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.

Dronze wrote:
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.

Yes, the cheaper, safer alternative to making their own chemical additive in order to slowly kill themselves is to allow shops to sell them foodstuffs that contain that chemical additive instead...


Ok, so lets say that instead of banning trans fats, your government puts a heap of money into funding education about diet and lifestyle. And just for giggles, lets say that all the kids currently bludging their way through the public school system suddenly say 'Holy crap, they're teaching us about nutrition, now?!?' and start paying attention in class. And then in 20 years time after their parents have all died of massive coronaries, the public backlash encourages all of the food producers to stop using trans fats in their products... and suddenly, you can't buy anything with trans fats in them.

Will you then be complaining that your freedoms are being maligned, because companies aren't making less healthy food just in case you want to eat it?


Although, really, isn't that still the government's fault? Whether they ban trans fats now, or fund an education program to encourage people to stop eating them, either way they're gone. Either way the government is ultimately responsible for your inability to buy foods that contain a particular unhealthy chemical additive.

The bastards.

Dronze wrote:
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.

I think this shows how much you and other people opposing this FDA proposal are arguing from the abstract, talking about the notion of banning food types in general, and not about the specific realities of transfats. Sure there are products like tobacco that are bad for us, and if they were banned then a black market would form because people genuinely want to smoke, no matter how bad it is for you, and they will get their product even if its banned (opening up all the problems of a black market).

But transfats are a cheap, long lasting fattening agent. If banned, there will be no home production from people desperate to get some transfats in their food. Instead they'll keep buying the same products that they used to buy, except now they'll include some other fattening agent that is less likely to cause a heart attack. There is not going to be darkened rooms across the country in which people bubble up some hydrogen, because someone wants some chip oil that will last a little longer.

Seriously, the US government moves to ban something unnatural from food that is harming peoples health and people complain about it being unfair because of cost and "freedom"...

This just comes across as more "profit above all else" nonsense. Very very strange.

The really odd thing is people in the US are most likely to sue when they are given the choice and chose the wrong one.

 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.

The point is trans fats are worse than other fats.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Seriously, the US government moves to ban something unnatural from food that is harming peoples health and people complain about it being unfair because of cost and "freedom"...

This just comes across as more "profit above all else" nonsense. Very very strange.

I'm quite a fan of profit.

It seems my company might be changing some of it's regulatory content due to this ban on partially hydrogenated oils. Normally when it came to the use of those, they were "generally regarded as safe" with this proposed ban on PHOs, this is no longer the case... Great and we just released new regulatory content too

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Trans-fats aren't the issue, its the freedom of choice.

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.

Yeah, and I deman to be able to use DDT all I want too!

 Easy E wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Trans-fats aren't the issue, its the freedom of choice.

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.

Yeah, and I deman to be able to use DDT all I want too!

That's a completely different issue. DDT use affected others without consent. Consumption of trans fats is a personal choice, and as such, has no real external impact. It is, contrary to popular belief, not the government's job to moniter the health of it's population unless it serves as a threat to the health of the population at large, in cases such as an outbreak of a particularly potent and communicable illness. If you want to know what you're eating, read the label. In the case of agricultural products, well, you could, were it not for the wider environmental impact necessitating an outright ban, argue that agricultural pesticides used on any plant matter you're about to buy should be clearly stated.

Also the FDA didn't regulate DDT out.

Dronze wrote:
That's a completely different issue. DDT use affected others without consent. Consumption of trans fats is a personal choice, and as such, has no real external impact. It is, contrary to popular belief, not the government's job to moniter the health of it's population unless it serves as a threat to the health of the population at large, in cases such as an outbreak of a particularly potent and communicable illness. If you want to know what you're eating, read the label. In the case of agricultural products, well, you could, were it not for the wider environmental impact necessitating an outright ban, argue that agricultural pesticides used on any plant matter you're about to buy should be clearly stated.

First up, if it is not written in law, not followed by government, and not popular belief... then basically it's just your opinion. You don't get to decide how you'd like things to be, and then insist that's how things really are, despite popular opinion believing otherwise.

Second up, you're still arguing in the abstract, arguing that personal choice is unquestionably an absolute principle regardless of the specifics of any particular issue. You really need to take a look at why personal choice is important (which it most certainly is), and what assumptions need to hold for it to continute to be the best possible choice. And maybe in doing so you'll find banning transfats is okay, or maybe you'll find it isn't, but either way going through the process will mean you're able to actually debate in substance why or why not, and not just continue to repeat an abstract principal about freedom.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Also, what the hell is liquid smoke?

