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.

Poison is far too strong a word.

poison
poi·son
[poi-zuhn]
noun
1.
a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.

Now, granted, the effects might be less pronounced than something like Arsenic. But then again, the purpose of actually keeping trans fats in foods could be likened to that of keeping arsenic in food. Both are entirely useless, and only act to cause harm. The difference being one is more chronic than the other.

On the contrary, Trans-fats do serve a purpose. They make the food cheaper. Arsenic on the other hand would serve no purpose other than to kill.

And something that only kills you after decades of consumption can hardly be seen as something we should ban. Alcohol will kill you quicker.


Also, under that definition of poison we could list the following,

Water. Tends to destroy life when inhaled or ingested in large quantities.

Alcohol. This is actually a poison. And in exchange it only gives a small mind altering effect, followed by the unpleasant effects of a hangover.

Fat in general. Eat too much of it(key words: "too much") and it will impair your health.



All that should be done is more education about the, rather subdued, dangers of trans-fats.

People have the choice to not eat them right now. Nobody is being forced to eat them, no not even the children whose parents give them trans-fat foods.

Thus there is no compelling reason to ban them.

 Fafnir wrote:
poison
poi·son
[poi-zuhn]
noun
1.
a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.

Now, granted, the effects might be less pronounced than something like Arsenic. But then again, the purpose of actually keeping trans fats in foods could be likened to that of keeping arsenic in food. Both are entirely useless, and only act to cause harm. The difference being one is more chronic than the other.

So I guess that petition to ban dihydrogen-monoxide was legit then.

If we are going to argue that it is peoples rights to eat trans fat then it is also peoples rights to consume meth, heroine, Marijuana, and other drugs

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If we are going to argue that it is peoples rights to eat trans fat then it is also peoples rights to consume meth, heroine, Marijuana, and other drugs

Well... those ARE poisons.

But iit is their right to put something harmful in their bodies if they so please, like Trans Fat.

There is a distinct difference between harmful drugs and trans-fats.

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

Yes, that's exactly my point.

If parents aren't going to take their job seriously, someone else has to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And something that only kills you after decades of consumption can hardly be seen as something we should ban.

So we should put the lead back into paint?

All that should be done is more education about the, rather subdued, dangers of trans-fats.

Because that will totally work.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is a distinct difference between harmful drugs and trans-fats.

Both can cause immense harm if you use them. the difference is one is legal.

There is a major difference between someone who has abused crack and someone who has eaten too much trans-fats.

Its ludicrous to compare the 2.

I do no think, if we are going to talk about freedom and the right to do what you want, then Drugs should be legal. Trans Fats are harmful to people, especially growing children.

Its not the Trans-fats specifically that is the issue here.

Its the government overstepping its bounds and telling you how to run your life.


Drug use harms not only yourself, but those around you. Trans-fats only harm you, and in the corner case your children if you feed them trans-fats. But then again, that's poor parenting. Not something the government has any business butting its nose into.

Only if it translates to direct physical or mental harm to the child should the government step in, and only when its absolutely necessary. Feeding kids trans-fats is not child abuse or negligence. its just a bad choice of food thats all.


If this goes through, what stops it from continuing to the government saying what toys you can give your kids, what disciplinary methods you use, what kind of electronic devices you are allowed to let them play with, what kind of pets you can have, etc...

 insaniak wrote:

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

Yes, that's exactly my point.

If parents aren't going to take their job seriously, someone else has to.

No. Just, no. This is the same argument that has led to the inane banning of videogames in Australia. Children are not automatically wards of the state just because someone else doesn't agree with the dietary choices their parents make for them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And something that only kills you after decades of consumption can hardly be seen as something we should ban.

So we should put the lead back into paint?

Lead is already handled by the EPA, and was banned for the harm it could do to others, especially when it's presence went unannounced to home buyers down the line.

All that should be done is more education about the, rather subdued, dangers of trans-fats.

Because that will totally work.

 insaniak wrote:

All that should be done is more education about the, rather subdued, dangers of trans-fats.

Because that will totally work.

It works pretty damn well for tobacco.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its not the Trans-fats specifically that is the issue here.

Its the government overstepping its bounds and telling you how to run your life.

Yeah, how dare the government make it harder for people to ruin their own health...

Trans-fats only harm you, and in the corner case your children if you feed them trans-fats.

Obesity affects the people around you.
Heart Disease affects the people around you.
Having an unhealthy population affects the people around you.

If this goes through, what stops it from continuing to the government saying what toys you can give your kids, what disciplinary methods you use, what kind of electronic devices you are allowed to let them play with, what kind of pets you can have, etc...

Er... they do that already...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dronze wrote:Lead is already handled by the EPA, and was banned for the harm it could do to others, especially when it's presence went unannounced to home buyers down the line.

Yes, but it doesn't hurt you straight away... which apparently is sufficient grounds for letting people chug it down like candy.

Grey Templar wrote:It works pretty damn well for tobacco.

After how many decades, and how many millions of dollars spent on anti-smoking advertising?

Repeating that for every harmful thing that manufacturers choose to put into our food supply hardly seems like the most effective use of taxpayer money... At some point, it's surely better for everyone for them to just say 'You know what, this thing here has no beneficial properties whatsoever, is harmful to the health, and there are better alternatives out there... maybe we should just tell people to stop using it.'

11 pages in, and the same group of people are arguing the same thing they were arguing on page 1, that choice triumphs above everything else. Even a choice that's nothing but bad, because the consumer apparently has an inalienable right to make objectively stupid choices or something.

