twinkie tax.
Gun murders in the US in 2010: 11,078
Automobile related deaths in 2010: 32,788
Alchohol Related Deaths 75,000 (2001 numbers).
Death by cigarettes 440,000 deaths annually. Interestingly enough: 49,400 are from second hand smoke. You're more likely to be killed by a sitting across the table from a smoker than sitting across the table from a man with a gun in his hand.
The more you know.
Poor diet is the number one killer of Americans....far greater than cigarettes. The medical care costs of treating people with poor diets is magnitudes greater than the medical costs from smokers..... Can we tax people based on their BMI?
Making cigarettes illegal destroys completely an entire industry
Well the real reason that cigarettes won't be banned is that they are a huge money maker for the government. That's a lot of tax dollars to lose.
djones520 wrote: I have the choice to buy sticks full of carcinogens, and inject them directly into my lungs. Tell me why I should haven't the same choice with my french fries?
You should. But those really crappy foods should be taxed to hell like cigarettes. Right now it's actually cheaper to eat crap than food that is good for you. This can be fixed with a trans fat or even a twinkie tax.
Go back to that post I made about what the government should be doing instead. Focussing MORE on efforts to educate people how to eat healthy, cheaply, and providing the means by encouraging expansion of grocery stores in area poorely represented. Food deserts, even in our great nation, are a very real thing and need to be resolved. Ensuring segments of our population have something other then a 7/11 or McDonalds to get food from will do a lot to help fight obesity, all without trampling on our personal liberties.
Well the real reason that cigarettes won't be banned is that they are a huge money maker for the government. That's a lot of tax dollars to lose.
According to your CDC, "In 2000–2004, cigarette smoking cost more than $193 billion (i.e., $97 billion in lost productivity plus $96 billion in health care expenditures).", while the revenue from cigarette taxation in 2011 was 17 billion.
Go back to that post I made about what the government should be doing instead. Focussing MORE on efforts to educate people how to eat healthy, cheaply, and providing the means by encouraging expansion of grocery stores in area poorely represented. Food deserts, even in our great nation, are a very real thing and need to be resolved. Ensuring segments of our population have something other then a 7/11 or McDonalds to get food from will do a lot to help fight obesity, all without trampling on our personal liberties.
So now you want the government to mandate what stores exist where? Force companies to open businesses that will ultimately be unprofitable when cheap crap food is so easily available? Whole foods don't open up in the ghetto for a reason my friend.
Go back to that post I made about what the government should be doing instead. Focussing MORE on efforts to educate people how to eat healthy, cheaply, and providing the means by encouraging expansion of grocery stores in area poorely represented. Food deserts, even in our great nation, are a very real thing and need to be resolved. Ensuring segments of our population have something other then a 7/11 or McDonalds to get food from will do a lot to help fight obesity, all without trampling on our personal liberties.
So now you want the government to mandate what stores exist where? Force companies to open businesses that will ultimately be unprofitable when cheap crap food is so easily available? Whole foods don't open up in the ghetto for a reason my friend.
Da Boss wrote: If you don't like the food provided by the school, bring a packed lunch. It's not hard.
We didn't have the luxury of any on site food in my school except a chip van that came around sometimes, and we were in the middle of nowhere, so I just always had sandwiches, fruit and sometimes crisps.
Actually, a lotta schools are banning packed lunches. They're afraid the children bringing in food made for them by their parents will corrupt the others, ESPECIALLY if (horror of horrors!) the parent slipped in an oatmeal cookie.
You guys do know that trans fats provide absolutely no flavour and are just cheap filler used by companies to maximize profit margins, right?
Essentially you're arguing "yes, it is vitally important that my health is made lower priority than the quarterly dividend yield for wealthy fast food investors".
scarletsquig wrote: You guys do know that trans fats provide absolutely no flavour and are just cheap filler used by companies to maximize profit margins, right?
Essentially you're arguing "yes, it is vitally important that my health is made lower priority than the quarterly dividend yield for wealthy fast food investors".
Kovnik Obama wrote: And why would you care so much about your freedom to choose wrongly?
Wait, are you serious?
Entirely
And how far should that line of reasoning be expanded in your eyes?
Dunno. Farther than ''I've got the Right to stuff myself silly of unhealthy food and you can't take my FREEDOMMMS away'' but not as far as ''Take all my agency away, oh Glorious and Perfect Leaders''?
Da Boss wrote: If you don't like the food provided by the school, bring a packed lunch. It's not hard.
We didn't have the luxury of any on site food in my school except a chip van that came around sometimes, and we were in the middle of nowhere, so I just always had sandwiches, fruit and sometimes crisps.
Actually, a lotta schools are banning packed lunches. They're afraid the children bringing in food made for them by their parents will corrupt the others, ESPECIALLY if (horror of horrors!) the parent slipped in an oatmeal cookie.
~Tim?
Yes. Like the whole healthcare for the habitually unhealthy this is a baffling quagmire.
Parents: "Why are we paying so much money to schools!"
Schools: "We're paying for better programs, like healthy lunches."
Parents: "No new taxes!"
Schools: "Then we'll cut that program... We'll make up the lost revenue with cheap dreadful food."
4 Weeks Later
Parents: "Why is my kid getting fed crap?"
Schools: "We cut that program."
Parents: "Then I'm sending my kid to school with a boxed lunch."
Schools: "... Seriously? We're being punked right? Where's the camera? Ryan Seacrest is right behind that curtain isn't he?"
Parents: "You're bad at your job!"
4 Weeks Later
Parents: "Why can't my kid bring his own lunch to school?"
Schools: "We need the money because no one wants new taxes."
Parents: "What?"
Schools: "School Board, out."
When I read this all I thought about was the prohibition
So Dakka lets get our criminal empires going if the FDA actually gets some steam
So here are new terms we need to know
Fryeasy, Fried pig, Hoggery: An establishment that sells illegal trans fat foods
Blimbpimp: Illegally produced Trans fats
Tubtote: To sell illegal trans fat foods; Trans fats that are illegally sold
Tubtoter: A person who illegally sells Tubtote
now we just need to divide up the country around who operates their Fryeasies where.
Just remeber to make sure you cook your books goods, we don't need the IRS to get us like they did Capone
Schools teach healthy diet. If you don't listen in school and eat unhealthily,
It would help if school lunches backed that up. They tend not to.
And if things like the "food pyramid" were based on things like, ya know, science, and not politics.
100% with you here. The corporate/government line has been getting waaay too blurry lately. It's kinda starting to feel like the Republicans and Democrats are really just two wings of corporate America.
Go back to that post I made about what the government should be doing instead. Focussing MORE on efforts to educate people how to eat healthy, cheaply, and providing the means by encouraging expansion of grocery stores in area poorely represented. Food deserts, even in our great nation, are a very real thing and need to be resolved. Ensuring segments of our population have something other then a 7/11 or McDonalds to get food from will do a lot to help fight obesity, all without trampling on our personal liberties.
So now you want the government to mandate what stores exist where? Force companies to open businesses that will ultimately be unprofitable when cheap crap food is so easily available? Whole foods don't open up in the ghetto for a reason my friend.
What part of "encourage" means mandate?
OK, well what is your idea of "encouragement"? Because I can't for the life of me figure out how you do that.
According to your CDC, "In 2000–2004, cigarette smoking cost more than $193 billion (i.e., $97 billion in lost productivity plus $96 billion in health care expenditures).", while the revenue from cigarette taxation in 2011 was 17 billion.
djones520 wrote: Tax incentives are the primary means of encouraging such growth as far as I'm aware. Maybe others who are a bit more saavy on the topic can chime in.
So instead of prohibiting something that is entirely useless and bad for consumption, you want the government to spend money on a tax incentive system that encourages stores into risky markets??????
This makes more sense how?
Tax junk food just like cigarettes, use that money for better health programs and possibly subsidies for healthy food could be a good start. Banning Trans Fats really is a pretty easy idea as Trans fats are just completely unnecessary.
djones520 wrote: Tax incentives are the primary means of encouraging such growth as far as I'm aware. Maybe others who are a bit more saavy on the topic can chime in.
So instead of prohibiting something that is entirely useless and bad for consumption, you want the government to spend money on a tax incentive system that encourages stores into risky markets??????
This makes more sense how?
Tax junk food just like cigarettes, use that money for better health programs and possibly subsidies for healthy food could be a good start. Banning Trans Fats really is a pretty easy idea as Trans fats are just completely unnecessary.
Guess you don't know that in many cities, aka St. Louis, there are very few grocery stores to service the areas.
djones520 wrote: Tax incentives are the primary means of encouraging such growth as far as I'm aware. Maybe others who are a bit more saavy on the topic can chime in.
So instead of prohibiting something that is entirely useless and bad for consumption, you want the government to spend money on a tax incentive system that encourages stores into risky markets??????
This makes more sense how?
Tax junk food just like cigarettes, use that money for better health programs and possibly subsidies for healthy food could be a good start. Banning Trans Fats really is a pretty easy idea as Trans fats are just completely unnecessary.
So, you'd rather that we continue to allow people who do not have ready access to grocery stores, continue to do so? Transfat is not the issue. It's a small part of the overall problem. Poor eating habits in general is the issue. Remove trans-fats from McDonalds food, and people consume 1200 calorie meals instead of 1250 calorie meals three times a day because they have no other choices. Pointing at the hot trend word of the day in the end does nothing more then slapping a band-aid on the gaping wound.
So instead of prohibiting something that is entirely useless and bad for consumption, you want the government to spend money on a tax incentive system that encourages stores into risky markets??????
.
Well, they did it with banks. Except they forced banks to lend to risky markets. That worked out well.
djones520 wrote: Tax incentives are the primary means of encouraging such growth as far as I'm aware. Maybe others who are a bit more saavy on the topic can chime in.
So instead of prohibiting something that is entirely useless and bad for consumption, you want the government to spend money on a tax incentive system that encourages stores into risky markets??????
This makes more sense how?
Tax junk food just like cigarettes, use that money for better health programs and possibly subsidies for healthy food could be a good start. Banning Trans Fats really is a pretty easy idea as Trans fats are just completely unnecessary.
So, you'd rather that we continue to allow people who do not have ready access to grocery stores, continue to do so? Transfat is not the issue. It's a small part of the overall problem. Poor eating habits in general is the issue. Remove trans-fats from McDonalds food, and people consume 1200 calorie meals instead of 1250 calorie meals three times a day because they have no other choices. Pointing at the hot trend word of the day in the end does nothing more then slapping a band-aid on the gaping wound.
Its not the cure all, but its a step. Adding a tax to junk food is also a good step, but you don't like that. Make the junk food more expensive and you have created incentive to find a better food source. If people need a better food source that then provides a market for better food outlets.
There are people who are honest to God expressing outrage at the idea that government wants to companies using one fattening agent, and make them use a less unhealthy but very slightly more expensive fattening agent. Incredible.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis
Well, if you're going to put the same quote in two different threads, I might as well include the full quote and context so people can understand CS Lewis wasn't actually opposed to the idea of government doing positive work.
"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.
And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme — whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence — the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication."
