Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

 Ouze wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dead simple, really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Didn't someone already say that once here?

 cincydooley wrote:

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

Didn't someone already say that once here?

Yeah, but people are ignoring that distinction.

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

Except it's not.

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

Good reason for whom? The consumer or the manufacturer?

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

Except it's not.

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

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

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

 Alfndrate wrote:

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

Good reason for whom? The consumer or the manufacturer?

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

[EDIT - 300th post!]

-Shrike- wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

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

Good reason for whom? The consumer or the manufacturer?

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

[EDIT - 300th post!]

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

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

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

 cincydooley wrote:

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 Extreaminatus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't get that right at all.

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



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

Dronze wrote:

 Extreaminatus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

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

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

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

I don't get that right at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Extreaminatus wrote:

Dronze wrote:

 Extreaminatus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

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

ethylene glycol solvent synthetic 1998 Kidney damage


Thanks, Clinton.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Extreaminatus wrote:

Dronze wrote:

 Extreaminatus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

My mistake, then.

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:


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

Wait. What? No. No. No.

Thomas Jefferson would heartily disagree with you.

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 sebster wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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