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

It does taste good though.

I have some. I forgot what I used it in...

To be fair, trans fats aren't actually found anywhere in nature I don't think. They were human engineered to try and get the good taste of complex animal fats with the health benefits of vegetable oils. Ended up not really doing much of either but really messing up your body because it doesn't know how to process them.

At least that's what my college organic chemistry teacher told me a couple years ago anyway.

That said I'm of the opinion the government should just legalize and tax everything that can alter your mental state anyway. Apparently the Coast Guard grabs millions of dollars worth of drugs fairly often when it does an interdiction. I see that as good tax money our government is missing out on.

Except at least drugs get you high. Trans fats do nothing except kill you.

 Fafnir wrote:
Except at least drugs get you high. Trans fats do nothing except kill you.

You've obviously not eaten enough fries

Dronze wrote:
Consumption of trans fats is a personal choice, and as such, has no real external impact.

Nobody chooses to eat trans fats - they only do so because said fats are "packaged" with the things they do choose to eat. If you can eat the things you want - fatty foods - without the associated health risks, why wouldn't that be a good thing?

 AlexHolker wrote:
Nobody chooses to eat trans fats - they only do so because said fats are "packaged" with the things they do choose to eat.

What a hilarious attempt at a distinction.

 Seaward wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
Nobody chooses to eat trans fats - they only do so because said fats are "packaged" with the things they do choose to eat.

What a hilarious attempt at a distinction.

I think it's pretty true I don't know anyone who picks an item because it has trans fats in it.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think it's pretty true I don't know anyone who picks an item because it has trans fats in it.

Can you think of any items made with trans fat that don't have alternatives without it? Choosing to eat food with trans fat is choosing to eat trans fat. It's not the only option on the table, and pretending otherwise is, don't get me wrong, hilarious as hell, but incorrect.

Dronze wrote:
Consumption of trans fats is a personal choice, and as such, has no real external impact.

Obesity has an 'external impact'.

It is, contrary to popular belief, not the government's job to moniter the health of it's population unless it serves as a threat to the health of the population at large,...

So, like where companies are using extremely unhealthy ingredients that contribute nothing worthwhile to the product other than a slight price reduction, and which contribute in a big way to obesity, high cholestorol, and all sorts of fun heart conditions?



Nobody would have a problem with the government stepping in if, say, McDonalds started putting arsenic in their fries. Trans Fats just do the same job more slowly.


Actually, I take that back. Going by some of the responses in this thread, it's apparently the right of the individual to eat fries that will kill them if they want to, so really, the fact that McDonalds aren't using arsenic in their fries is an invasion of our freedoms!, and something must be done about it. Picket you local McDonalds now!

 Seaward wrote:
What a hilarious attempt at a distinction.

No, it works just fine. If you don't want to see it, then you won't see it. For everybody else, the difference is kind of obvious. Consider soup cans that claim 'salt reduced'... now that soup is going to be a lot better for you, but there's a pretty good chance you won't buy it anyway, because canned soup needs lots of salt to avoid tasting like ass. But then consider a frozen meal that announces 'we use some other fattening agent instead of transfat'... and no-one will give a gak because it doesn't affect the taste at all. The product may be about 4c more expensive, but once again no-one will give a gak, because it's 4c... and if you're really in such deep financial straits that 4c matters then you really shouldn't be buying frozen lasagne anyway.

Which brings us back to the basic point I've been repeating over and over in this thread, no-one picks a food with transfat in it because it has transfat. Consumers get it because they don't know it's in there, or because they don't know how bad it is for them.

It's interesting that you've commented a few times how funny other people's points are. Well, ultimately your constant repetition of 'consumer choice' isn't even funny, it's just boring. You've just got 'consumer choice' wedged in to your brain, and then decided for some reason you'll never examine or analyse why that actually might be important, and so never begin to understand the situations in which it doesn't actually deliver a good result. So the rest of us just repeat the same basic issues over and over again. Boring.

 sebster wrote:
Consumers get it because they don't know it's in there, or because they don't know how bad it is for them.

Aside from the ones who know it's in there, and know how bad it is for them, you mean? I mean, Jesus, sebster, I knowingly ate trans fat just a few days ago.

It's interesting that you've commented a few times how funny other people's points are. Well, ultimately your constant repetition of 'consumer choice' isn't even funny, it's just boring. You've just got 'consumer choice' wedged in to your brain, and then decided for some reason you'll never examine or analyse why that actually might be important, and so never begin to understand the situations in which it doesn't actually deliver a good result.