Understand this letter was written in response to a Marxist who had critiqued some of Lewis' science fiction. What sparked Lewis was not the individual's marxism, interestingly enough, but the extreme conviction to which he held those ideas, which he equated to theocracy. It isn't an attack on the idea of government doing good (which would make no sense given Lewis' general political convictions) but against the person who puts his faith in a utopia ahead of the facts on the ground or basic human decency.
This will hurt the economy in ways I don't think we can determine right now... is this the right thing to do at this time?
Ah, very no. Very, very no. Reducing the consumption of crud that kills people means healthier people, and healthier people have a lot more economic activity.
Not that judging things in terms of the economy and nothing else makes much sense anyway. That's what the Soviets did, and it produced a society where iron production might increase at the expense of thousands dying from air pollution, and it was deemed a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I love it when people completely miss the point.
The point freedom of choice, including the freedom to make sub-optimal choices is important, but like all things it has its limit, and it is silly when people completely ignore that and just harp on about freedom with no regard to the specifics of the issue and the reality that there are plenty of choices that no properly informed person would make.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And if things like the "food pyramid" were based on things like, ya know, science, and not politics.
Well, with the Brawndo corporation buying the FDA, I'd expect that to change.
It's got what food pyramids crave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Well, they did it with banks. Except they forced banks to lend to risky markets. That worked out well.
Except, as I've explained to you several times now, the word 'forced' in your sentence is pants on head crazy pants nonsense.
Private banking sector - "Hey, government, you want us to help low income people own houses, but by the current regulations we can't." Government - "Fair point, we'll remove the restrictions we had, and give you more choice in who you lend to." Private banking sector - "Excellent. And now we'll loan to damn near everyone, on the assumption that payments can be maintained by the growing house prices, and that are income stream is entirely upfront as we on-sell tranched loans. Holy gak, this is a bigger rush than heroin, bigger even that transfats, we just loan to any stupid donkey-cave, bribe the debt rating agencies to AAA those loans, and sell this gak within minutes to do the same crazy gak all over again. With my bonus I just bought an island. A whole fething island just to myself." Government - "..." Private banking sector - "And now it's all gone to gak. Oh Jesus gak is bad." Free market true believers - "And it was all the fault of government, because we like to believe that removing restrictions that prevented certain loans is actually forcing the private sector to that thing, because we just don't fething care about reality."
sebster wrote: There are people who are honest to God expressing outrage at the idea that government wants to companies using one fattening agent, and make them use a less unhealthy but very slightly more expensive fattening agent. Incredible.
This will hurt the economy in ways I don't think we can determine right now... is this the right thing to do at this time?
Ah, very no. Very, very no. Reducing the consumption of crud that kills people means healthier people, and healthier people have a lot more economic activity.
Not that judging things in terms of the economy and nothing else makes much sense anyway. That's what the Soviets did, and it produced a society where iron production might increase at the expense of thousands dying from air pollution, and it was deemed a good thing.
Yup lets Ban trans fats because all they do is make people fat.. its not the lack of exercise or choice in what you eat.. its the transfats
People* should be allowed to eat What ever the Feth they want to eat.
*Now if your living on government assistance then yes the government can control what you eat because your living on everyone elses dime
Ninjacommando wrote: Yup lets Ban trans fats because all they do is make people fat.. its not the lack of exercise or choice in what you eat.. its the transfats
Being fat isn't the only issue. You can work out and look super fit and healthy but if you're eating really unhealthy food you're still very likely to die of a heart attack. Obesity is a cause of heart attacks, it is not the cause.
People* should be allowed to eat What ever the Feth they want to eat.
And to repeat my earlier point, 'feth yeah freedom do what you want' is not a complete philosophy that applies to all things at all times. Like all things, it has its limitations, and when you're talking about a product that is incredibly unhealthy and nothing more than a really cheap way to fatten up food, then we're talking about a choice that no fully informed person will make. In effect, you're arguing for the right for people to make grossly ignorant decisions that give them no benefit in terms of nicer flavour, but with serious health consequences.
Except, as I've explained to you several times now, the word 'forced' in your sentence is pants on head crazy pants nonsense.
Private banking sector - "Hey, government, you want us to help low income people own houses, but by the current regulations we can't."
Government - "Fair point, we'll remove the restrictions we had, and give you more choice in who you lend to."
Private banking sector - "Excellent. And now we'll loan to damn near everyone, on the assumption that payments can be maintained by the growing house prices, and that are income stream is entirely upfront as we on-sell tranched loans. Holy gak, this is a bigger rush than heroin, bigger even that transfats, we just loan to any stupid donkey-cave, bribe the debt rating agencies to AAA those loans, and sell this gak within minutes to do the same crazy gak all over again. With my bonus I just bought an island. A whole fething island just to myself."
Government - "..."
Private banking sector - "And now it's all gone to gak. Oh Jesus gak is bad."
Free market true believers - "And it was all the fault of government, because we like to believe that removing restrictions that prevented certain loans is actually forcing the private sector to that thing, because we just don't fething care about reality."
Except you're wrong. The CRA more or less forced banks to lend to demographics that they previously did not lend to due to risk. I believe the "encouragement" from the Gov't was in the phrasing "innovative and flexible" lending to LMI earners.
Ninjacommando wrote: Yup lets Ban trans fats because all they do is make people fat.. its not the lack of exercise or choice in what you eat.. its the transfats
Being fat isn't the only issue. You can work out and look super fit and healthy but if you're eating really unhealthy food you're still very likely to die of a heart attack. Obesity is a cause of heart attacks, it is not the cause.
A Professor of human nutrition did a 2 month diet of hostess products, protien shake, Multivitamins, celery/cans of green beans for a total of 1,800 calories a day.
- He lost 27 pounts in 2 months
- "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent
- "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent.
- reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent
"I wish I could say the outcomes are unhealthy. I wish I could say it's healthy. I'm not confident enough in doing that. That frustrates a lot of people. One side says it's irresponsible. It is unhealthy, but the data doesn't say that." - Mark Haub
sebster wrote: And to repeat my earlier point, 'feth yeah freedom do what you want' is not a complete philosophy that applies to all things at all times. Like all things, it has its limitations, and when you're talking about a product that is incredibly unhealthy and nothing more than a really cheap way to fatten up food, then we're talking about a choice that no fully informed person will make. In effect, you're arguing for the right for people to make grossly ignorant decisions that give them no benefit in terms of nicer flavour, but with serious health consequences.
If only you knew what was best for you, you'd choose what the nanny state is choosing for you, anyway! Silly peasants.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Are people really outraged that a government is banning a harmful ingredient that serves only to make certain foods cheaper to manufacture?
Seriously, this gak doesn't even make things taste better!
I'm outraged anytime the government intervenes needlessly in the marketplace.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Are people really outraged that a government is banning a harmful ingredient that serves only to make certain foods cheaper to manufacture?
Seriously, this gak doesn't even make things taste better!
I'm outraged anytime the government intervenes needlessly in the marketplace.
Wikipedia wrote: In humans, consumption of trans fats increases the risk of coronary heart disease[2][3] by raising levels of the lipoprotein LDL (so-called "bad cholesterol") and lowering levels of the lipoprotein HDL ("good cholesterol").
Wikipedia wrote:
In humans, consumption of trans fats increases the risk of coronary heart disease[2][3] by raising levels of the lipoprotein LDL (so-called "bad cholesterol") and lowering levels of the lipoprotein HDL ("good cholesterol").
What's your point? I think you should be allowed to kill yourself in whatever manner you like so long as it doesn't cause physical harm to others. Want to trans fat your way into the grave? Go nuts. If someone needs the federal government to keep them from making bad personal decisions, I don't want them voting until they're 90, anyway.
So, for arguments sake, suppose a company renewed the age old tradition of bulking out bread with sawdust with only a tiny bit of text mentioning the percentile timber particulate content of the bread.
Wikipedia wrote:
In humans, consumption of trans fats increases the risk of coronary heart disease[2][3] by raising levels of the lipoprotein LDL (so-called "bad cholesterol") and lowering levels of the lipoprotein HDL ("good cholesterol").
What's your point? I think you should be allowed to kill yourself in whatever manner you like so long as it doesn't cause physical harm to others. Want to trans fat your way into the grave? Go nuts. If someone needs the federal government to keep them from making bad personal decisions, I don't want them voting until they're 90, anyway.
Would you support the legalisation of heroin and other drugs?
So you think that manufacturers cutting corners at the cost of human lives is morally acceptable but legislation that saves those very same lives is morally wrong?
Corpsesarefun wrote: So you think that manufacturers cutting corners at the cost of human lives is morally acceptable but legislation that saves those very same lives is morally wrong?
I'm unsympathetic towards individuals who knowingly and repeatedly harm their own health, and it's not the government's job to stop them.
Seaward wrote: What's your point? I think you should be allowed to kill yourself in whatever manner you like so long as it doesn't cause physical harm to others. Want to trans fat your way into the grave? Go nuts. If someone needs the federal government to keep them from making bad personal decisions, I don't want them voting until they're 90, anyway.
Even if the FDA bans trans fats in food products you are still free to eat trans fats, drink gasoline or set yourself on fire. I guess you are just not allowed to call products containing harmful and unnecessary trans fats food anymore. It's akin to hygiene regulations you have to abide by if you are producing and selling food items and those are necessary (but costly), aren't they?
Not sure if its the correct word here, but the irony of the whole situation is that when Hydrogenated Oils and Transfats were introduced back in the 1920s, the Government was the one trying to pawn the stuff off, and they almost couldn't GIVE the gak away.... Now here we are 80-90 years later, and the same people who were pushing it to market are trying to pull it from the market, and some people are getting outraged.
At this point, some of the posts in this thread are coming off less as people being angry that they won't get the choice to kill themselves with trans fats and more as angry that other people won't get to unintentionally make the choice to kill themselves with trans fats.
Ouze wrote: I am surprised by the lack of poutine on that infographic.
INdeed. And there's no discussion of Maple being its own food group. What gives?
That graphic was obviously done by the Quebecois...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Corpsesarefun wrote: So you think that manufacturers cutting corners at the cost of human lives is morally acceptable but legislation that saves those very same lives is morally wrong?
I would believe that there are more pressing concerns when it comes to regulating the materials that manufacturers use. Trans fats are not needed, but the market itself has largely done away with trans fats after the FDA came in and said, "you have to inform people that they're eating trans fats." The public was outraged, and when (like as someone in this thread said) their french fires from McDonalds didn't taste different, they stopped caring. Now the FDA is going in and saying, "hey we're going to ban trans fats" because Trans fats are still used in processed foods like pot pies, microwavable dinners, margarine, etc... even when these things are supposed to tell you when they contain trans fats. If the government wants to improve the foods they eat, perhaps they can do something about pink slime, conditions of the places where our meat is slaughtered, and provide porta potties for the migrant workers that pick our vegetables so they stop using the large leaves on plants to wipe themselves.
Corpsesarefun wrote: So you think that manufacturers cutting corners at the cost of human lives is morally acceptable but legislation that saves those very same lives is morally wrong?
No, I think if Seaward wouldn't ban heroin, he is not hypocritical to not want to ban trans fats.
sebster wrote: There are people who are honest to God expressing outrage at the idea that government wants to companies using one fattening agent, and make them use a less unhealthy but very slightly more expensive fattening agent. Incredible.
