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.

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

Except its debatable if this will save any lives.

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.

/sarcasm

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

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except its debatable if this will save any lives.

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.

If you ban trans-fats, they will just replace them with other fats. Nothing will have been solved. thus it is a pointless action.

We just need a cure for obesity. Since, you know, the ADA says it's a disease now.

the most effective cure is to get people to be more active, along with better diet(although that is secondary)

Exercise is the treatment and the prevention.

 Grey Templar wrote:
the most effective cure is to get people to be more active, along with better diet(although that is secondary)

Exercise is the treatment and the prevention.

You're telling me it's education and exercise, and not bands or pills or gastric bypass? Whaaaaat?!?

The good news is that gastric bypass surgery should be covered by the ACA, right?

 Ouze wrote:

Spoiler:

It's just the way it is.

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Anybody who thinks this will help solve the obesity crisis is deluded.

Anyone who thinks that banning trans fats will single-handledly solve it, certainly.

However, pushing for the use of less harmful ingredients in food in general is a worthy opening salvo in that battle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you ban trans-fats, they will just replace them with other fats.

Yes, that's exactly the point of it.

You might want to look up the difference between trans fats and other fats.

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:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0f9aa9d0-4336-11e3-8350-00144feabdc0.html

And they should be allowed to make those choices.

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?

A good point. We'll resort to water polo

 LordofHats wrote:

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:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0f9aa9d0-4336-11e3-8350-00144feabdc0.html

And they should be allowed to make those choices.

This right here

 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.

Really? But what about their freedoms?

 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.

 insaniak wrote:

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.