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.

 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.

It seems to me that trans fats are like sawdust or chalk in bread.

Except they're actually edible.

Chalk and sawdust are edible, that's why bakers used to put them in bread.

 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

Yum yum. I'll take extra on my pizza please.

Now who wants to hear about the sauce?

Eating a maggot's not going to kill you.

 Seaward wrote:

The only thing better than ketchup on french fries is mayo.

Fixed that for you.

Accept the truth of the mayo or burn in soppy fries hell for all eternities.

 Seaward wrote:
Eating a maggot's not going to kill you.

Oh, I know that. Lots of bugs, properly prepared are actually quite tasty.

It's always fun to see people's reactions when you trot out the handbook though.

 daedalus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Eating a maggot's not going to kill you.

Oh, I know that. Lots of bugs, properly prepared are actually quite tasty.

It's always fun to see people's reactions when you trot out the handbook though.

Isn't there one about the acceptable level of rat droppings in hot dogs, or is that just a myth?

 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.

It doesn't appear to have done so thusfar.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
It doesn't appear to have done so thusfar.

Oh? Encountering a lot of food with trans fat, are you?

You aren't? They're everywhere.

Not since various governments issued health warnings that prompted the food industry to remove it.

LOL, you got me on this one, I had a three paragraph angry rant, about this and cigarettes... Leave us alone Uncle Sham!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Not since various governments issued health warnings that prompted the food industry to remove it.

So warnings were enough to get consumers to stop buying, but a ban is still necessary?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Not since various governments issued health warnings that prompted the food industry to remove it.

Exactly.

 whembly wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I have the right to put my wang in a toaster if I so choose to do so!

Making hot dog already? o.O

 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.

 sebster wrote:
.


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.


[

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"


Also, what the hell is liquid smoke?

 sebster wrote:

Also, what the hell is liquid smoke?

Bong-water.

 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?

 sebster wrote:

Also, what the hell is liquid smoke?

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

It does taste good though.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

It does taste good though.

Thanks. Makes sense, but is nowhere near as it's name made me think it would be

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

It's also fething bonkers to expect every person to be fine with letting a government make your eating decisions for you.

 cincydooley wrote:

 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.

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.