This will hurt the economy in ways I don't think we can determine right now... is this the right thing to do at this time?
Ah, very no. Very, very no. Reducing the consumption of crud that kills people means healthier people, and healthier people have a lot more economic activity.
Not that judging things in terms of the economy and nothing else makes much sense anyway. That's what the Soviets did, and it produced a society where iron production might increase at the expense of thousands dying from air pollution, and it was deemed a good thing.
Yup lets Ban trans fats because all they do is make people fat.. its not the lack of exercise or choice in what you eat.. its the transfats
People* should be allowed to eat What ever the Feth they want to eat.
*Now if your living on government assistance then yes the government can control what you eat because your living on everyone elses dime
Exactly. Further where is the FDA's writ of authority here. Its not poison or harmful drug. Its just really fattening fat. Newsflash, when taken in incorrect amounts, both oxygen and water can kill you. OMG DIHYDROGEN OXIDE IS IN THE WATER! WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Corpsesarefun wrote: Are people really outraged that a government is banning a harmful ingredient that serves only to make certain foods cheaper to manufacture?
Seriously, this gak doesn't even make things taste better!
Its only harmful if you eat too much of it. Next will be sugar, and salt, and milke and every damn thing else some fat low brow nanny state mutha er thinks is wrong because they saw it on Oprah or Good Morning America.
You can take my extra fat fries when you pry them from my cold dead hands!!!
Wikipedia wrote:
In humans, consumption of trans fats increases the risk of coronary heart disease[2][3] by raising levels of the lipoprotein LDL (so-called "bad cholesterol") and lowering levels of the lipoprotein HDL ("good cholesterol").
What's your point? I think you should be allowed to kill yourself in whatever manner you like so long as it doesn't cause physical harm to others. Want to trans fat your way into the grave? Go nuts. If someone needs the federal government to keep them from making bad personal decisions, I don't want them voting until they're 90, anyway.
Would you support the legalisation of heroin and other drugs?
You betcha, right freaking now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Dihydrogen Oxide has killed more sailors than hurricanes, scurvy, and sea monsters combined.
Exactly. Inversely, in the right proportion with dark rum its epic.
Corpsesarefun wrote: I don't think he is hypocritical, his morals are consistent if somewhat dubious.
What's dubious about them? No one's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to eat food with trans fat in it if you don't want to. If there's not a demand for a product, its production dies out.
MrMoustaffa wrote: As long as the food tastes the same or better I don't really care.
I never noticed a change in McDonald's french fries, so if I never noticed the trans fat going away I think we're ok.
And that's exactly what makes this ban a good idea. It's all about the battles you can win...
Banning cigarettes would trigger a revolution. Banning trans-fats just results in companies using a slightly different (but less unhealthy) ingredient. Most people will never notice the difference.
I noticed a large difference (read reduction in flavor) in Mcdonalds fries after they changed their oil a few years back, and I was kind of bummed because they were my favorite french fry. However after a few years have gone by, I really can't remember the difference, and they taste fine.
So I tend to agree that, in the long run the change won't matter. I personally think it's a good idea to remove "overly" unhealthy hidden stuff. I'd like to see them start working on the HFC syrup next.
cincydooley wrote: Or how about you simply read your labels and avoid the gak that you don't want in your body?
How about thinking of it in economic terms? When there's a choice that's literally pointless because it's harmful despite having no benefit to the customer and only exists to make the producer more money, all keeping the choice around does is costs everyone in the entire country labour because you all have to go through the labels of everything checking for this stuff.
Save labour, save money, regulate it and society can become that little bit more productive.
cincydooley wrote: Or how about you simply read your labels and avoid the gak that you don't want in your body?
How about thinking of it in economic terms? When there's a choice that's literally pointless because it's harmful despite having no benefit to the customer and only exists to make the producer more money, all keeping the choice around does is costs everyone in the entire country labour because you all have to go through the labels of everything checking for this stuff.
Save labour, save money, regulate it and society can become that little bit more productive.
But if you read the label and say, "ya know, I don't want to buy this trans fat filled tub of butter like product, I'm going to go with the actual butter." Then the company notices a dip in sales and says, "HEY I DUN THINK THEY LIKE TRANNY FATS NO MORE" and then they slowly get replaced.
Also Trans fats are on the nutritional information label on every food because the FDA has already stated the following:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has prepared this Small Entity Compliance Guide in accordance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act (P.L. 104-121). This guidance document restates in plain language the legal requirements set forth in 21 CFR 101.9 and 101.36 concerning the declaration of trans fatty acids in the nutrition label of conventional foods and dietary supplements, respectively. These regulations are binding and have the force and effect of law. However, this guidance document represents FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. You can use an alternate approach if the approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. If you want to discuss an alternative approach, contact the FDA staff responsible for implementing this guidance. If you cannot identify the appropriate FDA staff, call the appropriate number listed on the title page of this guidance.
That legalese says that trans fatty acids must be indicated on the nutritional label. This regulation has been around for a decade and has been in effect since 2006 (to give companies times to rotate in the new labels). If people are still willing to shove those things down their throats, the feth 'em! Let them die in the painful artery clogged way that they wish to die. The knowledge about trans fats isn't hidden, everyone fething knows they're bad and the market has been shifting away from them. Fast food joints don't use trans fats to cook their food (though some meals still have them in them due to processing of other things), but things like margarine, pie crusts, shortening, frostings, anything fried or battered, anything designed to be cooked in the microwave (like hungry man meal), Nondairy creamers (whoops I should cut back on the coffee now ), popcorn, pre-made hamburger patties. If people want to consume them, it's on the fething label and if people are too dumb to read the label, then let them eat their way to an early grave (says the guy that didn't read his nondairy creamer label ).
sebster wrote: There are people who are honest to God expressing outrage at the idea that government wants to companies using one fattening agent, and make them use a less unhealthy but very slightly more expensive fattening agent. Incredible.
No, we're arguing there's a better way to handle things like this without outright governmental bans.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis
Well, if you're going to put the same quote in two different threads, I might as well include the full quote and context so people can understand CS Lewis wasn't actually opposed to the idea of government doing positive work.
True... but who's to say it's positive. I'd argue it's a classic slippery slope that we must constantly be vigilant of... which is another way to interpret that quote.
cincydooley wrote: Except you're wrong. The CRA more or less forced banks to lend to demographics that they previously did not lend to due to risk. I believe the "encouragement" from the Gov't was in the phrasing "innovative and flexible" lending to LMI earners.
The Federal Reserve looked at that claim, and found that CRA originated loans accounted for just 6% of higher priced loans, and just 2% of loans from non-CRA lenderswere purchased by CRA lenders. And that delinquent loans were consistantly high in all neighbourhoods, not just low income ones covered by CRA (and in fact foreclosure rates were higher in middle and upper income areas than in lower income areas affected by CRA).
And that's work that was done four years ago. It's like walking up to de Gaule in 1944 and saying "I think you're wrong about that threat through the Ardennes... high command is bang on that the Germans could never advance through there."
cincydooley wrote: Or how about you simply read your labels and avoid the gak that you don't want in your body?
How about thinking of it in economic terms? When there's a choice that's literally pointless because it's harmful despite having no benefit to the customer and only exists to make the producer more money, all keeping the choice around does is costs everyone in the entire country labour because you all have to go through the labels of everything checking for this stuff.
Save labour, save money, regulate it and society can become that little bit more productive.
So you don't read whats in the food your eatting before you eat it?
If people want to eat this crap till they die let em, Your responsible for your life not the government.
Seaward wrote: If only you knew what was best for you, you'd choose what the nanny state is choosing for you, anyway! Silly peasants.
And so to respond to my point that all the opposition to this can do is claim an absolute insistence on absolute freedom of choice without any discussion of the facts of transfat... you just repeat the insistence on absolute freedom of choice without any discussion o transfat.
To explain this again... I don't want an otherwise run of the mill, ordinary car that has a five percent chance of exploding every time I put the key in the ignition. No-one does. The only person who'd buy such a car is someone who is completely ignorant of the danger that car poses. Insisting that government shouldn't just ban such death traps because the consumer must have the right to choose such ludicrous death traps if they want is beyond stupid. There is obviously a point where society as a whole says 'here's a thing that is so clearly a sub-optimal choice that people would only buy it out of gross ignorance'. That is what fransfats are - a clearly sub-optimal choice that people would only eat if they were completely oblivious of the health consequences.
Seaward wrote: If only you knew what was best for you, you'd choose what the nanny state is choosing for you, anyway! Silly peasants.
And so to respond to my point that all the opposition to this can do is claim an absolute insistence on absolute freedom of choice without any discussion of the facts of transfat... you just repeat the insistence on absolute freedom of choice without any discussion o transfat.
To explain this again... I don't want an otherwise run of the mill, ordinary car that has a five percent chance of exploding every time I put the key in the ignition. No-one does. The only person who'd buy such a car is someone who is completely ignorant of the danger that car poses. Insisting that government shouldn't just ban such death traps because the consumer must have the right to choose such ludicrous death traps if they want is beyond stupid. There is obviously a point where society as a whole says 'here's a thing that is so clearly a sub-optimal choice that people would only buy it out of gross ignorance'. That is what fransfats are - a clearly sub-optimal choice that people would only eat if they were completely oblivious of the health consequences.
I don't know about you but I like to read up about my car before i buy it. I like to see if their are any defects or if there have been any recalls on parts used because they weren't safe.
kronk wrote: Dihydrogen Oxide has killed more sailors than hurricanes, scurvy, and sea monsters combined.
It's also a little known fact that EVERY known serial killer, from Jack the Ripper, to Zodiac, to Charles Manson, all partook of this dangerous drug.
IN fact, once your body is saturated with "Double Hi" you will reaction that, if deprived of it, you will die, often in as little as two days. Jeez thats worse than rabies.
Seaward wrote: If only you knew what was best for you, you'd choose what the nanny state is choosing for you, anyway! Silly peasants.
And so to respond to my point that all the opposition to this can do is claim an absolute insistence on absolute freedom of choice without any discussion of the facts of transfat... you just repeat the insistence on absolute freedom of choice without any discussion o transfat.
To explain this again... I don't want an otherwise run of the mill, ordinary car that has a five percent chance of exploding every time I put the key in the ignition. No-one does. The only person who'd buy such a car is someone who is completely ignorant of the danger that car poses. Insisting that government shouldn't just ban such death traps because the consumer must have the right to choose such ludicrous death traps if they want is beyond stupid. There is obviously a point where society as a whole says 'here's a thing that is so clearly a sub-optimal choice that people would only buy it out of gross ignorance'. That is what fransfats are - a clearly sub-optimal choice that people would only eat if they were completely oblivious of the health consequences.
Would you be okay with the government mandating that a "Transfat" label/stamp on all such products, aka tobacco?
It took awhile, but I believe that the tobacco's labeling (you know, your "Surgeon General says this gak is bad for you") built up the stigma of smoking that we see today.
Seaward wrote: If only you knew what was best for you, you'd choose what the nanny state is choosing for you, anyway! Silly peasants.
And so to respond to my point that all the opposition to this can do is claim an absolute insistence on absolute freedom of choice without any discussion of the facts of transfat... you just repeat the insistence on absolute freedom of choice without any discussion o transfat.
