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.

 Seaward wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Then I guess you aren't outraged with this issue then.

This is the definition of 'needlessly.'

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/needless

Merriam-Webster wrote:need·less adjective \ˈnēd-ləs\
: not needed or necessary

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

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").

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

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 food shouldn't be regulated because "you be allowed to kill yourself in whatever manner you like"?

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
So food shouldn't be regulated because "you be allowed to kill yourself in whatever manner you like"?

Not on the basis of it being potentially bad for you in the long term, no.

I suppose you take issue with some existing food regulation laws as well then?

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
I suppose you take issue with some existing food regulation laws as well then?

Some, yes.

You'll find I take issue with an awful lot of government regulation.

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?

Are they hiding it or owning up to it? I simply wouldn't buy that bread. Behold, the market at work.

So you have no moral qualms with a manufacturer reducing costs by using a potentially harmful ingredient?

 Seaward wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

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?

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
So you have no moral qualms with a manufacturer reducing costs by using a potentially harmful ingredient?

I'd be against cigarette sales if that were the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would you support the legalisation of heroin and other drugs?

I do support the legalization of heroin and other drugs.

That's fair enough, then.

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.

Wait...

Did you just blame the victim?

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Wait...

Did you just blame the victim?

No. There is no victim.

 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?

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

I don't think he is hypocritical, his morals are consistent if somewhat dubious.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 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!!!

Dihydrogen Oxide has killed more sailors than hurricanes, scurvy, and sea monsters combined.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
So food shouldn't be regulated because "you be allowed to kill yourself in whatever manner you like"?

Do you believe that people shouldn't have the right to end their lives how they see fit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
So you have no moral qualms with a manufacturer reducing costs by using a potentially harmful ingredient?

Wood is not food. Fat is food. Ask the Egyptians who liked a hippo on holiday.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

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.

Unless the government subsidizes it, anyway.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
I don't think he is hypocritical, his morals are consistent if somewhat dubious.

What about them are dubious?

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

GG

Or how about you simply read your labels and avoid the gak that you don't want in your body?