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.

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

Nah, that requires independent thinking and decision making.

 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.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 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 ).

Edit: It's like a list of the world's best things: http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20533295,00.html

 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.

 whembly wrote:
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

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."

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 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.

 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.

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 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.

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.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 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).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

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)

I don't know...never been there.

News flash... we ain't Europeans.

How do you explain the smoking stigma here then?

 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:

How do you explain the smoking stigma here then?

Bleeding Heart Liberals, Communists, Hippies, Bible-Thumpers and Hitler.....


Am I doing that right?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How do you explain the smoking stigma here then?

Bleeding Heart Liberals, Communists, Hippies, Bible-Thumpers and Hitler.....


Am I doing that right?

fething Hilter!

Go to Russia. Fething half the smog is second hand smoke.

 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.

So they choose not to avoid it. That's their problem. Let them reap the consequences.

heh... don't think she had problems with it...

 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.

 sebster wrote:

It isn't. Lewis' intent is quite clear.

Okay... fine. Is this better?

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the
insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
-Brandis

Can we stop nitpicking...

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

Yet, they're perfectly legal.

 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.

Jesus. We need to warn people.