To explain this again... I don't want an otherwise run of the mill, ordinary car that has a five percent chance of exploding every time I put the key in the ignition. No-one does. The only person who'd buy such a car is someone who is completely ignorant of the danger that car poses. Insisting that government shouldn't just ban such death traps because the consumer must have the right to choose such ludicrous death traps if they want is beyond stupid. There is obviously a point where society as a whole says 'here's a thing that is so clearly a sub-optimal choice that people would only buy it out of gross ignorance'. That is what fransfats are - a clearly sub-optimal choice that people would only eat if they were completely oblivious of the health consequences.
Its not suboptimal. Its just that people eat too much of it. To use your example, you want to ban high octane gasoline because some people wreck their engines on it by running it too hard.
Would you be okay with the government mandating that a "Transfat" label/stamp on all such products, aka tobacco?
It took awhile, but I believe that the tobacco's labeling (you know, your "Surgeon General says this gak is bad for you") built up the stigma of smoking that we see today.
how would you explain the smoking culture in Europe then? I know when I was in Europe, the labels really didn't beat around the bush... they basically said "Smoking Kills" or "Smoking Causes Cancer" or something to that effect (it was a bit like fortune cookies in that they had many different labels saying vaguely the same thing)
Kilkrazy wrote: No, I think if Seaward wouldn't ban heroin, he is not hypocritical to not want to ban trans fats.
People like Seaward are never hypocritical. That's one of the great luxuries of the ideologue - when you seek to pursue absolute ideological purity no matter the conclusion, you never have to worry about hypocritical positions, you just go with wherever your little ideological model takes you.
Not worrying about how your beliefs will affect real people in the complex real world is a tremendous luxury, when you think about it. We should envy Seaward his absolute convictions.
cincydooley wrote: Or how about you simply read your labels and avoid the gak that you don't want in your body?
How about thinking of it in economic terms? When there's a choice that's literally pointless because it's harmful despite having no benefit to the customer and only exists to make the producer more money, all keeping the choice around does is costs everyone in the entire country labour because you all have to go through the labels of everything checking for this stuff.
Save labour, save money, regulate it and society can become that little bit more productive.
So you don't read whats in the food your eatting before you eat it?
If people want to eat this crap till they die let em, Your responsible for your life not the government.
Interestingly, it turns out people are really terrible at evaluating certain types of risk. We tend to vastly overestimate spectacular risks (like dying in a plane crash, say) and underestimate more dangerous but mundane ones (like dying in a car crash, to fit with the plane crash comparison; or, in this case, the risk to your health of eating too much of certain ingredients in food).
If your argument is, "we will just let the market sort it out, because human beings will rationally decide that paying slightly more for a more-or-less indentical-tasting ingredient that someone claimed doesn't have the adverse very long-term health impacts that someone claimed this other thing does" then you're ignoring how people evaluate risk (and how bad they are at evaluating risks in this category).
Would you be okay with the government mandating that a "Transfat" label/stamp on all such products, aka tobacco?
It took awhile, but I believe that the tobacco's labeling (you know, your "Surgeon General says this gak is bad for you") built up the stigma of smoking that we see today.
how would you explain the smoking culture in Europe then? I know when I was in Europe, the labels really didn't beat around the bush... they basically said "Smoking Kills" or "Smoking Causes Cancer" or something to that effect (it was a bit like fortune cookies in that they had many different labels saying vaguely the same thing)
cincydooley wrote: Or how about you simply read your labels and avoid the gak that you don't want in your body?
Buyer Beware was given up as an absolute argument more than two hundred years ago, when people realised that insisting on absolute caution from all consumers at all times was a tremendously pointless waste of time.
Seriously, when there's a product that people will only choose when they either neglect to read the label, or are completely ignorant of what transfats do, this freedom of choice argument just makes no damn sense.
whembly wrote: No, we're arguing there's a better way to handle things like this without outright governmental bans.
Which is an argument that works for lots of products, such as those with overall negative costs, but definite short term benefits to the consumer. Like sugar, for instance, which is way over consumed by most people... but also quite delicious. So the best solution is to inform people of the health consequences, and also inform them of what products contain large amounts of sugar. From there they can make an informed choice balancing health against tasty.
But transfats isn't such a product, because there simply is no upside. It's flavourless. It's just a fattening agent that happens to be remarkably bad for you, used because it's a little bit cheaper than other fattening agents. When a person is informed of just how bad transfats are for you, and is informed of what foods contain transfats... there is simply no reason to choose it over a food made with other ingredients.
At which point we can say 'choice!' and insist people ought to spend their time reading up on transfats and all the other non-food gak that gets put in to our food, and spend their time studying the label of each food product they buy... or we can just pick out the stuff that's straight up bad and just not have it in our food.
True... but who's to say it's positive. I'd argue it's a classic slippery slope that we must constantly be vigilant of... which is another way to interpret that quote.
It isn't. Lewis' intent is quite clear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninjacommando wrote: I don't know about you but I like to read up about my car before i buy it. I like to see if their are any defects or if there have been any recalls on parts used because they weren't safe.
Yeah, because it's a car, something you buy once every few years. But did you read up on the ingredients list of the salami you put in your sandwich today? Or the chocolate bar you bought last week?
There's an obvious limit to this stuff, a point where it just isn't sensible to insist the consumer must be fully informed on all elements of the purchase. That's why buyer beware was abandoned as an absolute legal principle more than two hundred years ago - it just became straight up better in terms of economics, and in terms of making life a lot less annoying for everyone, to have some things removed as 'choices'... because they were things no-one would ever want.
sebster wrote: To explain this again... I don't want an otherwise run of the mill, ordinary car that has a five percent chance of exploding every time I put the key in the ignition. No-one does. The only person who'd buy such a car is someone who is completely ignorant of the danger that car poses. Insisting that government shouldn't just ban such death traps because the consumer must have the right to choose such ludicrous death traps if they want is beyond stupid. There is obviously a point where society as a whole says 'here's a thing that is so clearly a sub-optimal choice that people would only buy it out of gross ignorance'. That is what fransfats are - a clearly sub-optimal choice that people would only eat if they were completely oblivious of the health consequences.
That's an inaccurate comparison. One's a very slow death years hence, much like cigarettes, and the other is, in most cases, instant.
Trans fat is nothing new. I knew it was bad for me back before McDonald's stopped using it, I still ate McDonald's on occasion. The notion that everyone will always avoid something that's bad for them is simply not remotely based in reality.
whembly wrote: Would you be okay with the government mandating that a "Transfat" label/stamp on all such products, aka tobacco?
It took awhile, but I believe that the tobacco's labeling (you know, your "Surgeon General says this gak is bad for you") built up the stigma of smoking that we see today.
I think that's fine for a lot of products. Labels regarding sugar and salt content are good policy.
But with sugar and salt there is genuine scope for consumer choice - the consumer can say 'okay I understand exactly how bad this is for me but I like the taste so I'm getting it anyway'. That situation doesn't exist with transfats - no-one is going to choose the transfat products because it tastes nicer, because it's not got any flavour.
Frazzled wrote: Its not suboptimal. Its just that people eat too much of it. To use your example, you want to ban high octane gasoline because some people wreck their engines on it by running it too hard.
Except I pointed out how transfats are different - there is no upside for the consumer. There are reasons to use higher octane fuel... but there is simply no consumer upside to transfats - it has no flavour. It can be sustituted with other fattening agents with no change to the product, except it's less unhealthy.
whembly wrote: Would you be okay with the government mandating that a "Transfat" label/stamp on all such products, aka tobacco?
It took awhile, but I believe that the tobacco's labeling (you know, your "Surgeon General says this gak is bad for you") built up the stigma of smoking that we see today.
I think that's fine for a lot of products. Labels regarding sugar and salt content are good policy.
But with sugar and salt there is genuine scope for consumer choice - the consumer can say 'okay I understand exactly how bad this is for me but I like the taste so I'm getting it anyway'. That situation doesn't exist with transfats - no-one is going to choose the transfat products because it tastes nicer, because it's not got any flavour.
Okay... now I'm thinking you're starting to win me over.
You talking about that it's probably easier to slap warning labels on things that are discretely tangible... ie, taste, which transfat lacks.
There's no upside to Cigarettes. You smell nasty, where you live smells nasty, it takes a while to get acclimated to the choking smoke so you can actually develop the addiction so that they actually become desirable, they're expensive as feth, and they'll eventually kill you.
Grey Templar wrote: There's no upside to Cigarettes. You smell nasty, where you live smells nasty, it takes a while to get acclimated to the choking smoke, they're expensive as feth, and they'll eventually kill you.
Grey Templar wrote: There's no upside to Cigarettes. You smell nasty, where you live smells nasty, it takes a while to get acclimated to the choking smoke, they're expensive as feth, and they'll eventually kill you.
At least Trans-fats aren't guaranteed to kill you. They'll only kill you if you are also sedentary and each them exclusively.
Smoking on the other hand is addictive, and it screws with your nervous system to the point where you actually need the Nicotine to function, and it's only a question of when it kills you. Not if it kills you.
Assuming you aren't doing something else that will kill you even faster.
As if that wasn't enough, second hand smoke is extremely harmful. So you aren't just putting yourself in danger, everyone around you is subjected to it as well.
Grey Templar wrote: There's no upside to Cigarettes. You smell nasty, where you live smells nasty, it takes a while to get acclimated to the choking smoke, they're expensive as feth, and they'll eventually kill you.
Yet, they're perfectly legal.
Upside is what nicotine gives ya...
Yeah, but you have to go through all that nastyness to actually develop the addiction. And you'd have the same functionality if you weren't addicted to nicotine.
Smoking creates the problem that it supposedly fixes. It makes itself desirable by making itself necessary, but if you never needed it in the first place it wouldn't be desirable. Nobody is naturally addicted to Nicotine without smoking, or being exposed to second hand smoke.
Seaward wrote: That's an inaccurate comparison. One's a very slow death years hence, much like cigarettes, and the other is, in most cases, instant.
Trans fat is nothing new. I knew it was bad for me back before McDonald's stopped using it, I still ate McDonald's on occasion. The notion that everyone will always avoid something that's bad for them is simply not remotely based in reality.
Obviously people won't always make the healthier choice. If they did transfats wouldn't be in products. Hell, if everyone always made the decision that was best for them then no-one would ever waste their time arguing in Off Topic.
The point is that in almost all cases that unhealthy choice has some kind of upside. McDonalds is convenient, and when you pick the couple of decent items on the menu then it tastes okay. So in that case there is way too much subjectivity to bad McDonald's, because for some people in some specific situations it is the optimum choice. So government takes a step back accepts that it's too subjective for them to step in and act in everyone's overall best interest, and just accepts that some portion of the population will over consume and do themselves considerable harm.
But then there's other products where there simply is no upside. Clothing that is no way remarkable, but includes materials that are, like carcinogenic or something... we simply know that no person who is properly informed of the dangers of the product will choose it. A product that is chosen only through the ignorance of the consumer is not a choice that needs to be preserved. And transfats, with absolutely no upside, are a product just like that.
Generally, I'm fine with letting people kill themselves in slow self inflicted ways, but maybe this will reduce the number of sweatpant inhabiting fatty wagon jockeys at the grocery store.
I can steer a cart around you but I can't steer around your freaky lingering butt funk.