Not one thing has made a dent in any of this. When it was pointed out that transfats are flavourless but far more dangerous than other types of fats, this was countered with the idea that person can choose not to consume them. Now, once the only defence of a product is that a person can not buy it, that should lead to some kind of thought about whether all choices are automatically good... but we got none of that.

So yeah, when people talk about the intellectual bankruptcy of the right wing, you all need to understand it's efforts like this that people are talking about. Seriously, you guys don't even try to think about this stuff. It's just consumer freedom uber alles, and not one second spent thinking whether that actually works in all situations.

 Seaward wrote:
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 it's freedom huzzah! And even then it's a very narrow definition of freedom, one that can consider nothing other than government.

Which, once again, leaves us explaining why other things matter, and you falling back in to your ideology to consider none of it. Which, as I already explained, is boring.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Its the government overstepping its bounds and telling you how to run your life.

Government exists in order to tell you how to run your life.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Drug use harms not only yourself, but those around you. Trans-fats only harm you, and in the corner case your children if you feed them trans-fats.

How does drug use harm those around you in a way which is distinct from the consumption of trans-fats?

 Grey Templar wrote:

If this goes through, what stops it from continuing to the government saying what toys you can give your kids, what disciplinary methods you use, what kind of electronic devices you are allowed to let them play with, what kind of pets you can have, etc...

The state already does all of those things.

 Grey Templar wrote:
On the contrary, Trans-fats do serve a purpose. They make the food cheaper. Arsenic on the other hand would serve no purpose other than to kill.

I can guarantee that almost any food product will get a lot cheaper if there was arsenic in it. That alone should be a reason to allow it to be put in food products. Woe betide those who end up buying it, but that was their choice as consumers.

 dogma wrote:


Government exists in order to tell you how to run your life.

Wait. What? No. No. No.

Thomas Jefferson would heartily disagree with you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:


How does drug use harm those around you in a way which is distinct from the consumption of trans-fats?
.

I think most drugs should be legal, just like alcohol and tobacco are.

Granted, gak like meth can make you paranoid and violent, and when that happens it can start to affect others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:


I can guarantee that almost any food product will get a lot cheaper if there was arsenic in it. That alone should be a reason to allow it to be put in food products. Woe betide those who end up buying it, but that was their choice as consumers.

It really isn't even remotely the same. I really don't understand how y'all are trying to reasonably make that comparison.

 cincydooley wrote:
It really isn't even remotely the same. I really don't understand how y'all are trying to reasonably make that comparison.

It's not a reasonable comparison. It's a ridiculous one. But a ridiculous comparison is needed to highlight the ridiculousness of insisting that the use of a harmful and in no way nutritionally beneficial ingredient should be allowed because it makes the end product slightly cheaper.

 insaniak wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
It really isn't even remotely the same. I really don't understand how y'all are trying to reasonably make that comparison.

It's not a reasonable comparison. It's a ridiculous one. But a ridiculous comparison is needed to highlight the ridiculousness of insisting that the use of a harmful and in no way nutritionally beneficial ingredient should be allowed because it makes the end product slightly cheaper.

Except people make cheaper, less healthy decisions every time they order from the dollar menu. People make the decision to live in worse neighborhoods because they're cheaper too. They should be allowed that choice.

 cincydooley wrote:

I think most drugs should be legal, just like alcohol and tobacco are.

Oh my god i agree with you!

People who want to totally de-regulate the government should love to live, like in the industrial revolution era where a few rich controlled
what normal people could do, work 18 hours, buy at the company store only. like in most thing there has to be balance.

I wonder if there is a transfat prohibition, will there be Burger runs instead of Moonshine runs?

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I wonder if there is a transfat prohibition, will there be Burger runs instead of Moonshine runs?

Nah, man. I know a guy. It's cool, man - the best stuff. Uncut.

Nah... I'll stick with these:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I wonder if there is a transfat prohibition, will there be Burger runs instead of Moonshine runs?

No, since the burger producers will just use different ingredients.

Which brings us back to this really being a non-issue. It's not going to make anything go away... it's just going to result in a recipe change for those products that currently include trans fats. The vast majority of people won't even notice... and of those that do, is anyone really going to claim with a straight face that having the 'right' to choose to eat artificially modified fat is that important?



This isn't about freedom of choice. It's about health. You'll still have the right to choose to eat whatever the hell you want. It just won't have one particular unhealthy ingredient in it. It's hardly going to be the first thing to ever be banned from commercial food production.

But for many products you're going to have to pay more to do so now.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Alcohol. This is actually a poison. And in exchange it only gives a small mind altering effect, followed by the unpleasant effects of a hangover.

Hangover? What's that?

 cincydooley wrote:
But for many products you're going to have to pay more to do so now.

Well, most fast food places (and some of the largest vendors) dropped transfats a few years ago when NYC banned them, rather than have 2 different menus (along with realizing this wasn't going to stop with NYC). Although the transfat food riots were pretty bad at first, in 2013 we seem to have weathered the storm and heading into 2014, seem to have accepted that french fries are just going to be $25 a serving now.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
But for many products you're going to have to pay more to do so now.

Well, most fast food places (and some of the largest vendors) dropped transfats a few years ago when NYC banned them, rather than have 2 different menus (along with realizing this wasn't going to stop with NYC). Although the transfat food riots were pretty bad at first, in 2013 we seem to have weathered the storm and heading into 2014, seem to have accepted that french fries are just going to be $25 a serving now.

Well I guess it's a good thing trans fat is only used in fast food!