Why do you think I care about good results? When have I ever said anything to give you the impression that I think everything should always end up happily for everyone, ever?

So the rest of us just repeat the same basic issues over and over again. Boring.

I have a solution, but it involves proactive choice on your part, so I know it won't fly.

 Seaward wrote:

So the rest of us just repeat the same basic issues over and over again. Boring.

I have a solution, but it involves proactive choice on your part, so I know it won't fly.

The problem is you haven't really provided a reason why being able to buy trans fat-laden food is a meaningful choice. Generally I believe that being able to buy goods that are harmful to the customer for no benefit is a bad thing, because it's a huge waste of effort and money for people to have to go around worrying that their clothes are going to be toxic, their shampoo is going to make their kids go blind or their car is going to blow up. There's no particular value in people having the option of buying a car that explodes, so it saves everyone time and money if the government stops that.

"Freedom liberty!!1" just isn't a coherent life philosophy. Choices aren't all created equal.

Its less that its a meaningful choice, its more that its our choice as citizens to make. The govenrment has no place in it.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

So the rest of us just repeat the same basic issues over and over again. Boring.

I have a solution, but it involves proactive choice on your part, so I know it won't fly.

The problem is you haven't really provided a reason why being able to buy trans fat-laden food is a meaningful choice. Generally I believe that being able to buy goods that are harmful to the customer for no benefit is a bad thing, because it's a huge waste of effort and money for people to have to go around worrying that their clothes are going to be toxic, their shampoo is going to make their kids go blind or their car is going to blow up. There's no particular value in people having the option of buying a car that explodes, so it saves everyone time and money if the government stops that.

"Freedom liberty!!1" just isn't a coherent life philosophy. Choices aren't all created equal.

Touché. And choices containing transfer fats are often a less expensive choice.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The problem is you haven't really provided a reason why being able to buy trans fat-laden food is a meaningful choice. Generally I believe that being able to buy goods that are harmful to the customer for no benefit is a bad thing, because it's a huge waste of effort and money for people to have to go around worrying that their clothes are going to be toxic, their shampoo is going to make their kids go blind or their car is going to blow up. There's no particular value in people having the option of buying a car that explodes, so it saves everyone time and money if the government stops that.

And we've gone over why the exploding car is a horrible analogy. A car that will explode and kill you right that second, or shortly thereafter, is not remotely comparable to an additive that you need to eat quite a bit of over the course of your life to die earlier than you probably would have without doing so.

"Freedom liberty!!1" just isn't a coherent life philosophy.

Sure it is.

Choices aren't all created equal.

No, they're certainly not. You'll need to reference above, though, to my indifference towards people making decisions that are harmful to themselves.

There's a lot you can avoid to lower your chances of keeling over dead at 60. I believe pretty much none of those choices should be mandated by the federal government.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its less that its a meaningful choice, its more that its our choice as citizens to make. The govenrment has no place in it.

It is not your choice to make, it is the producer's choice to make. They packaged trans fats into their product despite the fact that only the most stupid cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face zealot would eat it instead of the equivalent trans fat free meal, if they'd been given the choice.

Except you do have the choice.

You can always NOT eat stuff that contains trans-fats. Nobody is forcing you to eat that Twinkie or Big Mac. You can always have a granola bar or a nice turkey sandwich you made at home.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its less that its a meaningful choice, its more that its our choice as citizens to make. The govenrment has no place in it.

It is not your choice to make, it is the producer's choice to make. They packaged trans fats into their product despite the fact that only the most stupid cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face zealot would eat it instead of the equivalent trans fat free meal, if they'd been given the choice.

Unless one is cheaper to buy because it's cheaper to produce. No one has ever made that decision though, so it's probably an invalid argument.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You can always NOT eat stuff that contains trans-fats. Nobody is forcing you to eat that Twinkie or Big Mac. You can always have a granola bar or a nice turkey sandwich you made at home.

That's fine for the adult who has the ability to educate themselves on the dangers of what they are eating. It doesn't help the children of those parents who either don't know any better, or don't care.


That's something that seems to have been overlooked here... a parent's dietary choices don't just affect themselves. Laws about what can and can't be put in food don't just protect the adults who don't want to learn about nutrition.

Parents make decisions for their kids. If they choose to let them eat trans-fats that is their choice.

The kids can then make their own decisions once they become adults.

Typically, giving children poison is something that's looked down upon by social services.