Grey Templar wrote: There's no upside to Cigarettes. You smell nasty, where you live smells nasty, it takes a while to get acclimated to the choking smoke so you can actually develop the addiction so that they actually become desirable, they're expensive as feth, and they'll eventually kill you.
Yet, they're perfectly legal.
We need like a surgeon that's also a general to warn people about these dangers! Those hippie, science-loving liberals will listen to a surgeon because science! and the redneck, dukes of hazzard wannabes will listen to a General, because Military!. It's the perfect plan!
Kilkrazy wrote: No, I think if Seaward wouldn't ban heroin, he is not hypocritical to not want to ban trans fats.
People like Seaward are never hypocritical. That's one of the great luxuries of the ideologue - when you seek to pursue absolute ideological purity no matter the conclusion, you never have to worry about hypocritical positions, you just go with wherever your little ideological model takes you.
Not worrying about how your beliefs will affect real people in the complex real world is a tremendous luxury, when you think about it. We should envy Seaward his absolute convictions.
Its not pure ideological purety. Its the same thing my wiener dogs like, just to be left alone. No one likes to be messed with.
Yeah, because it's a car, something you buy once every few years. But did you read up on the ingredients list of the salami you put in your sandwich today? Or the chocolate bar you bought last week?
There's an obvious limit to this stuff, a point where it just isn't sensible to insist the consumer must be fully informed on all elements of the purchase. That's why buyer beware was abandoned as an absolute legal principle more than two hundred years ago - it just became straight up better in terms of economics, and in terms of making life a lot less annoying for everyone, to have some things removed as 'choices'... because they were things no-one would ever want.
We read the labels of everything we purchase that's a new purchase.
But you're right. Saying "read the label" is unfairly prejudicial against the illiterate.
What you are asking for is to read every label of everything you buy in a grocery store. or go online and check nutrition info before I buy anything from a restaurant. That's like asking people to read all the words of user agreements before selecting "I agree".
Kilkrazy wrote: No, I think if Seaward wouldn't ban heroin, he is not hypocritical to not want to ban trans fats.
People like Seaward are never hypocritical. That's one of the great luxuries of the ideologue - when you seek to pursue absolute ideological purity no matter the conclusion, you never have to worry about hypocritical positions, you just go with wherever your little ideological model takes you.
Not worrying about how your beliefs will affect real people in the complex real world is a tremendous luxury, when you think about it. We should envy Seaward his absolute convictions.
Its not pure ideological purety. Its the same thing my wiener dogs like, just to be left alone. No one likes to be messed with.
No, its purely ideological. There is no reason why this issue speaks to conservatives and libertarians, other than the fantasy that this is something that speaks to conservatives and libertarian. This is not an issue about the sanctity of the market. This is not a case about essential and inherent freedoms.
This is a case where conservatives and libertarian are trying to turn something absolutely equivalent to ''You can't take my freedom to spray whatever toxic chemicals I want on my vegetables'' into something equivalent to ''You can't take away my freedom to bear arms.''. However you end up deciding on the arms issue, you have to agree that it's an important question. It might not be an urgent one, but it's an important one. If the situation comes up where a population would need weapons to overthrow an invader or a tyrant, you want to have the whole arms debate resolved already. These are the cases where you need to take in account questions about values such as freedom and the sanctity of the market. This is not the case. No one loses by losing the option to get trans fat fries.
I know as Canadian you grew up with no protected rights but seriously, its about nattering nabobs in the government trying to tell people how to live because they know better (even though they're not good enough to work in the private sector).
Frazzled wrote: I know as Québécois you grew up with no protected rights but seriously, its about nattering nabobs in the government trying to tell people how to live because they know better (even though they're not good enough to work in the private sector).
Frazzled wrote: I know as Québécois you grew up with no protected rights but seriously, its about nattering nabobs in the government trying to tell people how to live because they know better (even though they're not good enough to work in the private sector).
Fixed that for you.
No you're Canadian eh! All good freedom fries loving French peoples bailed and went to Louisiana!
Frazzled wrote: I know as Canadian you grew up with no protected rights but seriously, its about nattering nabobs in the government trying to tell people how to live because they know better (even though they're not good enough to work in the private sector).
See Frazz...this is where socialism actually can work..you know things like, speed limits, OSHA, EPA, you know all things to try and protect us little people from hypercapitialists that could care less if they fill a pizza dough with poison as long as they make a little more money.
Frazzled wrote: I like OSHA.
I like the FDA when it sticks with its job to regulate drugs and rotten food.
... they're making a determination that transfats are rotten food, just as they banned those diet pills that caused heart attacks a few years ago.
You could disagree with that assessment, but their purview is pretty clear.
I see the merits in the argument that the government should not protect people from themselves, but I do not see it as an absolute. I think a reasonable middle ground is to ban or heavily restrict substances with little redeeming value and outsize and unambiguously negative health effects.
Frazzled wrote: I like OSHA.
I like the FDA when it sticks with its job to regulate drugs and rotten food.
... they're making a determination that transfats are rotten food, just as they banned those diet pills that caused heart attacks a few years ago.
You could disagree with that assessment, but their purview is pretty clear.
I see the merits in the argument that the government should not protect people from themselves, but I do not see it as an absolute. I think a reasonable middle ground is to ban or heavily restrict substances with little redeeming value and outsize and unambiguously negative health effects.
Its no more rotten then salt, fat, or any other damn thing. Its a step beyond their purview. Cheeseburgers are bad for you if you eat too many of them. To a starving man they're great.
Its no more rotten then salt, fat, or any other damn thing. Its a step beyond their purview. Cheeseburgers are bad for you if you eat too many of them. To a starving man they're great.
If you really look at the hard science of human food, grains are far worse for you than animal fats... I agree that many ingredients are good in appropriate levels, and that many people don't follow those appropriate levels, in the looking about that I've done on Trans Fats shows them to be just as Ouze and others have said, which is basically absolute garbage that people and no living things should be consuming.
Frazzled wrote: I like OSHA.
I like the FDA when it sticks with its job to regulate drugs and rotten food.
... they're making a determination that transfats are rotten food, just as they banned those diet pills that caused heart attacks a few years ago.
You could disagree with that assessment, but their purview is pretty clear.
I see the merits in the argument that the government should not protect people from themselves, but I do not see it as an absolute. I think a reasonable middle ground is to ban or heavily restrict substances with little redeeming value and outsize and unambiguously negative health effects.
Its no more rotten then salt, fat, or any other damn thing. Its a step beyond their purview. Cheeseburgers are bad for you if you eat too many of them. To a starving man they're great.
The government can restrict sales of food based on the fact that they aren't good for you anymore.
The government cannot restrict sales of food based on the fact that they were never good for you in the first place.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, I think if Seaward wouldn't ban heroin, he is not hypocritical to not want to ban trans fats.
People like Seaward are never hypocritical. That's one of the great luxuries of the ideologue - when you seek to pursue absolute ideological purity no matter the conclusion, you never have to worry about hypocritical positions, you just go with wherever your little ideological model takes you.
Not worrying about how your beliefs will affect real people in the complex real world is a tremendous luxury, when you think about it. We should envy Seaward his absolute convictions.
Its not pure ideological purety. Its the same thing my wiener dogs like, just to be left alone. No one likes to be messed with.
kronk wrote: I have the right to put my wang in a toaster if I so choose to do so!
Just as I have the right to put the plunger thing down on the toaster with your wang in it (but, for the sake of the future of all humanity, I will refrain)
Yeah, because it's a car, something you buy once every few years. But did you read up on the ingredients list of the salami you put in your sandwich today? Or the chocolate bar you bought last week?
There's an obvious limit to this stuff, a point where it just isn't sensible to insist the consumer must be fully informed on all elements of the purchase. That's why buyer beware was abandoned as an absolute legal principle more than two hundred years ago - it just became straight up better in terms of economics, and in terms of making life a lot less annoying for everyone, to have some things removed as 'choices'... because they were things no-one would ever want.
Nope I just pile things in my mouth and i hope that it is edible, Oh wait no I actually take the time to see what I put into my body because holy gak I care about what I eat.
So if you want to blindly follow what your government says you keep at it. People who care about what they eat however.. will take the time to read
Kovnik Obama wrote: No one loses by losing the option to get trans fat fries.
That's plainly not true. I lose the ability to do my part to help companies that use trans fat stay in business, which in turn pisses off hippies and guys like Bloomberg.
The only thing better than ketchup on french fries is spiteful satisfaction. It's delicious.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that trans fats are like sawdust or chalk in bread.
Surely a little sawdust isn't bad right?
And now apropos nothing, the FDA defect levels handbook excerpt for mushrooms:
MUSHROOMS, CANNED AND DRIED
Insects
(AOAC 967.24) Average of over 20 or more maggots of any size per 100 grams of drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid or 15 grams of dried mushrooms
OR
Average of 5 or more maggots 2 mm or longer per 100 grams of drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid or 15 grams of dried mushrooms
Mites
(AOAC 967.24) Average of 75 mites per 100 grams drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid or 15 grams of dried mushrooms
Decomposition
(MPM-V100) Average of more than 10% of mushrooms are decomposed
DEFECT SOURCE: Insects - preharvest insect infestation, Mites - preharvest and/or post harvest infestation, Decomposition - preharvest infection
SIGNIFICANCE: Aesthetic
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that trans fats are like sawdust or chalk in bread.
Corpsesarefun wrote: So, for arguments sake, suppose a company renewed the age old tradition of bulking out bread with sawdust with only a tiny bit of text mentioning the percentile timber particulate content of the bread.
Would that be acceptable?
Precisely.
Trans-fats are primarily artificial chemicals that are made to replace other fats in order to reduce the overall cost of the product, they are no better than sawdust/chalk/bonemeal in bread.
In fact, as they actually have negative side effects, they are worse than sawdust/chalk/bonemeal in bread.
If you want decent french fries, cook them in beef dripping.
Trans fats are just another way for the big food companies to save a bit of cash.
It's just a cheap replacement to pad their profit margins at the expense of consumers.
marv335 wrote: If you want decent french fries, cook them in beef dripping.
Trans fats are just another way for the big food companies to save a bit of cash.
It's just a cheap replacement to pad their profit margins at the expense of consumers.
Sounds like the market could do an effective job of preventing them from doing so without government intervention.
whembly wrote: Okay... now I'm thinking you're starting to win me over.
You talking about that it's probably easier to slap warning labels on things that are discretely tangible... ie, taste, which transfat lacks.
Sorry, missed this post from you.
I'm saying if it's a product that a person might make an informed choice to consume, after they'd weighed up the taste against the health costs, then its best practice to just make sure the consumer is informed, but let him make his own choice. But there's some ingredients that a person will only consume because they don't know they're in the product, or they don't understand how bad they are for them.
We gave up on the idea of buyer beware generations ago, when we realised that the wheels of commerce work a little smoother when people don't have to read and research every single element of every single transaction they make, and that some basic level of agreed upon ground rules makes things a lot simpler for everyone. I think the understanding that our food shouldn't contain tasteless fattening agents with an awful impact on the human body should be included among those basic ground rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: We read the labels of everything we purchase that's a new purchase.
But you're right. Saying "read the label" is unfairly prejudicial against the illiterate.
Really? You read the list of additives that were in the fuel you put in your car, did you? And then when you went in the store to pay, you read the list of ingredients for the soft drink you bought? Sat there looking up every chemical word salad on your smart phone to learn about the health consequences of each, and then weighed those health impacts against your desire to have a nice sugary drink?
That would be very time consuming, and might explain explain why you had no idea you were four years behind in your reading on the causes of the GFC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Its not pure ideological purety. Its the same thing my wiener dogs like, just to be left alone. No one likes to be messed with.
Of course, and up to a certain point the 'leave me alone' principle is very important, and very piece of society.
But like any other principle, once you take it to its absolute extreme, then you're talking about ideology. And when we're talking about people's rights to consume a tasteless fattening agent, we're well in to the extremes of the argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninjacommando wrote: Nope I just pile things in my mouth and i hope that it is edible, Oh wait no I actually take the time to see what I put into my body because holy gak I care about what I eat.
So you read the label on every bottle of juice you buy? Read up on every chemical to make sure you're comfortable with the health consequences, and think that's what everyone should do... because the alternative is to remove the ability of people to eat really unhealthy, tasteless gak through ignorance.
cincydooley wrote: We read the labels of everything we purchase that's a new purchase.
But you're right. Saying "read the label" is unfairly prejudicial against the illiterate.
Really? You read the list of additives that were in the fuel you put in your car, did you? And then when you went in the store to pay, you read the list of ingredients for the soft drink you bought? Sat there looking up every chemical word salad on your smart phone to learn about the health consequences of each, and then weighed those health impacts against your desire to have a nice sugary drink?
That would be very time consuming, and might explain explain why you had no idea you were four years behind in your reading on the causes of the GFC.
[
Well, we are talking about consumables here, and as I'm not accustomed to ingesting my car fuel, nope, I don't read about that at all. Haven't had a soft drink in around 13 years, so that's moot, as I have it really no "desire to have a sugary drink". And yes, we look up every additive in all the prepackaged food we buy. Coincidentally, we but a lot of Amish protein and lots of fresh produce so....surprise surprise.... It makes it pretty easy. I did buy some beef jerky today though, which has some low sodium gluten free soy sauce in it. Is that a part of your word salad?
cincydooley wrote: Well, we are talking about consumables here, and as I'm not accustomed to ingesting my car fuel, nope, I don't read about that at all.
So how do you know that the fuel doesn't have additives that greatly reduce engine wear? You're just pumping that stuff in in complete ignorance...
Haven't had a soft drink in around 13 years, so that's moot, as I have it really no "desire to have a sugary drink". And yes, we look up every additive in all the prepackaged food we buy. Coincidentally, we but a lot of Amish protein and lots of fresh produce so....surprise surprise.... It makes it pretty easy. I did buy some beef jerky today though, which has some low sodium gluten free soy sauce in it. Is that a part of your word salad?
And as for word salad in beef jerky, well here's the first website I found after I typed beef jerky ingredients list in to google, and here's the ingredients list a few varieties; "beef, sugar, water, soy sauce solids (wheat, soybeans, salt), salt, natural spices and flavoring, hydrolyzed soy protein, monosodium glutamate, garlic powder, guar gum,. polysorbate 80, caramel color powder, sodium nitrite." "salt), wine, sugar, water, vinegar, salt, spices, onion powder, succinic acid, garlic powder, sodium benzoate], brown sugar, spices, liquid smoke, garlic." "beef, teriyaki seasoning (sugar, soy sauce solids [wheat, soybeans, salt]), salt, natural spices and flavoring, hydrolyzed soy protein, monosodium glutamate, garlic powder, guar gum,. polysorbate 80, caramel color powder, honey, water, teriyaki glaze (soy sauce [water, wheat, soybeans, salt], sugar, water, modified food starch, onion juice, vinegar, natural flavors, garlic powder, malic acid, spice, disodium inosinate, disodium guarylate), pepper, sodium nitrite"
I'd definitely think polysorbate 80, hydrolyzed soy protein, succinic acid and disodium guarylate all count as word salad. It is beyond absurd to insist that people develop a working knowledge of all those things just to make an informed choice about eating some beef jerky.
That is exactly how ridiculous your argument has gotten - "oh, you had a terrible reaction to some beef jerky, well you should have properly researched the potential side effects of disodium guarylate and hydrolyzed soy protein before you bought the jerky, you ignorant fool"
sebster wrote: That is exactly how ridiculous your argument has gotten - "oh, you had a terrible reaction to some beef jerky, well you should have properly researched the potential side effects of disodium guarylate and hydrolyzed soy protein before you bought the jerky, you ignorant fool"
I'm confused. Is it that one bite of trans fat will drop you dead, or is it that eating gakloads of trans fat will kill you in thirty years?
Seaward wrote: I'm confused. Is it that one bite of trans fat will drop you dead, or is it that eating gakloads of trans fat will kill you in thirty years?
See how I mentioned beef jerky and it's ingredients and not transfats... that should have made it clear to you I was talking about beef jerky and it's ingredients, and not transfats. And you see how I was replying to someone who made the claim that he looks up every additive in each food product he buys... that should have been a hint that I was replying to cincydooley's claim on reading about every additive in every product he buys, and not about the actual dangers of disodium guarylate or transfats.
As such, it should be clear that my comment on the (hypothetical and wildly exaggerated) dangers of disodium guarylate was to point out the folly of the position that all people should be completely aware of the dangers of every ingredient in every product they consume. The point is that it simply is not sensible to demand that the only thing preventing consumers from eating food that will kill them is the consumer's willingness to read every package label, and look up every single ingredient. The ingredient lists I gave were for dried, salted meat, about as crude a piece of food science as you're every going to get. And yet the products still containted a bunch of ingredients that very few people will be familiar with, that could be entirely benign or really, really bad for you, or anywhere somewhere in between.
At some point, you just have to accept that it's fething bonkers to expect every person to make an informed decision on every additive put in to their food. You have to accept that it is simply more efficient for society as a whole to identify products that no person would ever make an informed decision to consume, and to just remove that stuff from food.
sebster wrote: See how I mentioned beef jerky and it's ingredients and not transfats... that should have made it clear to you I was talking about beef jerky and it's ingredients, and not transfats.
So that whole line of argument has no applicability whatsoever to the trans fat discussion. Good. I was simply making sure.
sebster wrote: At some point, you just have to accept that it's fething bonkers to expect every person to make an informed decision on every additive put in to their food. You have to accept that it is simply more efficient for society as a whole to identify products that no person would ever make an informed decision to consume, and to just remove that stuff from food.
Possibly so, but trans fat isn't one of those. I've made the informed decision to eat food with trans fat in it plenty of times. So have a lot of people I know, now that I think about it.
cincydooley wrote: Well, we are talking about consumables here, and as I'm not accustomed to ingesting my car fuel, nope, I don't read about that at all.
So how do you know that the fuel doesn't have additives that greatly reduce engine wear? You're just pumping that stuff in in complete ignorance...
Haven't had a soft drink in around 13 years, so that's moot, as I have it really no "desire to have a sugary drink". And yes, we look up every additive in all the prepackaged food we buy. Coincidentally, we but a lot of Amish protein and lots of fresh produce so....surprise surprise.... It makes it pretty easy. I did buy some beef jerky today though, which has some low sodium gluten free soy sauce in it. Is that a part of your word salad?
And as for word salad in beef jerky, well here's the first website I found after I typed beef jerky ingredients list in to google, and here's the ingredients list a few varieties;
"beef, sugar, water, soy sauce solids (wheat, soybeans, salt), salt, natural spices and flavoring, hydrolyzed soy protein, monosodium glutamate, garlic powder, guar gum,. polysorbate 80, caramel color powder, sodium nitrite."
"salt), wine, sugar, water, vinegar, salt, spices, onion powder, succinic acid, garlic powder, sodium benzoate], brown sugar, spices, liquid smoke, garlic."
"beef, teriyaki seasoning (sugar, soy sauce solids [wheat, soybeans, salt]), salt, natural spices and flavoring, hydrolyzed soy protein, monosodium glutamate, garlic powder, guar gum,. polysorbate 80, caramel color powder, honey, water, teriyaki glaze (soy sauce [water, wheat, soybeans, salt], sugar, water, modified food starch, onion juice, vinegar, natural flavors, garlic powder, malic acid, spice, disodium inosinate, disodium guarylate), pepper, sodium nitrite"
I'd definitely think polysorbate 80, hydrolyzed soy protein, succinic acid and disodium guarylate all count as word salad. It is beyond absurd to insist that people develop a working knowledge of all those things just to make an informed choice about eating some beef jerky.
That is exactly how ridiculous your argument has gotten - "oh, you had a terrible reaction to some beef jerky, well you should have properly researched the potential side effects of disodium guarylate and hydrolyzed soy protein before you bought the jerky, you ignorant fool"
Also, what the hell is liquid smoke?
What kind of beef jerky are you eating/ looking at? Putting additives in beef jerky is completely unnecessary. We typically get it from our hunting friends (which is venison obviously) but there are plenty of very simple, natural beef jerkies out there. EDIT: that cost no more than Oberto or Jack Links.
That is how ridiculous your argument has gotten - "oh you saw that word salad on the labeling and still chose to buy it when there are tons or options out there that don't have any of that gak in it".
I mean, it's incredibly incredibly easy to buy prepackaged food that doesn't have mountains of additives in it. Peanut butter is a perfect example. What does the peanut butter we buy list? Peanuts and salt. What does Jif list? Hydrogenated oils (which, are of course trans fats) and diglycerides. And they sell then next to each other on any super market shelf.
Here's a simple rule: if you can't pronounce it it probably isn't natural and probably doesn't belong in your body.
At some point, you just have to accept that it's fething bonkers to expect every person to make an informed decision on every additive put in to their food. You have to accept that it is simply more efficient for society as a whole to identify products that no person would ever make an informed decision to consume, and to just remove that stuff from food.
It's also fething bonkers to expect every person to be fine with letting a government make your eating decisions for you.
At some point, you just have to accept that it's fething bonkers to expect every person to make an informed decision on every additive put in to their food. You have to accept that it is simply more efficient for society as a whole to identify products that no person would ever make an informed decision to consume, and to just remove that stuff from food.
It's also fething bonkers to expect every person to be fine with letting a government make your eating decisions for you.
And the government isn't telling anybody that they can't eat trans fats. Nobody is going to get punished for eating trans fats, so this whole "I should be able to eat what I want" argument is pretty stupid.
The government can however regulate what kind of foods and additives are sold. Which is of course quite a bit different from telling you what you can stuff in your mouth.
It's an important distinction, but one that seems like it has been ignored over the last 8 pages.
I hope that you read the labels on any ingridients that your friends might use for their jerky.
At some point, you just have to accept that it's fething bonkers to expect every person to make an informed decision on every additive put in to their food. You have to accept that it is simply more efficient for society as a whole to identify products that no person would ever make an informed decision to consume, and to just remove that stuff from food.
It's also fething bonkers to expect every person to be fine with letting a government make your eating decisions for you.
And the government isn't telling anybody that they can't eat trans fats. Nobody is going to get punished for eating trans fats, so this whole "I should be able to eat what I want" argument is pretty stupid.
The government can however regulate what kind of foods and additives are sold. Which is of course quite a bit different from telling you what you can stuff in your mouth.
It's an important distinction, but one that seems like it has been ignored over the last 8 pages.
I hope that you read the labels on any ingridients that your friends might use for their jerky.
Does freshly killed and then dried deer meat have some I don't know about? Maybe salt and pepper does too? Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to put loads of gak on your meat to make it taste good. Meat is good just the way it is.
Does freshly killed and then dried deer meat have some I don't know about? Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to put loads of gak on your meat to make it taste good. Meat is good just the way it is.
Are you talking about "dried deer meat" or are you talking about Jerky?
If you are using arbitrary definitions that only you know then you must excuse us for having a hard time following you. Most people have a specific type of preparation in mind when they hear people talk about jerky, which usually includes marinates and/or seasonings.
But if you are using jerky to simply imply the drying of meat, then please proceed. And if you know 100% for certain that your friends don't use any additives or commercial spices on their dried meat strips, then you are safe.
Although you should probably look through their cabinets just to make sure there is nothing they might be using that you don't agree with.
I've made It with them before a few times. Fanciest we ever get is Garlic, honey, and paprika. Usually it's a simple salt and peppering of the meat, then into the dehydrator (or oven)
I mean, jerky is simply dried meat..... There's literally no reason to marinade it if you don't want to. And there's definitely no reason to use a cure.
cincydooley wrote: I've made It with them before a few times. Fanciest we ever get is Garlic, honey, and paprika. Usually it's a simple salt and peppering of the meat, then into the dehydrator (or oven)
I mean, jerky is simply dried meat..... There's literally no reason to marinade it if you don't want to. And there's definitely no reason to use a cure.
Well, lot's of people do. Which is the reason why I asked "I hope you read the labels of what your friends are using". Which would also require knowing what they use, which you do.
You have go to easy on it though. It's one of those ingredients that makes things bitter super fast if you overuse it.
d-usa wrote: The government can however regulate what kind of foods and additives are sold. Which is of course quite a bit different from telling you what you can stuff in your mouth.
....but.... but.... FREEDOM!
You guys remember that scandal in China a few years ago, where they sold tainted powdered milk, and a bunch of babies died? I believe they executed the head of their (equivalent to the) FDA over that.
It seems like some people here think the invisible hand of the free market should take care of that - that if milk powder is tainted and kills enough babies, why, people will just stop buying that brand. No big-government bureaucrat should be telling these guys not to adulterate food with melamine, right? So long as it's on the label, caveat emptor and all.
Seaward wrote: It turns out that all food will eventually kill you.
Ban everything.
Indeed. I mean seriously, why is Methanol in drinking alcohol banned anyway? When I say I want to get blind drunk, I'm not being metaphorical! Bloody government types, limiting the amount of methanol in my Vodak.
Cows are 5d beings or higher. They incarnated on the 3d Earth to provide 5d food (beef) for humans. They provide 5d food for humans by converting 3d foods into 5d flesh.
Their main mission is to serve mankind by feeding you, thus helping you to return home.
Not sure about this.
I've long suspected that cows are up to something, they're always very shifty if you watch them. Preferably from a hide or similar.
"EMPOWERED ASCENSION"
or
IMMORTALITY
INITIATION WORKSHOPS
BY
WILEY BROOKS, BREATHARIAN AND FOUNDER OF
The Breatharian Institute of America
To do this workshop you must be able to spend 1 or 2 weeks traveling
to special places throughout the four corner states.
The students who complete this workshop will be the
spiritual leaders and teachers of the New World.
The workshop includes a visit to Earth Prime in the 5th Dimension
in your physical body if you are ready.
My Workshops are being extended to March 23, 2014
The cost of the workshop is $100,000.00 USD
The process starts with a $10,000.00 USD deposit which must be
received 30 days before the beginning date of workshop.
Click on Payment Information sub-tab
Putting additives in beef jerky is completely unnecessary.
And putting transfats in foods is also completely unecessary. And yet companies do it.
That is how ridiculous your argument has gotten - "oh you saw that word salad on the labeling and still chose to buy it when there are tons or options out there that don't have any of that gak in it".
And now you're just asserting that any additives should be rejected, even the ones that have no health implications. Which is both childishly simplistic, and also makes a mess of your main argument, as it leaves you arguing that government must not ban any product because people have the absolute right to buy products that no-one should ever buy.
You're basically trying to argue that it's terrible, just terrible that a choice might be removed from people, when it's a choice that you would never take, and don't think anyone should ever make. It's quickly reached the point where your argument is just as contrived, and just as boring as those lefties who always want to be offended on behalf of someone else.
It's also fething bonkers to expect every person to be fine with letting a government make your eating decisions for you.
Except, of course, we don't just give them free reign to go about banning as they please, like your grand conservative fantasy drives you to believe. They have a very limited hand, and only ban products when they have clear and significant negative health consequences, and the product is something that no person fully informed on the product would ever choose to consume.
Additionally: http://www.kravejerky.com/nutrition. You'll notice the "worst" thing there is evaporated cane sugar, which of course already eliminates many of the steps of the refining process and is arguably more "natural" than normal brown or white sugars.
People should be allowed to chose to eat trans fats if they want to. It isn't the governments place to ban them, unless they plan on banning everything that's bad for you, which would be categorically absurd.
Well, I'm glad you informed yourself here past the first result google returned you. Additionally, I think I may make you a t-shirt that says "as I already explained..." Since it's like, your go to catch phrase.
If somebody wants to smoke, there is literally no way to get that without cigarettes. If somebody wants to fried chicken, there are plenty of ways to get that same flavour if transfats are banned.
People should be allowed to chose to eat trans fats if they want to. It isn't the governments place to ban them, unless they plan on banning everything that's bad for you, which would be categorically absurd.
This is ridiculous, I've stated several times that there's a condition for banning that doesn't involve just banning everything that's bad for a person;
"identify products that no person would ever make an informed decision to consume, and to just remove that stuff from food"
"I'm saying if it's a product that a person might make an informed choice to consume, after they'd weighed up the taste against the health costs, then its best practice to just make sure the consumer is informed, but let him make his own choice. But there's some ingredients that a person will only consume because they don't know they're in the product, or they don't understand how bad they are for them."
"The point is that in almost all cases that unhealthy choice has some kind of upside. McDonalds is convenient, and when you pick the couple of decent items on the menu then it tastes okay. So in that case there is way too much subjectivity to bad McDonald's, because for some people in some specific situations it is the optimum choice. So government takes a step back accepts that it's too subjective for them to step in and act in everyone's overall best interest, and just accepts that some portion of the population will over consume and do themselves considerable harm. But then there's other products where there simply is no upside. Clothing that is no way remarkable, but includes materials that are, like carcinogenic or something... we simply know that no person who is properly informed of the dangers of the product will choose it. A product that is chosen only through the ignorance of the consumer is not a choice that needs to be preserved. And transfats, with absolutely no upside, are a product just like that."
That's just going back over the last couple of pages of the thread in a quick skim. And one of the above statements was made directly to you. And despite that you are just completely oblivious of the point, and still acting as if the only possible conditions are 'government bans everything bad for us' and 'everything is legal and all responsibility to know about chemical gunk lies with the consumer'. You have as little idea of the possibility of another condition 'ban things that consumers would only choose to consume if they had no idea it was in the product, or no idea what harm it did' You just don't read any thread you post in. You completely waste your time here.
Well, I'm glad you informed yourself here past the first result google returned you. Additionally, I think I may make you a t-shirt that says "as I already explained..." Since it's like, your go to catch phrase.
I'm informed enough to know that most beef jerky is made through chemical processes that sound more like the development of rocket fuel than food, I just wasn't informed enough to know what exact list of chemicals is used in . So sorry I couldn't just rattle hydrolyzed soy protein, polysorbate 80, disodium inosinate off the top of my head. So sorry for going and actually getting some real world information to substantiate my point, I know how much you hate that kind of thing.
And yeah, I often type out 'as I already explained', just as I often repeat the same points to you over and over again. Because you don't read, don't consider, don't argue. You just sit there prattling the same couple of lines over and over again, because ultimately you just don't fething care if your argument makes any sense, you just want to crusade on behalf of your beliefs.
sebster wrote: And yeah, I often type out 'as I already explained', just as I often repeat the same points to you over and over again. Because you don't read, don't consider, don't argue. You just sit there prattling the same couple of lines over and over again, because ultimately you just don't fething care if your argument makes any sense, you just want to crusade on behalf of your beliefs.
As I already explained, I'm informed enough to kno that plenty of people make their own beef or deer jerky which looks nothing like the process for making rocket fuel, and I was informed enough to detail the process and then link to you the only beef jerky we buy that dpesnt include any list of chemicals. So sorry for going and actually getting some real world information prove you wrong; I know how much you hate admitting you're wrong about anything.
There are plenty of alternative to cigarettes that aren't as harmful. One of the best ways to get off them is a controlled dose of nicotine instead of smoking.
Yet we don't ban cigarettes. Why should we ban trans-fats when they are basically in the same situation. Something that's horribly bad for you which no sane person would choose.
People do plenty of things that nobody would make a rational decision to do. We aren't always rational beings. And its not the government's job to make that decision for us.
Label trans-fats, educate the feth out of people, put a tax on them if you want.
If we MUST ban trans-fats then by that same logic we should ban cigarettes.
At least trans-fats aren't guaranteed to kill you. Like alcohol, they aren't lethal unless consumed in unhealthy quantities, and paired with a lack of exercise. A cigarette addiction isn't safe under any circumstances.
It makes no more sense to ban trans-fats than it makes sense to ban cigarettes(also something nobody in their right mind would ever do)
Label trans-fats, educate the feth out of people, put a tax on them if you want.
If we MUST ban trans-fats then by that same logic we should ban cigarettes.
At least trans-fats aren't guaranteed to kill you. Like alcohol, they aren't lethal unless consumed in unhealthy quantities, and paired with a lack of exercise. A cigarette addiction isn't safe under any circumstances.
Insaniak has already concisely expressed the difference between these two situations 7 pages ago. Truly, the argument just loops around.
It is irrelevant that there would be tremendous uproar over banning Cigarettes, yet Trans-fats will not elicit the same response. It doesn't change the fact that one is miles and away worse for you, yet that one is perfectly legal and nobody would ever suggest banning it.
Everybody knows smoking is bad for you, thanks to all that education we've put forth on the subject. But people still have the choice to participate in it. If someone is willing to buy and consume trans-fats that is their choice.
Label what contains them, educate people, and let them decide. it is a complete waste of the government's time to ban trans-fats, not that they wouldn't find something else to waste time on but one less issue is an improvement.
Honestly, just because 1 thing is bad for you and isn't banned isn't a valid reason not to ban something else that is also bad. I love hating on the FDA but Insaniak did have a good point and it's not irrelevant. The government would have to fight the tobacco industry to ban cigarettes. They're firmly established in our culture and society. Trans fats aren't. His point is that getting rid of transfats is a realistically obtainable goal right now, while cigarettes and alcohol is not.
We could easily ban any number of minor things which are bad for us.
But the threat trans-fats pose isn't enough to bother with anymore than labeling and education. Besides the culture we live in is already veering away heavily from trans-fats.
Its like suggesting we ban people from printing a 3-D gun when there are already tons and tons of laws regarding the construction of firearms which are more than sufficient to cover 3-D printing.
Its a non-issue that will be rectified by existing environmental forces. Trans-fats simply aren't found in as many foods as they used to be, and people have become conscious about what they eat.
Nothing more than pointless legislation is what it is.
Then who cares if they pass it? Let the politicians pass their spiffy law and gloat about all the lives they saved. They're lives are pretty depressing they deserve a win
People will still get overweight with or without trans-fats. All it will do is reduce the profits of those products which use them.
Anybody who thinks this will help solve the obesity crisis is deluded. It was caused by a combination of factors, including high fat diet and a lack of exercise. Trans-fats are just a convenient scapegoat.
Its just another "feel good" proposal where you can look like you are addressing an issue and get all the political points without actually accomplishing anything.
My point was that if the law in effect does nothing and is just a waste of tax dollars, then what do we care that trans-fats are being banned? We sit back, point out it's a waste of time, and it goes through, life goes on.
Just more fodder for jokes about the ineffectualness of the FDA
It's not debatable that obesity is an epidemic in this country, and that trans fats are a not inconsequential piece of that puzzle. Yes, there are other factors.
Grey Templar wrote: Anybody who thinks this will help solve the obesity crisis is deluded.
That's an excellent counterpoint to a contention no one has made.
So you're saying if I keep this up Faye Dunaway is going to get shot? Hmm... she was pretty hot and I'd hate to see that happen, but someone on the internet is wrong and I don't know if I can help myself. Tough call.
I vote we pass a law making treadmills mandatory. All citizens must use it for an hour a day or five miles. Mills will be monitored remotely. Failure to comply will result in a strictly enforced diet of peanut butter.
cincydooley wrote: As I already explained, I'm informed enough to kno that plenty of people make their own beef or deer jerky which looks nothing like the process for making rocket fuel, and I was informed enough to detail the process and then link to you the only beef jerky we buy that dpesnt include any list of chemicals.
That's the fething point, for feth's sake. fething Jesus fething Christ.
It can be done by other means. Jerky doesn't have to be made with whatever the hell all of that crap was, it just gets done that way because it's cheaper and/or easier for producers. So the only people who by the chemical sludge variant are the people who have no idea its in the jerky, or no idea what that sludge does to them (if it does anything, I have know idea, and no inclination to go and look up what polysorbate 80 or any of the other mystery ingredients is, or what it does).
Which leaves you with two positions - insisting it is very easy to make and buy food without these ingredients, and insisting that people must have the choice to buy alternatives that are no different other than being very unhealthy.
So sorry for going and actually getting some real world information prove you wrong; I know how much you hate admitting you're wrong about anything.
Real world knowledge? The idea that meat can be dried without complex chemical compounds? Holy gak, thanks for that revelation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.
Not all fattening agents are the same, and tranfats are much worse for the human body than other types. That's like, the whole fething point, and something that's been mentioned since quite early in the thread.
I never claimed they weren't worse for you than other fats.
But we are talking about obesity here. And having slightly better fats isn't going to do a lick of good.
We are better off just labeling them and doing stuff that will really make a difference. Like exercise programs and educating people about the problems with different ingredients. That will do a much better job than simply banning them.
LordofHats wrote: I vote we pass a law making treadmills mandatory. All citizens must use it for an hour a day or five miles. Mills will be monitored remotely. Failure to comply will result in a strictly enforced diet of peanut butter.
So what about those people that have bad knees and can't take the repeated pounding of a treadmill? Are we allowed to exclude them? Or give them the option of an elliptical?
@seb - the Krave stuff is more expensive per ounce than the mass produced stuff by like, $ 0.30 an ounce. Just like peanut butter with no additives is typically more expensive than your regular Creamy Jif. Those harmful ingredients often allow foods to be cheaper or to last longer. These choices are often more economical for many Americas. I won't claim to know what the exact difference is, and I'd need to do some research to really speak to it, but those additives help. When money is short, people often opt for those options:
IMO the better option is to educate people on the dangers of trans fat (like we already do) and allow them to make that choice themselves.
Honestly, if the government wants to involve itself on getting the US more healthy, they could start by looking at who they're giving their food subsidies to, or by placing more emphasis on health and diet classes for parents, especially those in a more poor demographic. I know tons of health teachers that would love to do this (if they haven't already been cut by their districts due to budget cuts)
So what about those people that have bad knees and can't take the repeated pounding of a treadmill? Are we allowed to exclude them? Or give them the option of an elliptical?
So what about those people that have bad knees and can't take the repeated pounding of a treadmill? Are we allowed to exclude them? Or give them the option of an elliptical?
A good point. We'll resort to water polo
As one of those people with the aforementioned terrible knees (no cartilage left in either after 20 years as an athlete), I really should look into swimming or something like water polo more.
Just a thought, but is it not, ultimately, the liberty of the individual being stepped on here? We, as american individuals, should be allowed to put whatever we damn well please into our own bodies, plain and simple. The dangers of trans-fats have been known for an exceedingly long time by this point, and frankly, well, whomever chooses to put this crap into their own bodies can deal with the consequences, provided they aren't using my tax dollars to foot their medical bills. My view on recreational drug use is the same.
Bloomberg needs to take an exceedingly long walk off of a worthlessly short pier, in my opinion. His drive for a nanny state is, at best, a fool's errand, and, at worst, a prime example of the type of politicking that will bring us skipping merrily along into the arms of tyranny, in the end. Let the market and the informed consumer figure out what will or will not be stocked on store shelves based on personal preference, not on a government overstepping its bounds ever further, under the false pretense of it being in our "best interest.". In the meantime, having stricter controls on the pharmaceutical industry would not be a bad thing, as there have been far too many prescription drugs, of late, causing far too many health issues through legitimate use coming to market well before they are ready, and without significant risk/benefit analysis.
Dronze wrote: Just a thought, but is it not, ultimately, the liberty of the individual being stepped on here?
Not really, no. You're unlikely to wind up with a law that makes the existence of trans fats illegal, just one that makes it illegal for companies to use them in food. So you'll presumably still be free to buy the appropriate chemicals and whip yourself up a big ol' batch of artificial fat if you really feel the need.
It accomplishes the same thing as saying "Trans-fats are illegal", so really its exactly the same.
Thinking they aren't is how all liberties get stolen away. A little bit at a time, with laws that don't explicitly stop something. Just make it harder and harder to practice, till it is effectively banned and nobody could do it.
So really, it is exactly the same as banning trans-fats outright.
Trans-fats aren't the issue, its the freedom of choice. You could end up with effective gun bans by them making selling certain caliber ammunition illegal. That wouldn't, by your definition, violate the 2nd amendment. But it's accomplishing the same thing, and that is what matters.
cincydooley wrote: @seb - the Krave stuff is more expensive per ounce than the mass produced stuff by like, $ 0.30 an ounce. Just like peanut butter with no additives is typically more expensive than your regular Creamy Jif. Those harmful ingredients often allow foods to be cheaper or to last longer. These choices are often more economical for many Americas. I won't claim to know what the exact difference is, and I'd need to do some research to really speak to it, but those additives help. When money is short, people often opt for those options:
Grey Templar wrote: Trans-fats aren't the issue, its the freedom of choice. You could end up with effective gun bans by them making selling certain caliber ammunition illegal. That wouldn't, by your definition, violate the 2nd amendment. But it's accomplishing the same thing, and that is what matters.
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.
By limiting my choice you are taking away my freedom.
My choice would be to eat the less harmful stuff, but its not a choice if there isn't an alternative. You're basically saying people are incapable of making their own decisions and need their glorious leaders to make the decisions for them. Everybody should be insulted by laws like this.
insaniak wrote: You're unlikely to wind up with a law that makes the existence of trans fats illegal
actually, you do. Passing such a ban makes the manufacture of things like crisco, a hydrogenated vegtable fat, illegal.
just one that makes it illegal for companies to use them in food.
thus shortening shelf stability, and, despite any claims otherwise, driving up the already high price of commonly available foodstuffs.
So you'll presumably still be free to buy the appropriate chemicals and whip yourself up a big ol' batch of artificial fat if you really feel the need.
yeah, because we need meth-lab levels of danger because lard is difficult to find, doesn't keep very long, and granny wants to make biscuits once in a blue moon. Tell me again why this is even a remotely good idea?
Hydrogenated fats are made by, essentially, bubbling hydrogen gas through some source of unsaturated fat. If your neighbor started doing this next to your place of residence, I doubt you would respond well to it.
Dronze wrote: thus shortening shelf stability, and, despite any claims otherwise, driving up the already high price of commonly available foodstuffs.
The fact that stuff lasts for ridiculous lengths of time on the shelf becuase we pump them full of artificial ingredients isn't really a selling point, dude...
Hydrogenated fats are made by, essentially, bubbling hydrogen gas through some source of unsaturated fat. If your neighbor started doing this next to your place of residence, I doubt you would respond well to it.
cincydooley wrote: @seb - the Krave stuff is more expensive per ounce than the mass produced stuff by like, $ 0.30 an ounce. Just like peanut butter with no additives is typically more expensive than your regular Creamy Jif. Those harmful ingredients often allow foods to be cheaper or to last longer. These choices are often more economical for many Americas.
Absolutely, and that's a fair point when it comes to things like preservatives in peanut butter and whatever the hell weirdness is used to produce that chemical beef jerky I mentioned above. Cost is a very good reason for government to stay away from banning products that have negative health impacts.
But we're talking about transfats here, and the price point between that and less harmful fattening agents is really, really marginal. It's an extremely cheap part of the process in the first place, and there are plenty of alternatives that cost only slightly more. No-one is missing their rent payment because the frozen lasagne cost two cents more than it used to.
Dronze wrote: thus shortening shelf stability, and, despite any claims otherwise, driving up the already high price of commonly available foodstuffs.
The fact that stuff lasts for ridiculous lengths of time on the shelf becuase we pump them full of artificial ingredients isn't really a selling point, dude...
the fact that it allows for a larger economy of scale, however, is, driving down labor costs, material costs, and ultimately, consumer price.
Hydrogenated fats are made by, essentially, bubbling hydrogen gas through some source of unsaturated fat. If your neighbor started doing this next to your place of residence, I doubt you would respond well to it.
Really? But what about their freedoms?
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.
It's no different than any other legislation that would regulate health and safety in the food industry.
It's generally expected that we should try to keep poison out of our food, or at least keep it to minimal levels. That's not an issue about freedom of choice.
It'd be similar to complaining that you're legal requirement to wear a hard hat while working at a construction zone infringes on your freedom of choice.
Smoking is effectively banned in much of the developed world.
We haven't got to the point where it is illegal to smoke in your own home, but it is illegal to smoke in offices, hotels, restaurants, pubs, or in public outside except in designated smoking areas.
Cigarette advertising has been increasingly restricted.
No government has yet come out and made cigarettes illegal in the same way as cannabis; (but see the relaxation of legal pressure against cannabis).
The social pressure against smoking is very high.
There hasn't been an outcry except from members of ASH and similar groups, and they effectively have lost the argument.
er thinks is wrong because they saw it on Oprah or Good Morning America.
